>
> Others here will have opinions about that. I've never owned the OM 50/2,
> being perfectly happy with a 50/3.5 for macro and 50/1.4 > 1,085,000 for
> te rest. And I've never owned a camera that would take the DZ 50/2.
>
I have a 50/3.5 macro and no other 50mm lenses. Mine is a an old
silver-nosed lens with some weird haze-like characteristic. It works
smashingly well--even more so for B&W! However, my experience with the MC
version makes these lenses night and day different. I wouldn't hesitate for
a "Quark's Lifespan" to recommend the MC version.
Joel owns/has owned like most of the F2 lenses and his 100/2 is really
really sweet. The 90/2 was also very nice, but the handling is so
anti-Zuiko. It's kinda the Rosanne Barr of lenses.
If money were no object, and since we're talking about Zuikos, I highly
recommend all of them.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|