Thank you for all your responses on my original question. To
clarify my original
posting, I love the quality of the 50/3.5 for normal photography, but I find
it too slow for the low light, handheld shooting I enjoy doing. As I have a
50/1.2, I was pondering selling the 50/3.5 and 50/1.2 to acquire a 50/2 if the
feedback seemed very positive. (I'm trying to get 1 lens at each focal length
I want, and have less lenses.)
But to this point, the 50/2 doesn't seem to really have a huge,
positive following.
-snip
James.
The following is not huge anymore than the one for the 90/2, 100/2.
It is expensive and not many sold compared to the 3.5. Plus in your
original question you seemed to indicate that you thought the 3.5 was
some sort of lesser lens and people trying to explain that it is not
does not mean the the 50/2 is not special. It has been compared
favorably to the best lenses ever made in this focal length. You may
regret giving up the extra light gathering of the 1.2 and the 3.5
does not take up much room. You may want to try a magnifier on the
front of the 1.2 when you do not want to carry the macro.
--
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California
?
< 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 >
|