Talking about "limited light"...
Has anyone tried a 50/1.2 wide open for a tracked nighttime sky shot of at
least several minutes?
I can tell you that stars are an extremely harsh test of any lens.
Almost all lenses need to be stopped down 1 to 3 stops for good results.
See my web site for some "tests".
Matt
At 14:10 31-03-03 -0800, Moose wrote:
>Ah, now we know more! I don't know, but suspect, that you would find the
>50/1.2 noticeably better for limited light shooting (assuming faster film
>isn't the cheap, simple answer to an occasional use). After my post some time
>ago comparing his 50mm lenses tests, Gary wrote to say that subsequent
>experience led him to believe that the results above f2.8 for the 50/1.2 he
>tested were not representative of the actual, higher performance delivered by
>these lenses. That would agree with others posts about the 50/1.2.
>
>Moose
>
>R. Jackson wrote:
>
>>Yeah, no kidding. Thanks Moose. FWIW, my 50mm f1.8 is an MC version, serial
>>#2885413. It has never exactly knocked me out, but it's not a bad lens at
>>all, either. I was mainly just wondering if the difference between a 1.8 and
>>a 1.2 was worth pursuing for limited-light shooting, but Moose has this
>>exchange down to a dissertation. ;-)
--
Matt BenDaniel
matt@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://starmatt.com
< 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 >
|