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?
>
Well, since I have the 55/1.2 and *not* the 50/1.2, I - of course -
will say that the 55/1.2 is the better. And now don't you enablers go
about writing something to the contrary, that will make me lust for
the 50/1.2 :)
On a more serious note......the answer is "it depends". As Moose
wisely wrote in another mail, the two lenses have different
characteristics, and I do not believe that one can direcyly replace
the other just like that. For what I do, I believe the 55/1.2 is the
right tool. I can easilly imaigne that it will be inadequate for
other situations.
For your use, which you write up as "restaurants", I imagine that
focal-length-wise the 50 may be better for you: a 55mm is slightly
longer, and restaurants in general do not sport a lot of space to
"step back". So alone the sligltly larger angle-of-view may make the
50/1.2 more desireable?
Anyways, if we get around to making a scandinavian ZA meeting, I will
bring my 55/1.2 for you to try. I imagine that we should be able to
find our way into a dark restaurant, so you could try it out in the
environment where you would actually be using it :)
--thomas
> -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 >
>
--
-------------------------------------------
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 >
|