Hi folks,
my photos as a contribution to this subject
http://www.servisxt.cz/fotky/zuiko50_2.jpg
OM2SP, lens Zuiko 50/2, time 1/60, apertures 4, take on Accros 100,
development in Microphen 1+1, scan on Agfa lab mashines, resize from
2996x2000 on 1200x801, without any correction and retouch.
Siply the best lens which I own.
Tomas K.
Moose napsal(a):
>I'm really replying to many posts on this subject. And weighing in on
>both sides. Long, but I hope worth it for those fixated on this subject.
>
>Martin Walters wrote:
>
>
>
>>Iwert:
>>
>>I, too, have been a little confused by the performance numbers of the
>>various 50mm Zuikos (based largely, but not entirely, on Gary Reese's
>>tests). For non-macro use, the numbers for the late-model 50/1.8 at
>>F1.8 and F2.8 - which I suspect are the most used apertures in
>>everyday shooting - are little different from the 50/F2. The 50/1.8
>>loses a little as it is stopped down, but again the differences in
>>Gary's tests are not "significant".
>>
>>
>>
>Lots of posts refering to Gary's tests. My first, introductory post to the
>list was about the various 50mm Zuikos.
>
>It was quite lengthy and can be found in the archives, but I composed in
>variable pitch text, so the big table came
>
>out essentially unreadable. I repost that part to lead into the reply
>(may require unwrapping, depending on browser):
>
>"For work at greater focal distances, there is an enormous amount of
>good information on Gary Reese's lens test page. His tests of a flat
>subject at a 1:40 magnification ratio are excellent for judging quality
>for everyday photography. So lets look at some 50mm
>lenses. I've converted Gary's comments on contrast and vignetting into
>columns:
>
>
>50mm f/2.0 Zuiko Macro MC 50mm f/3.5 Zuiko MC 50mm f/1.8
>Zuiko("Made in Japan") 50mm f/1.4 Zuiko >1,100,000
>
>
>OM-2000 M & A prefire OM-4 M & A prefire OM-2S M &
>A prefire OM-2000 M & A prefire
>Distortion = none D = very slight pincushion
>Distortion = slight barrel Distortion = none
>Aper. Cent. Cor. Cont. Vign. Aper. Cent. Cor. Cont. Vign. Aper.
>Cent. Cor. Cont. Vign. Aper. Cent. Cor. CCont. EdgeC Vign.
>
>
> f/1.4 B B M ML D
>
>
>f/2 B- B- M B f/1.8 B C
> H C- f/2 A- B H H B
>
>
>f/2.8 B- B M ? f/2.8 A-
>B+ H A- f/2.8 A A- H H A-
>
>
>f/4 A- A- M ? f/3.5 B- C MH A- f/4 A+ A
> VH A f/4 A A H H A
>
>
>f/5.6 A- A M ? f/5.6 A A MH A f/5.6 A
>A- VH A f/5.6 A A- H H A
>
>
>f/8 A+ A+ MH ? f/8 A+ A H A f/8 A
>A- VH A f/8 A- A- H H A
>
>
>f/11 A A- MH ? f/11 A A MH A f/11 A-
>B+ H A f/11 A- A- H H A
>
>
>f/16 A- B+ M ? f/16 A- A- MH A f/16 B+ B
> H A f/16 B+ B+ H M A
>
>
>
>f/22 B+ B+ MH A
>
>
>It's easier to see the forest when the trees are lined up like this.
>I know these comparisons aren't really valid at the 1/3 grade level, but
>just for fun... I converted all the resolution grades to numbers, A+=9,
>C-=1 and the contrast grades to numbers, VH=5, ML=1. I then added up the
>two resolution scores for each f-stop for each lens and selected a
>winner based on high score. I then added the contrast scores to the
>totals. Since I use only one contrast
>score and the contrast numbers are lower, this total is still heavily
>resolution rated.
>
>
>Here are the winners based on the exercise:
>
>f-stop Resol. R & C
>
>f/1.4 f1.4 f1.4
>
>f/2 f1.4 f1.4
>
>f/2.8 f1.4 f1.4
>
>f/4 f1.8 f1.8 (scores of all lenses basically a tie)
>
>f/5.6 f3.5 f1.8
>
>f/8 f2.0 f2.0 & f3.5
>
>f/11 f3.5 f3.5
>
>f/16 f3.5 f3.5
>
>f/22 f3.5 f3.5
>
>Now, some of the scores are too close to be meaningful, but I think you
>see the point, the f1.4 is the best general use lens.
