A recent discussion around here gave me the impression that the 50/f2 is
not bad as a macro performer, but not as good as the 50/3.5. As a
standard 50, though, the samples I saw on the net seemed to indicate it
had a really nice image quality. Tonal separation, especially in the
highlights, seemed to be lovely.
Earl
Gene Wilburn wrote:
>Another 'newbie' question. Is this lens as good as it's cracked up to
>be by Bill Johnston (Sunday Morning Photographer) or is that a bit of
>hype? It's terribly expensive for a 50mm. Does it do macro any
>seriously better than the 50mm f/3.5? As I settle back into my OM
>system I'm thinking longer term about what lenses I want to acquire
>and use and this one has always puzzled me ... a lens to keep on the
>radar or not?
>
>Gene
>
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|