My point entirely. How was I supposed to judge the capability of the
E330 with only the kit lens? A quick walk with an 11-22mm produced
much better results. Even dpreview doesn't do any more than test with
whatever comes with it for their regular reviewing and they don't
factor that in to the results conclusions as I remember. A
considerable number of problems with poor contast, colour rendition
and resolution may be due to the lens and easily overcome with a
better choice of glass. I found that the 14-45mm exhibited different
lower res. and colour smearing compared to better DZ's and yet these
are often criticisms leveled at the body itself. The DZ 50/2 is
awesome in my small experience - stunning resolution.
When faced recently with a choice between the Canon 50/1.4 and the
50/2.5 Macro at a similar price (both 'old' designs but so am I), I
took the Macro for similar reasons. The 1.4 is 'decent' but not much
better if at all than the cheap 1.8 on a didge. You pay a lot for
2/3rds of a stop and better construction.
AndrewF
On 25/03/2006, at 3:51 PM, Moose wrote:
> The EF 50/1.4 is a pretty decent lens, but how is it fair to
> compare an
> older, fast, general purpose design that has to cover FF 35mm with
> a new
> macro design tailored to the smaller sensor format?
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|