>
>I received a response from Gary offlist and here is part of it:
>
>"It was good to read your analysis of the 50mm Zuiko lenses. I also find
>that the late models of the 50mm f/1.4 are super choices
>for general photography, with the 50mm macros being best if you know you will
>be stopping down for all your shots.
>
>
>The 135mm f/4.5 is optimized for 1:10 Due to its flat field design and
>conservative speed, I get outstanding results from 1:40 out to
>infinity. Coupled with the rigidity offered by the tripod collar, it is
>a stellar performer when tripod mounted, esp. when
>employing mirror and diaphragm prefire technique. I call it a real sleeper
>among the Zuikos and it is my most used lens.
>
>
>The 50mm f/2 and 90mm f/2 macros have floating elements, providing
>aberration correction over a wider range of focal lengths than do macros
>without them. They are supposedly corrected for 1:10, but USA
>photography magazine testing has shown they perform better
>at ca. 1:40 than they do in the range of 1:2 to 1:4
>
>After I ran out of test film, I shot with one of my customer's 50mm f/2
>Zuiko with Fujichrome 64T Type II. It seemed to outperform my test lens
>at wider apertures. I think there maybe more performance at f/2 to f/4
>than the web site charts indicate, based just on my lens.
>
>An f/22 comparison for the 50mm lenses isn't really a comparison. Only
>the 50mm f/3.5 offers f/22 and it is a pretty sorry
>performance at that aperture. For critical work, don't shoot that lens at
>f/22.
>
>
>
>
>>Could it be that one has to use the lens to appreciate its
>>characteristics (and especially with a tripod) - and the numbers don't
>>tell the whole story.
>>
>>
>
>Yes indeed, there are certainly factors we can see that don't show up in
>tests. I believe a considerable amount of the design work on lenses in
>Maitaini's time was based on extensive evaluation of actual photographs
>of many types of subjects as well s objective tests. Thus the reason
>some didn't test as well as other brands but were and are much admired
>by users.
>
>
>
>>I suspect that my views would be different if I were doing macro work.
>>
>>
>>
>As Gary quotes above, that would likely be true for the 50/2.
>
>
>
>>iwert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>-------- Original Message --------
>>>From: "Wayne Culberson"
>>>What am I missing here? To me, the numbers make it look like a macro lens,
>>>not a general all purpose 50mm for hand held photography.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>As you can see, Gary has brought his own numbers at the larger apertures
>into question.
>
>
>
>>>Well,
>>>
>>>a classic "missing": emotion. Not everything is told by numbers.
>>>Taken by numbers all people are equal: same amount of carbon, oxygen,
>>>etc... two eyes, a nose.
>>>Some things cannot be named objectively. But a good photographer will
>>>probably also make a better picture with a beater single coated 50mm f1.8
>>>than a bad photographer with a 50mm f2.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>Only if you don't blow it up much, at leas with my non-beater early
>50/1.8. :-)
>
>
>
>>>If I find the time to test, I'll put up a general scene with a tripod and
>>>the 50f2, 50f1.4, 50f1.8, 40f2 and the 35-80f2.8 (that's the standard lenses
>>>I have available.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>My usual question, which versions of the 1.8 and 1.4, it makes a big
>difference. A lot of sloppy mentions of the quality of these lenses
>lately without mention of version.
>
>
>
>>>What makes the 50f2 so unique to me is still:
>>>
>>>I can use it easily for "1:2" macro and as my everyday standard lens. So I
>>>just need to carry one lens, and don't have to change lenses. Another big
>>>plus: I live in Belgium where available light can be very scarce, even
>>>during the day. So every F-stop extra is valuable. We're also known for
>>>lot's of rain, and that's where the build-in hood comes handy. As for macro
>>>and handheld: I dare to use the 50f2 handheld at 1:2, 1/30 + f2, I couldn't
>>>do that with the 90f2... I know the result maybe won't be as tack-sharp as
>>>on a tripod, but hey, I have the shot!, at f3.5 it would be near impossible.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>Works for me.
>
>
>
>>>This lens + an OM3/4 is my equivalent of "a rangefinder + 35mm" with an
>>>added macro feature!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>ICK! Just when you had me going! I don't like rangefiinders, so anything
>that makes my OM like one sounds bad. :-) ;-)
>
>I still doesn't have any desire for a 50/2. 50/3.5 for serious macro and
>50/1.4>1,100,000 for general use, with Viv 2x Telemacro for less
>serious, but nonetheless great macro.
>
>Moose
>
>
>
>
>==============================================
>List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>==============================================
>
>
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
