At 06:29 PM 9/26/04, Jeff Keller wrote:
>I had to do a double take on this one. I didn't think either of the f1.2
>lenses were especially highly rated for resolution & contrast. I guess the
>main thing is that you see them as interchangeable, so the one with the
>better contrast is assumed the way to go. Bob Gries tried a silver nose 55
>alongside his 50 f1.2 and had a slight preference for the 55. Several list
>members have felt the 1.2 vs 1.4 is not a good trade off.
The usual aspect cited is the relative high cost of a 50/1.2 compared to
that of a late multi-coated 50/1.4 with very high serial number. I have
four 50mm primes . . . three spanning a fair range of the f/1.4 MC serial
numbers and a 50/1.2 is the fourth one. Of all of them the 50/1.2 is the
strongest in contrast, MTF, and even performance across its aperture
range. Even so, the two highest S/N 50/1.4 MC's (one of which is after Oly
dropped the "MC" mark) are hot on its heels. It's not hard for me to
understand the reasoning behind questioning the cost of a half-stop of
aperture. Even so, the 50/1.2 isn't going to be
I did own a fifth 50mm for some time . . . a circa 1980 50/1.8 SC . . . and
all of my current MC 50's are stronger than it was; mostly in contrast, but
some in resolving power as well. There is a late 50/1.8 MC "Japan" lens
that is also considered to be rather exceptional, but I have not seen or
used one to make a comparative comment about it.
-- John Lind
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|