At 09:22 AM 4/15/2006, you wrote:
>Hi Wayne,
>
>do you think there is any qualitative advantage to go for the 1.4 (regarding
>sharpness, bokeh, particular image character or colour rendition, ergonomics
>etc. apart that litlle bit of faster aperture)?
>
>Christos
>
>On 4/15/06, Wayne S <om4t@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> At 01:51 AM 4/15/2006, you wrote:
>> >>My favorite 50mm is the 50/1.4 with SN > 1,100,000. Then the 50/2 macro,
>> then the 50/1.8 MIJ (Made in Japan version) and then the
>> 50/1.2. ...
Joel is on the mark with his advice. The 50/1.8 mij lens is really
small. Either of the 50's, as long as you get a good version, are
great lenses. There are a lot of older 50/1.4's out there that are
on the soft side. Only if you can get some of the later 50/1.4's in
the high serial number range. Otherwise I would go for a 50/1.8.
Only the 40/2 pancake lens is smaller than the 50/1.8, but the 40
is impossible to use, with the aperture ring at the end. The 50/1.8
is also sharper. If you want a really small setup, the 50/1.8 on an
OM-4t is really sweet. There is a lot of variation in the 50/1.4's as
they were made over a long period, with coating and other changes
along the way. Many are worse than the 50/1.8's, except for some
of the latest versions of the 1.4.
The 50/2 macro lens is probably one of the sharpest Zuiko lenses.
Of the OM lenses I kept, after selling most of it, the 50/2 macro beat
the 90/2 macro. If you want the sharpest lens, the 50/2 is it.
WayneS
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|