Good points all. I find it interesting that some people have a few
iterations of the lenses to be able to take advantage of the different
qualities. CV recently produced two versions of their 40/1.4, one
multi-coated and other single coated. The latter is said to produce more
pleasing results with B&W - it sold out quickly.
I never considered that lack of sharpness wide open might affect ability to
focus. Always accepted the premise that 'faster is brighter and therefore
better'. Would be nice to check 'em side-by-side. Like that's going to
happen - local stores don't even deal in used OM any more. :o(
Thanks!/ScottGee1
On 4/27/05, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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
> >overall.
> >
> 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.
>
> Moose
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|