I have to agree with C.H. on this one. I did have a chance recently to
try out the 50/2, and some of the shots made you sit down, slap your
forehead and stare blankly saying "wow" over and over again. However, I
do prefer the 50/3.5 for handling, weight, and it is no slouch either.
I know that web images aren't really that good for comparisons, but I
posted these a few weeks ago:
http://www.nothingrhymeswithorange.com/gries/Asides/MACRO.htm
It shows the 50/2 at nearly 1:2 for MA-PL-001, and the 50/3.5 at 1:1 for
MA-FL-002. the 50/3.5 does get a *bit* soft beyond 1:2, but only
critically. For the price, size, weight, and handling the 50/3.5 can't
be beat. I also have another subjective test still in the camera right
now of the 50/2 and 50/3.5 side-by-side of an object at approx. 1:3.
Also, maybe somebody can help be with something. I think I remember
something about the particular sensitivity of red as being critical for
most lenses and films. I know of the vibrant reds of K-14 films, but
isn't there something that red is more susceptible to chromatic
aberration, or that it usually renders the least detail, etc.? I
thought that I may have gathered that from the list, but maybe not.
Anyway, I usually test a lens by having something of all the color
spectrum in the shot - particularly red.
I'll be sure to let you know my observations when I get the slides back.
Alas, the 50/2 wasn't for me, but it is one of the best lenses I have
ever seen.
Bob Gries
< 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 >
|