I most often use my 50/2 macro now, it used to be 85/2. The 50/1.8 and 1.4
stay mostly at home. To be able to focus really close helps me get a lot of
ideas, to me a far more important feature than that extra stop. The
contrast is very good, clearly better than my old silvernose 1.4. The only
drawback is a bit extra weight and that you cannot fit the 50/2 into a
standard camera hardcase. I can live with that. (And the looks of a
50/2...)
I remember vaguely someone on the list sometime ago mentioning that the
50/1.2 had some flare problems? I might be wrong.
Svein
On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:03:13 +0200, Per Ohstrom <poo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I've been following this thread with great interest, since I'd like a
faster lens for flash-less shooting in restaurants and other darker
environments.
What is the common wisdom of the list - Is the 50mm/f1.2 a lot better
than the 55/f1.2 or not at all?
-poo
At 08:29 2003-03-31, Thomas Heide Clausen <T.Clausen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 20:46:32 -0800
Jan Steinman <Jan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >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...
>
> Let me throw you a curve: if you're going to consider another
> "standard lens," consider the 50/2.0 macro!
>
> Of my 21 Zuiks, this is one of my favorites. I toss it in the bag
> at a whim that I might need it. And I usually do!
>
> You're thinking in terms of light-gathering in choosing among
> normal focal lengths. It might be cool to use the 50/1.2 for tight
> depth-of-field sometimes, but the 50/2's 2:1 reproduction ratio
> means you simply move in to get the desired DOF! (And usually the
> resultant perspective is in itself, prize-winning... :-)
>
> I guess it just depends on what you want to use it for. I hear the
> 40/2 is a darling of street photographers.
Well, I just got a 43mm limited for the Pentax. I can assure you,
that it is a sweet focal length to be around. Interrestingly enough,
the NIB 43mm limited for Pentax was cheaper than a beater 40mm for OM
would be......:)
Otherwise, you have good points about the virtues of macro-lenses.
I've only got the 50/3.5, but I recognize your considerations
perfectly.
--thomas
(working night-shifts suxx...working 24h-shifts suxx bigtime - and
they say government funded research is on par with retirement...)
< 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 >
< 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 >
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
< 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 >
|