John;
You know, it was an SC. I now have an MC version that came in a package that I
bought. I'll add it to my tests if time allows. I would be most gratified if
it tests as good as you say. I purchased the 50/1.2 with nite/star shots in
mind and was very disappointed in it. However, I am still glad I kept it as it
may be the sharpest lens I have once you stop it down to 5.6 or 8.
george
John Austin wrote:
> george wrote:
> >> Known NOT GOOD: 50/1.2, 50/1.4
>
> George, I'm curious if you remember if the 50/1.4 was MC or SC? I have this
> lens in MC and have found it to be sharp even wide open. In fact I often
> shoot with it that way in low light. One of the reasons to own a fast lens.
> The OM System Lens Handbook says the following about the 50/1.4 MC. "It has
> an almost extravagant lens construction of 7-elements in 6-groups. Designed
> to correct various kinds of aberrations, it's resolution and image contrast
> are high, with superbly sharp images even at wide open aperture." Note that
> they do not make this same statement about either the 50/1.8 MC or 50/1.2
> MC. I'm just wondering if the sample you checked was SC, and if so did that
> make a difference? Or did I just get lucky with my particular lens?
>
> Regards,
> John Austin
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|