At 10:55 PM 3/31/2003 +0200, you wrote:
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 :)
For just walking-around purposes the best bet on balance is any f/1.8 50mm
Zuiko that's in proper physical condition. I used a couple when I first
started out back in the late 70's and they _both_ performed as well (if not
better contrast-wise) than a 55mm a friend loaned to me. For whatever
that's worth, I mention this when this same subject comes up (about once a
year it seems) as there is an apparent prejudice against slower glass or
bias for the faster glass. The fact is that most faster lenses do represent
improvements over their slower counterparts (no matter the make--remember,
this is a general rule, though, and there are exceptions), but even so the
Zuiko 50mm f/1.8 performs at such a superb level that (again, assuming the
subject lens is in proper working order) it may be granted "world-class" or
"professional" status in all serious photographic circles. It's that good.
Given its smaller size and weight this lens is amply suited to street work,
and indoors where you're likely to be rubbing elbows with people all
around. (Not that the f/1.4 and f/1.2 versions disqualify themselves for
this same reason reversed, but take it from me that when you have to lug
considerable gear around all day long for a living a little weight here and
some added bulk there begins to add up.)
Having said that, I admit that I own a later-version (>1,100,000) 50mm
f/1.4 and a couple of f/1.2 Zuikos, all of which do excellent work whenever
I put them on a body. But I have this faster stuff not because the f/1.8's
are inherently deficient but for the reason that I shoot a lot in the
street after dark, and at times that extra half stop or so comes in might
handy with camera shake in mind--all of this work I speak to here is handheld.
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?
Well, you're talking a difference of 4^ between the 55mm (43^ angle of
view) and 50mm Zuikos (47^ angle of view), so yes, that might be a
practical factor. It just depends.
One point which has not been raised: the 55mm has a 55mm thread on its
frontpiece, so unless you go with a step-up ring and buy all 55mm filters
this will necessitate the purchase of at least one other-sized series
filter glass (not to mention the hood).
And no, I would _not_ work with my lenses in crowded (and for me "crowded"
means anywhere anyone with half a brain or less might accidentally or
intentionally screw with me and/or my gear, or for that matter anywhere I
might have the least chance of bumping my lens against something hard--in
other words, basically anywhere anytime I am not working off a tripod, and
in a low-traffic area at that) places and spaces without having some sort
of protection for the front lens element. A couple weeks ago I mentioned
all the abuse my B+W 022 receives as it's habitually on the body/lens setup
I use for Tri-X shots. That made me think, and the other day I took it off,
cleaned it, and then inspected the outer surface of the filter
carefully--it's even worse than I said! Not only the long scratch I knew
about but three distinct chips. Oh well, time for a new filter. Which is,
of course, sounds much better to my ears than "time for a new lens," which
I could hardly afford and in any event might prove difficult to procure.
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
As I said, I've tried one. But you can easily check this out for yourself
as f/1.8 Zuikos go for a song everywhere. Indeed, if I had my old glass I'd
send one to you free, and gladly. Maybe one of the other list members will
at that if it's no longer used.
Sorry I missed you this past trip of yours. As I wrote to Moose, we were
down with the flu that weekend, most especially my wife--it's almost as
though she had sleeping sickness for about a week there. Not good. If we
get to Europe this summer (it's not sure, time's a factor for us) we'll try
to hook up with you and any other Zuiko-types around.
Tris
< 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 >
|