James write:
>i have been having a conversation with another list member off line
>about the merits of the zuiko 50mm 3.5 macro, as a standard lens in my
>uses. while i don't personally have the 50mm 2.0 macro, we both agree
>that the 50/3.5 is a magical lens. of all the slides i have, i can
>honestly say i can tell which slides are taken with the 50/3.5. they
>have a beautiful quality that is very evident when using the same lens
>as a slide loupe for color slides.
I admit, that I had the conversation with James. I don't know the zuiko 50
mm 1:2 macro or the special 50 mm 1:1,8 MC version (have an older and newer
on) but I know the 90 mm macro (it was stolen and I have replaced it with
the 135 mm 1:4,5 macro head, see below). I have written to James, "my
experiences include Olympus, Pentax (K and Takumar), Schneider,
Carl-Zeiss-Jena (east), Canon FD, Zenit, Kiev, Rubinar, Tokina, Sigma.
There were many excellent lenses among them, but to be honest, I don't know
another lens with the magic of the 1:3,5 macro."
What I mean is not absolut sharpness neither MTF-values steadily over 80
percent. Also the out of focus colours may be more glowing with the 90 mm
Zuiko macro. What I (and I think also James) mean is a plasticity and a
absorbing kind of the final slides taken with this lens. I have posted my
classification of this zuiko as my favorite zuiko also in the "user lens
evaluation" in the internet month ago. (By the way, the zuiko which seems
to be most similar with this ragard is the 135 mm 1:4,5 macro bellows head.
What kind of dud of this lens have you tried, Gary (Reese), to post such a
slating on that internet site ?). Even if I compare the 50 mm 1:3,5 with
the probably most perfect lens I have ever used, the Xenotar MF for
Pentacon six, there is not the magic of the zuiko macro.
Matthias
< 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 >
|