on 2/21/05 6:58 PM, Gene Wilburn at cdnphoto@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Another 'newbie' question. Is this lens as good as it's cracked up to
> be by Bill Johnston (Sunday Morning Photographer) or is that a bit of
> hype? It's terribly expensive for a 50mm. Does it do macro any
> seriously better than the 50mm f/3.5? As I settle back into my OM
> system I'm thinking longer term about what lenses I want to acquire
> and use and this one has always puzzled me ... a lens to keep on the
> radar or not?
>
> Gene
We went around about this a little while back... seems like the conclusion
was that the 50/3.5 and the 50/2.0 are pretty equal at macro and 'normal'
from about f4 or f5.6 onward. Below that it seems like the 50/2.0 is a
little better. And of course, below f3.5 it is -much- better <g>. I have
two, and neither is for sale. It has a certain 'fuzzy' good result in its
images... kind of like the way the Brand L people talk about their favorite
vintage Summicron. Possibly not quantifiable, but a very nice 'feel' in the
images. I'm not sure that for general shooting there is any better lens
*value* than the MIJ 50/1.8, but if you need more speed I kind of like my
50/1.2, and for macro the 50/2.0 is very nice as well. So there you have it,
you basically need one or more of each.
--
Jim Brokaw
OM-'s of all sorts, and no OM-oney...
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|