I'm really replying to many posts on this subject. And weighing in on
both sides. Long, but I hope worth it for those fixated on this subject.
Martin Walters wrote:
> Iwert:
>
> I, too, have been a little confused by the performance numbers of the
> various 50mm Zuikos (based largely, but not entirely, on Gary Reese's
> tests). For non-macro use, the numbers for the late-model 50/1.8 at
> F1.8 and F2.8 - which I suspect are the most used apertures in
> everyday shooting - are little different from the 50/F2. The 50/1.8
> loses a little as it is stopped down, but again the differences in
> Gary's tests are not "significant".
>
Lots of posts refering to Gary's tests. My first, introductory post to the list
was about the various 50mm Zuikos.
It was quite lengthy and can be found in the archives, but I composed in
variable pitch text, so the big table came
out essentially unreadable. I repost that part to lead into the reply
(may require unwrapping, depending on browser):
"For work at greater focal distances, there is an enormous amount of
good information on Gary Reese's lens test page. His tests of a flat
subject at a 1:40 magnification ratio are excellent for judging quality
for everyday photography. So lets look at some 50mm
lenses. I've converted Gary's comments on contrast and vignetting into columns:
50mm f/2.0 Zuiko Macro MC 50mm f/3.5 Zuiko MC 50mm f/1.8
Zuiko("Made in Japan") 50mm f/1.4 Zuiko >1,100,000
OM-2000 M & A prefire OM-4 M & A prefire OM-2S M &
A prefire OM-2000 M & A prefire
Distortion = none D = very slight pincushion
Distortion = slight barrel Distortion = none
Aper. Cent. Cor. Cont. Vign. Aper. Cent. Cor. Cont. Vign. Aper.
Cent. Cor. Cont. Vign. Aper. Cent. Cor. CCont. EdgeC Vign.
f/1.4 B B M ML D
f/2 B- B- M B f/1.8 B C
H C- f/2 A- B H H B
f/2.8 B- B M ? f/2.8 A- B+
H A- f/2.8 A A- H H A-
f/4 A- A- M ? f/3.5 B- C MH A- f/4 A+ A
VH A f/4 A A H H A
f/5.6 A- A M ? f/5.6 A A MH A f/5.6 A A-
VH A f/5.6 A A- H H A
f/8 A+ A+ MH ? f/8 A+ A H A f/8 A A-
VH A f/8 A- A- H H A
f/11 A A- MH ? f/11 A A MH A f/11 A- B+
H A f/11 A- A- H H A
f/16 A- B+ M ? f/16 A- A- MH A f/16 B+ B
H A f/16 B+ B+ H M A
f/22 B+ B+ MH A
It's easier to see the forest when the trees are lined up like this.
I know these comparisons aren't really valid at the 1/3 grade level, but
just for fun... I converted all the resolution grades to numbers, A+=9,
C-=1 and the contrast grades to numbers, VH=5, ML=1. I then added up the
two resolution scores for each f-stop for each lens and selected a
winner based on high score. I then added the contrast scores to the
totals. Since I use only one contrast
score and the contrast numbers are lower, this total is still heavily
resolution rated.
Here are the winners based on the exercise:
f-stop Resol. R & C
f/1.4 f1.4 f1.4
f/2 f1.4 f1.4
f/2.8 f1.4 f1.4
f/4 f1.8 f1.8 (scores of all lenses basically a tie)
f/5.6 f3.5 f1.8
f/8 f2.0 f2.0 & f3.5
f/11 f3.5 f3.5
f/16 f3.5 f3.5
f/22 f3.5 f3.5
Now, some of the scores are too close to be meaningful, but I think you
see the point, the f1.4 is the best general use lens.
I received a response from Gary offlist and here is part of it:
"It was good to read your analysis of the 50mm Zuiko lenses. I also find
that the late models of the 50mm f/1.4 are super choices
for general photography, with the 50mm macros being best if you know you will
be stopping down for all your shots.
