ScottGee1 wrote:
>I've gotta believe this is an old discussion but it's not an easy
>search on google or in the archives because the strings are so common.
>
>
There is indeed a great deal in the archives about these lenses. But
first, definition. I assume you are defining 'better' in terms of
sharpness, rather than color, tonality, suitability for portaits, etc.
The unsimple answer is that a late f1.8 is better than an early f1.4 or
f1.8 and a late f1.4 is better than either early version. The problem is
that there are at least 5 versions of each lens, as the designs were
changed and improved with changing technology over the many years that
they were made. My first Zuiko was a very early 50/1.8 and it is not a
very good lens by later standards, not even as good as the 35-70/3.6
zoom that I bought a bit later.
>Does a consensus exist as to which is 'better'?
>
Sort of... 50/1.4 lenses with serial # above 1,085,000 and 50/1.8s that
say made in Japan on the front ring and have the serial number on the
side of the mount (with the possibility that serial # >5,500,000 is
better) are the best versions of each in optical terms of resolution and
contrast. As to which of these is 'better', I would guess that if one
took identical shots taken with one of each at any middle stops, blew
them up to huge size and asked a bunch of 'experts' to pick which is
which from the photos, the experts would split about evenly or throw up
their hands.
They are both just excellent lenses in their last versions, but one can
say with certainty that one is better than the other at f1.4. :-)
Mechanically, all f1.4s are fine. Early and late versions of the f1.8
are fine. However, the f1.8s with the marking 'MC' on the front ring
commonly develop a problem where oil, probably a breakdown product of
the helical grease, migrates to the aperture mechanism. This often
results in an aperture that is slow to return from closed, sometimes not
moving at all. Simple enough to clean for the mechanically adept, but
not worth the cost of professional cleaning. I also encountered this in
one of the four miJ lenes in the 3 million serial # range that have
passed through my hands. I don't know how common that may be, as I
haven't heard it talked about all the time like the problem with the
'MC' version, but I would check before buying an early miJ.
Another think to keep in mind is that all of these lenses are anywhere
from quite a few years to decades old. A lot can happen to lenses over
that time period. I'm sure it is possible to find a specific SC f1.8
that is better than a particular very late f1.4 which has led a
traumatic life. While not a sure indicator, external cosmetics will tend
to say something about how a lens has been used and treated. A nice
clean, newish looking lens has a better percentage chance of being as
good as new optically than does one with obvious external signs of
knocks and bumps.
Take a look at the eSIF for more on lens markins, terminology, etc
<http://olympus.dementia.org/eSIF/om-sif/lensgroup/lensterms.htm>. Look
at Gary's lens tests to get an idea of the range of performance of teh
50mm lenses over the years of production
<http://members.aol.com/olympusom/lenstests/default.htm>.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|