James,
I have the 50/1.2 and it is a beautiful lens. Was it worth the cost? That
will be debated by many on the list. They are somewhat more expensive than
a 55/1.2, and significantly more expensive than a 50/1.4 if comparing LN-
condition used lenses (by KEH standards). No, you cannot have mine (nor
can anyone else). I found it at a fair price when looking for an f/1.4 and
grabbed it because they show up on the used market less than any of the
others. I haven't regretted spending the $$ to get it.
Yes, it's sharper than a S/N 900k 50/1.4 MC I also have, and both of those
are sharper with higher contrast than the older 50/1.8 SC I used to have.
The 50/1.2 is a very even performer until you stop up to f/1.2 where it
softens very slightly. The 50/1.4 is also pretty even until f/2.8 or f/2.
Then again, how often do most go that wide open? I do take them to f/2.8
regularly, and occasionally to f/2. The standard lenses I have go in this
order, regarding resolution, contrast and bokeh:
1. CZ 50/1.5 Sonnar
2. Zuiko 50/1.2 (all are MC)
3. Zuiko 50/1.4 MC
They're very close, and the CZ might be just a teeny tad warmer than the
Zuiko's With standard prints you wouldn't notice, it takes projecting ISO
64 and ISO 100 transparencies to 35" x 50" to see it in very fine details.
I won't compare any of them to the 80/2.8 Sekkor C. It's also a superb
lens, but it's MF and that confounds any comparison.
You will have to decide if the cost of a 50/1.2 is worth it to you for one
that fast, or whether you can live with the slower speed (by 1-1/6th stop),
newest formulation 50/1.8 (MC) at less than half the cost. Those two
lenses are the highest resolution/contrast non-Macro 50mm Zuiko's. You
will also have to define what "best" means. Aside from resolving power and
contrast, there are a host of other criteria (aberrations, cos^4 fall-off,
flat-field, bokeh, etc). One minor consideration if you tend to shoot a
standard opened up. The f/1.8 lenses do not have an f/2 detent. The
detents go from f/1.8 to f/2.8 (1-1/3 stop). Likewise the f/1.2's detents
are at f/1.2 and f/2 (1-1/2 stop) without one at f/1.4.
-- John
At 17:17 11/5/00 , James Olson wrote:
>'morning OM members, i've posted a few times about the 50mm/3.5 olympus
>macro, and how much i like the lens. but, i am trying to find a faster 50mm
>for travel and available light photography. (by the time the 50/3.5 is
>stopped down 1 stop for sharpness, you're at f/5.6..... fairly slow, and
>not a lot of D.O.F. options.....
>
>anyway, i've pretty much relegated myself to a life of 40/2-less isolation,
>and i wasn't happy with the clean 50/1.4 MC i owned. so, my search is for
>the following: the 50/1.8 or 50/1.2...(MC examples.) or is the 55/1.2 a
>viable alternative?
>
>i would appreciate any opinions, and actual uses/ results from people who
>have experience with either. i know there is a test site with a wealth of
>great information, but that's not what i am looking for. it would be great
>if the 50/1.8 was all that was needed, but if the 50/1.2 is that much
>better, that would be interesting to know as well.
>
>maybe the place to start is with the 50/1.8. so, if anyone has a good,
>affordable sample of a late, MC 50/1.8 they would like to part with, please
>let me know off list.
>
>and if anyone has a 50/1.2 they're interested in parting with, i've got a
>few lenses, and bodies that i could possibly trade as well.. (35/2, -2n
>black, -2sp.) $$$ can work as payment as well.
>
>any ideas on the above subject would be appreciated.
>
>james.
< 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 >
|