Skip and all at photo.net,
Apologies for the length of this post but I felt it was best to explain the
whole process I went through to reach my conclusions at the bottom. I had a
one point accumulated two SC 50 f1.4's, two 50 f1.8's (miJ and otherwise),
a 40mm f2, a 55mm f1.2 and a 50mm f1.2. The experience has I feel given me a
useful perspective on the relative merits of each lens. Since I only have
two eyes and limited amount of time and space to keep stuff I eventually had
to decide which ones to keep. Here are some thoughts each lens in turn as it
relates to my experience with each type after which I will detail what I
kept and why.
50mm f1.4 SC
This was my first standard lens and I got to know my copy well shooting both
color and B&W with it. I found my example to be a good performer even with a
slight reduction in performance when working wide open.
50mm f1.8 miJ
As is well known this last version of the f1.8 is a very sharp lens. My
example was no exception and it is currently living on my wife's OM-1. She
shoot almost exclusively B&W with it and gets great stuff out of it.
40mm f2
My current main lens on my OM-2n it edged out the previous resident mostly
by virtue of size. I had been looking for one of these for a while and since
getting it I have been pleased with the results I can't say if it is a
better performer than any of the other lenses here but it is unique in FL
and perspective. I often take it as part of a two lens kit with the 85mm f2
in a Lowepro mini TLZ case, now that is a compact kit!.
55mm f1.2
A lovely big piece of glass. Out of this group this is lens I have shot the
least with. For a while I owned this lens and the 50mm f1.2 and how I
decided between the two is detailed below.
50mm f1.2
This lens was the previous main lens on my OM-2n prior to arrival of the
40mm f2. The bright VF and sharp performance across its range gave me good
results. I always had a small sense of fear using this lens, a fear of
damaging it. It didn't balance well for me, seemed nose heavy on non
motorized bodies.
Having all of these lenses it became clear to me I had to reduce the number
to what I was actually using. They all are good performers and in my hands
at least give me what I expected back from them. On the test bench they are
all close enough that I would doubt I could tell the difference in day to
day results. I think it comes down to a little bit of emotional response
mixed in with the test score evaluation. What I kept was the 50mm f1.4, the
40mm f2 and 55mm f1.2. The f1.4 stayed because it is the lens I know best
and I am a sentimental fool too. If I go out with one lens the f1.4 is my
first choice. The 40mm is my main lens in a two lens kit and it even sees
duty on the E-1 from time to time. Its balance on a non motorized OM body is
great and that combination feels as light as air after holding the E-1. My
biggest decision came between the two f1.2's and it finally came down to
filter size for me. The two lenses are close in performance wide open which
is where I would be using them if I mounted either. If I didn't have all of
the other standards I would have probably kept the 50mm f1.2 for is slightly
better performance stopped down. But with the others in my bag it just
wasn't worth it. For a while I have been settling on a compact pair of kits
that includes only stuff I actually use. One is 49mm filter oriented and the
other is 55mm filter based. When each kit is used alone I have all the
coverage I feel I need with 3 or 4 lenses (all primes). For a while I
speculated on sourcing a late f1.4 MC which in tests appears to be as good
as the 50mm f1.2 in mid apertures. I have yet to do it as I have all these
other lenses that cover this range and I asked myself will I see a
difference in my pictures? The answer I have to say is I doubt I would.
So if I was making a recommendation to someone who had either no standard
lens or only had a 50mm f1.8 and was looking to upgrade. I would tell them
to think about what want to use the lens for. If they intend to shoot in
dark interiors a lot then the faster is better and the 50mm f1.2 will not
disappoint. But if cost and solid performance are the criteria then it is
hard to beat the f1.4. When looking at stepping up from f1.4 to the f1.2 I
don't feel there is enough of a step up in performance to justify the step
up in cost. Remember there is no perfect tool for every job and a compromise
is necessary sometimes. I am lucky in that I have had the chance to try all
of the options and settle upon what worked for me. If you have the chance to
do the same I say go for it, see what really works best for you. These are
only tools to translate what we see onto film or the sensor. We control
where they are pointed and how they are set and when to make the exposure.
The lens is passive in this process and can help inspire perhaps but its
just a part of the process.
Of course if you have a chair at the local ZA meeting with your name on a
little plate on the back then of course you need all of them and in multiple
copies. I can stop at anytime you know.... honest ;)
I hope this helps someone in some way, Dan S.
-----Original Message-----
From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Skip Williams
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 9:20 PM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] 50/1.4 & 50/1.2 comparison?
There's an active thread over on Photo.net that I was participating in
regarding a comparison of the 50/1.4 and the 50/1.2. I volunteered to cross
post any responses from here to there.
Anyone got any preferences? Bokeh? Distortion? Flare?
Thanks,
Skip
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|