This thread and the following statement led to lots of comments:
<< As I [Matthias] and James Olson have pointed out recently, the 50mm 1:3,5
is a wonderful lens with very "plastic" results. Many list members would
mention, that the 90mm 1:2 macro or the 50mm 1:2 macro lenses are superiour,
but for me, the 1:3,5 is the favourite lens of all my Zuikos (there are many).
>>
So I couldn't help but see what I came up with using my test slides. I also
threw the Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8, 21mm f/3.5 Zuiko SC, and 50mm f/1.8 Zuiko MC
into the fray. They are all A to A+ rated lenses at their optimum apertures.
Here are my ranked findings, with the best on the BOTTOM of each group. Under
a 30X hand microscope, the differences are generally hair-splitting.
Center (plus optimum aperture for all zones tested):
Tamron 90mm f/2.5 (@f/8)
Zuiko 50mm f/2 (@f/8)
Zuiko 90mm f/2 (@f/8)
Zuiko 21mm f/3.5 (@f/16)
Zuiko 50mm f/3.5 (@f/8)
Zuiko 50mm f/1.8 (@f/8) = best
250ff center:
90mm f/2
90mm f/2.5
50mm f/2
21mm f/3.5
50mm f/3.5
50mm f/1.8 = best
330ff center:
50mm f/2
21mm f/3.5
90mm f/2.5
90mm f/2
than an obvious detail increase to:
50mm f/1.8
50mm f/3.5 = best
750ff center (my "corner" ranks)
50mm f/2
90mm f/2
21mm f/2.5 (plus the 18mm f/3.5 fits here)
50mm f/1.8
50mm f/3.5 = best
The 18mm f/3.5 Zuiko greatly favors outer image areas, so it's really not in
the running overall. Bottomline champ, solely for rendering detail at a 1:40
shooting ratio (not all the other qualities that are also important): a dead
heat between the 50mm f/1.8 and the f/3.5! If the most important subject
matter is within 250f the center of the frame, the 50mm f/1.8 gets the nod.
If it is outside that, or the whole frame is equally important, the 50mm f/3.5
wins by a hair.
This kind of says, if one already has a 50mm f/1.8 multi-coated, the best bet
for a macro is to go with a 90mm one. But for anyone with an older design
50mm f/1.8 SC, the best bang for the buck is in the 50mm f/3.5, esp.
considering the depressed market for them. But, it will be the hardest lens
to focus well vs. the 90mm f/2 which is the easiest, and which could lead to a
greater percentage of keepers. The 3.5 also has a narrow range of optimal
apertures, making it less versatile in wide range shooting conditions that the
50mm f/1.8 Finally, for its ability to serve as a decent convertible lens
(180mm w/ teleconverter), the Tamron SP is a strong choice. Maybe SP stands
for Symmar prodigy? Or Symmar/Protar?
If anyone is going to point out that there are grade discrepancies in my
charts, I'll just point out that the significant differences are between full
letter grades only, and looking at 30X magnified slides over a soft florescent
light box is much different that 24X projected with a point light source.
Projected, the lens is never totally in focus across the slide, so this
shootout doesn't matter - they would all look great. But for 20 x 30" full
frame prints, this shootout is probably relevant.
Gary Reese
Las Vegas, NV
< 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 >
|