> According to Gary Reese's lens tests (using aperture pre-fire) you'd be
> very hard pressed to tell them apart from f/4-f/11.
I've done some characeristics testing of the 50/1.4 (last versions)
with the 50/1.8 (last and early versions). When it comes to sharpness,
they really are comparable. In the middle apertures, I would probably
give a very very slight nod to the 50/1.8 version because it has more
of that thick plane-of-focus thing going on that we see with modern
zooms. It's not that it's really any sharper, but it has the
appearance of being sharper.
Bokeh and abberations are another story, though. While the 50/1.8 is
very stout, the 50/1.4 is just a little bit better. Or maybe I should
say that when it comes to these characteristics, I like the 50/1.4
just a little bit better.
Both lenses (last formula) are very good. It's not that either one is
a dog. Had I not had the 50/1.4s to compare to, I probably would have
been perfectly pleased with the 50/1.8 and lived comfortably in my
ignorance.
Since Rick brought up the 35/2.8, I've got to do my bi-monthly mention
that the Zuiko 35/2.8 remains my all-time favorite OM lens. When
shooting B&W film of people at some gathering, this lens simply is the
best I've ever used. It, and the 100/2.8 are my "dying grasp" lenses.
Honestly, I haven't used it as much on the Four-Thirds system as I
like as it gives me a 70mm equiv focal length which is about the most
incomprehensably aweful focal length ever created.
But I do sense a challenge coming on. :)
AG
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|