Mike,
The 50mm f2 is a lot better than the 50 f1.8. I have a 50 f2 that I got in
Indiana at a small town camera shop really cheap several years ago. It was
in near-mint condition and I paid them $199 for it!
It's bokeh is nicer for relatively close work (I mean a foot or 2 away, I
have never done any Macro work with it) than it is for further away stuff. I
have been doing a lot of candid street photos lately, mostly using my 35mm
f2 but I want a 50 for that too.
--
Chris Crawford
Photography & Graphic Design
Santa Fe, New Mexico
http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com
http://www.plumpatrin.com Something the world NEEDS.
On 4/12/07 3:55 PM, "usher99@xxxxxxx" <usher99@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi ,
> If it must be a 50mm or so, isn't the 50mm f2 macro quite good in this dep't,
> if a bit expensive? I seem to recall a few nice examples over the past year. I
> do remember if works fine (as expected) for landscapes as well---see Jeff's
> very nice example. My 50 f3.5 macro though very sharp and nice for some
> applications does need some bokeh lessons.
> Mike
>
>
> http://www.tope.nl/tope_show_entry.php?event=22&pic=28
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from
> AOL at AOL.com.
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|