Well, there is another reason...actually two....for getting a
"faster" normal lens.
Firstly, a slightly faster lens gives a more bright viewfinder -
essential e.g. in indoor situations.
Secondly, a faster lens gives a more shallow depth of field when
focusing - the subject "snaps" easier into focus with e.g. an 1.2
over an 1.8. I have to credit this to Jim B., who brought my
attention to this about a week ago - I'd not thought about it before,
but it is true.
My own experience goes, that with the 55/1.2 (thanks Tom) I was able
to hand-hold many more indoor shots when I visited Japan last summer.
In many temples and other such facilities, flash is not permitted
(for good reasons) - and even a tiny fraction of a stop extra makes a
difference. Even if flash was permitted, it would not aid focusing.
The 55/1.2 has, truely, become one of my most used optics. I like the
slightly longer focal length and the fact that it is an f:1.2.
Impressive glass, perhaps, but not something to leave on the shelf
collecting dust :)
However....if already having a good and satisfying 50/1.8, I'd say
that there is no reason to change. They're great lenses, in
particular the later versions. So unless there is a Really Good
Reason, I'd stick with the 50/1.8 and acquire something of a
different focal length.
I'd second a moderate telephoto as a good way of going beyond the
one-lens-setup. I'd really like to reccomend the 85/2, which IMO is
one of the true "forgotten gems" of the Zuiko series. However that
may be too close to the 50mm focal lengt. A Zuiko 135mm might be
good. The 135/2.8 goes for a very reasonable price, I think, and are
probably what I'd reccomend.
If going wide, I'd say that the 24/2 is an excellent lens as is the
28/2.8. The 28/2.8 is even very affordable.
Still, being a "moderate tele" guy myself, I'd go for the 135mm. I'm
still only learning to use the wides - although I know that opinions
differ on that subject :)
--thomas
On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 22:43:24 -0500
"Lama-Jim L'Hommedieu" <lamadoo@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> The 50mm f/1.8 is described as a "standard" focal length. That
> means it delivers on film about what your eye/brain gathers from a
> scene at a quick glance.
>
> There are a few reasons one might swap one standard focal length
> lens for another. If you make lots of "available light" pictures
> with your present lens wide open and you really need a slightly
> faster shutter speed. Know this: the difference between using the
> 1.8 wide open and using the 1.4 wide open is *less* than one
> f-stop. I don't have the exact value in front of me but if your
> presently shooting at 1/125 at f/1.8, you would be able to shoot at
> about 1/200th at f/1.4. If this is an important difference to you,
> then it makes sense to pursue a lens with a larger maximum
> aperture. (A "faster" lens.) The 1.4 may be less sharp wide open
> than the 1.8 is. Testing is the only way to find out.
>
> Another reason to swap one standard lens for another would be if
> you're dissatisfied with the lens you currently use. If you focus
> carefully, use a 1/125th or faster, and gently squeeze off the
> shutter release, yet find unsharp pictures, it might be the lens.
> It's generally agreed that the 50mm /1.8 that literally says "Made
> In Japan" on the front ring tests the best. (Not counting the rare
> and hideously expensive 50mm f2 macro!) Note carefully Rob, that
> the 1.4 and 1.2 lenses, though more expensive, don't always give
> you sharper pictures.
>
> A third reason to swap your lens is because the faster lenses look
> more impressive on the shelf. It's a "collector thing". Big glass
> is cool to look at.
>
> A fourth reason to buy another 50, would be that you want to focus
> more closely using the 50mm focal length. The Zuiko 50mm f/3.5
> Macro would let you get closer although I find the 90mm focal
> length more usable for table-top photography. (Again, the 50mm f/2
> macro is way expensive.)
>
> That said, I'd suggest that your second lens could be a moderate
> telephoto or moderate wide angle instead of a different "standard".
> Either will give your pictures a different perspective that you've
> been getting up until now.
>
> A telephoto has a focal length greater than 50mm for OMs and it
> brings you "closer" to the subject, as if you're looking through
> binoculars.
>
> Wide angles have a focal length less than 50mm. They show you more
> of the scene than the 50mm.
>
> Is this the kind of info you were looking for?
>
> Lama
>
> From: "R. Jackson" <jackson.robert.r@xxxxxxxxx>
> > I've never owned anything other than a 50mm f1.8 as a "standard
> > lens" and I was kind of wondering what opinions are regarding the
> > other choices? The 1.4 and 1.2 being the obvious ones, but also
> > the 55mm f1.2(though haven't I read that there's a fogging issue
> > with that lens?). Anyway, I was just wondering. I see the f1.4
> > lenses going frequently at decent prices. The f1.2 seems a lot
> > less frequent. I imagine the f1.2 would be really interesting to
> > focus.
>
>
> < 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 >
>
--
-------------------------------------------
Thomas Heide Clausen
Civilingeniør i Datateknik (cand.polyt)
M.Sc in Computer Engineering
E-Mail: T.Clausen@xxxxxxxxxxxx
WWW: http://www.cs.auc.dk/~voop
-------------------------------------------
< 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 >
|