[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: A typical 'vs.' question about the 50s (no, not the decade . .

Subject: [OM] Re: A typical 'vs.' question about the 50s (no, not the decade . . .)
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 22:57:51 -0700
ScottGee1 wrote:

>OK. I did peruse the archives and Dr. Reese's tests for this one and gained 
>some insight. Because I like to shoot available light, my interest has 
>naturally gone to the 50mm f/1.2. From everything I've read, it's superior 
>to the 55/1.2 AND uses 49mm filters AND is always MC. So, that distinction 
>is easy to make.
As you must have seen in the archives, opinions differ.  :-)   Some 
people don't think resolution and contrast are the most important 
characteristics of a lens, but only one part of the whole. The images 
from the earlier, pre MC lenses tend to be different from the later ones 
in color balance and other subtle tonal ways. Their 
sharpness/unsharpness has different qualities that some highly 
discerning users value.

I am not all that discerning in those areas and most of my Zuikos are 
MC. If overall sharpness, whatever combo of resolution and contrst that 
is for you, is what you value, you will prefer the 50/1.2 to the 55/1.2.

I personally have never been much interested in the 50/1.2 both because 
it is so little faster and so much more expensive than the f1.4 and 
because DOF gets very shallow at those f-stops. Since getting that last 
little bit of speed at the cost of DOF isn't that important to me, I 
have a >1,1085,000 50/1.4. According to the samples Gary tested, it is 
the equal or better of the f1.2 up to f2 and quite decent wide open.

One thing that worries me about the wide open performance of the f1.2 is 
the effect on focusing. As all focusing is done wide open, poor 
sharpness there will make focusing difficult, especially in low light 
situations that it is otherwise ideal for. This concern is, however, 
theoretical, as I have never used one. Other will certainly chime in 
with different opinions.

>I'm thinking the real comparison is with the 50/1.4. 1.2 ain't that much 
>faster so I'm wondering if a late, MC 1.4 might not just be better value 
That's what I think. It is remarkable for its even performance over the 
whole range of f-stops. ou really don't have to worry about the sweet spot.

The last revision began with about serial number 1,085,000, and is the 
best. I actually have two of those. One has a small scratch on the rear 
element. I've used them interchangably and never noticed any difference. 
The scratched one is available to anyone who wants to buy it for a quite 
reasonable price.

>Or, does the 50/1.2 have any special qualities beyond simply being faster?
Probably.......... I'm sure you will hear.

>BTW, I'm currently shooting with a 50/1.8 MIJ and it's a durn good 'un.
A very fine lens. The absolute value leader. Used mine again just a few 
weeks ago.


List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz