The 55mm was the original f1.2 standard lens. One of the British magazines
tested one as a comparison when the 50mm/1.2 was introduced, and found that the
50mm was a great improvement. the corner resolution of the 55mm was considerably
less than the centre; the 50mm was much better balanced as well as giving
significanlt better resolution overall. The new/old 1.4 and 1.8 were also
tested; in both cases the new lens was significantly better.
I was a bit shocked at the Shoe4 price too; I had a snipe set to 14 pounds
(UKL), that I dropped before the finale!
mvh / regards
Roger Key
I've used the 55mm f1.2 (it belonged to a friend and I borrowed it for
about a month) and to be candid I found it be rather inferior, indeed, to
the 50mm f1.8 I owned at that time. The 50mm f1.2 marked a distinct
qualitative upgrade to the Zuiko series. (At least I believe the 55mm f1.2
predated the 50/1.2--anyone know for sure? Gary, you must.)
.............................................And I've paid for it in a few
instances, like earlier this morning when some nitwit bid up the Hotshoe 4
from that shop in England from L18 to L31 or whatever it was.I need one of
those for my daughter's OM-1n so I set an obscene ceiling which guaranteed
I'd get it. This because I've gone through two 4's in succession, one from
Woodmere that came with the screw stripped (he gave me full credit on it)
and another from B&H that was cracked (even though it didn't say it was
cracked, was listed as being in 8+ condition). Anyway, now I (hopefully)
have a new one on the way and all's well.
If you can find a 50/1.2 that sells for $150 and it's in excellent (and by
that I mean perfect glass and almost perfect action) condition then you're
doing okay by yourself. Don't hold your breath, though.
Tris
< 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 >
|