The 135mm f/4.5 is optimized for 1:10 Due to its flat field design and
conservative speed, I get outstanding results from 1:40 out to
infinity. Coupled with the rigidity offered by the tripod collar, it is
a stellar performer when tripod mounted, esp. when
employing mirror and diaphragm prefire technique. I call it a real sleeper
among the Zuikos and it is my most used lens.
The 50mm f/2 and 90mm f/2 macros have floating elements, providing
aberration correction over a wider range of focal lengths than do macros
without them. They are supposedly corrected for 1:10, but USA
photography magazine testing has shown they perform better
at ca. 1:40 than they do in the range of 1:2 to 1:4
After I ran out of test film, I shot with one of my customer's 50mm f/2
Zuiko with Fujichrome 64T Type II. It seemed to outperform my test lens
at wider apertures. I think there maybe more performance at f/2 to f/4
than the web site charts indicate, based just on my lens.
An f/22 comparison for the 50mm lenses isn't really a comparison. Only
the 50mm f/3.5 offers f/22 and it is a pretty sorry
performance at that aperture. For critical work, don't shoot that lens at
f/22.
> Could it be that one has to use the lens to appreciate its
> characteristics (and especially with a tripod) - and the numbers don't
> tell the whole story.
Yes indeed, there are certainly factors we can see that don't show up in
tests. I believe a considerable amount of the design work on lenses in
Maitaini's time was based on extensive evaluation of actual photographs
of many types of subjects as well s objective tests. Thus the reason
some didn't test as well as other brands but were and are much admired
by users.
> I suspect that my views would be different if I were doing macro work.
>
As Gary quotes above, that would likely be true for the 50/2.
> iwert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> From: "Wayne Culberson"
>> What am I missing here? To me, the numbers make it look like a macro lens,
>> not a general all purpose 50mm for hand held photography.
>>
>>
As you can see, Gary has brought his own numbers at the larger apertures
into question.
>> Well,
>>
>> a classic "missing": emotion. Not everything is told by numbers.
>> Taken by numbers all people are equal: same amount of carbon, oxygen,
>> etc... two eyes, a nose.
>> Some things cannot be named objectively. But a good photographer will
>> probably also make a better picture with a beater single coated 50mm f1.8
>> than a bad photographer with a 50mm f2.
>>
>>
Only if you don't blow it up much, at leas with my non-beater early
50/1.8. :-)
>> If I find the time to test, I'll put up a general scene with a tripod and
>> the 50f2, 50f1.4, 50f1.8, 40f2 and the 35-80f2.8 (that's the standard lenses
>> I have available.
>>
>>
My usual question, which versions of the 1.8 and 1.4, it makes a big
difference. A lot of sloppy mentions of the quality of these lenses
lately without mention of version.
>> What makes the 50f2 so unique to me is still:
>>
>> I can use it easily for "1:2" macro and as my everyday standard lens. So I
>> just need to carry one lens, and don't have to change lenses. Another big
>> plus: I live in Belgium where available light can be very scarce, even
>> during the day. So every F-stop extra is valuable. We're also known for
>> lot's of rain, and that's where the build-in hood comes handy. As for macro
>> and handheld: I dare to use the 50f2 handheld at 1:2, 1/30 + f2, I couldn't
>> do that with the 90f2... I know the result maybe won't be as tack-sharp as
>> on a tripod, but hey, I have the shot!, at f3.5 it would be near impossible.
>>
>>
Works for me.
>> This lens + an OM3/4 is my equivalent of "a rangefinder + 35mm" with an
>> added macro feature!
>>
>>
ICK! Just when you had me going! I don't like rangefiinders, so anything
that makes my OM like one sounds bad. :-) ;-)
I still doesn't have any desire for a 50/2. 50/3.5 for serious macro and
50/1.4>1,100,000 for general use, with Viv 2x Telemacro for less
serious, but nonetheless great macro.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|