I think this was recently talked about, and I think the break was around
the mid 130,000's, so I'm almost positive that that one's a radioactive
one. From my own extremely unscientific survey, it seems that the
radioactive version of the 55/1.2 is quite a bit more common than the
non-radioactive one.
I like the lens, and it does put a bit of fun back into the 50mm focal
length. You do have to be willing to live with the color cast though,
fix it digitally, or use B&W film. It's also a bit tricky to use wide
open since the depth of field is so small.
Mark Marr-Lyon
Daniel J. Mitchell wrote:
> I've checked the multi-coating list, but that doesn't tell me this; I've
>found a 55/1.2 locally for a very reasonable price. S/N of the 55/1.2 starts
>with 111... -- is this one of the yellows-with-age ones? I can't physically
>inspect the lens, I'm just going over the phone on this.
>
> Now, while the lens alone is definitely a good price, it turns out that it
>only comes attached to an OM-2; and while the combination is still
>reasonably priced, given I just spent what little disposable camera money I
>had saved up on a tripod, it's a substantially harder decision.
>
> I'm tempted, definitely (and, heck, another body is no bad thing), but is
>this lens worth going for? (yes, I know what you guys are going to say.. but
>seriously, now -- is the 55/1.2 a decent lens? Gary Reese's tests show it as
>being okay, but not spectacular wide open, and I'm not sure how often I'll
>ever use that extra half-stop; I've got a 50/1.4 already, and that one
>doesn't see much use as it is)
>
> thanks,
>
> -- dan
< 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 >
|