Andrew Fildes wrote:
>I have the same dilemma - the 50/1.8 is pure Toyworld construction
>but is a very good fast portrait lens on a didge and cheap enough
>that you would not grieve if it died of got damaged. One of my
>favorites. BUT I do hanker after the 1.4. What I also do is remind
>myself that the faster version is still not an L grade lens and, the
>50/2.5 macro is cheaper. That is he choice I may make.
>
>
After way too much time spent reading reviews and forums, I came to the
conclusion that the L series is not about optical performance, but about
ruggedness, weather sealing and pure speed. It's an indicator of lenses
suitable for heavy duty use in less than ideal environmental and light
conditions. As to optical performance, there is considerable overlap
between L and other lenses Can*n makes.
Certainly some L lenses are optically superb, and none are poor, except
maybe the super fast ones wide open. Generally, they seem to do best at
the longer fls.
I really wanted to convince myself that the 50/1.4 was better, but the
evidence points pretty strongly to the conclusion that it is no better
optically than the 50/1.8.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|