That's a lot lower number than the one I had but the results are excellent.
I used to get soft pictures shooting my 1.4 and my 1.8's wide open in low
light but I think it was inaccurate focusing, not the lens, that was the
problem. I always had trouble focusing in low light with my OM's with the
1-13 screen (the standard OM screen). I later got a 2-13 for each of my
OM-4T bodies and I have had no problem with soft images wide open with my
50's. The only lens I have that really is soft wide open is the 40mm f2,
which everyone seems to say is not very good wide open. The 50 1.8 is a
sharper lens wide open by a long way and is a little better stopped down
than the 40, but I like the 40's bokeh and the focal length is great for
candid street work.
--
Chris Crawford
Photography & Graphic Design
Santa Fe, New Mexico
http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com My portfolio
http://blog.chriscrawfordphoto.com My latest work!
http://www.plumpatrin.com Something the world NEEDS.
On 10/13/07 11:31 PM, "Dan Mitchell" <danmitchell@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Chris Crawford wrote:
>> The 1.4 I had was very sharp
>> and yours seems to be too....what aperture did you shoot at?
>
> Those were at 1.4, yup; s/n on this lens is 408,000ish.
>
> -- dan
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|