The four-thirds 50/2.0 Macro is supposed to be on par with the OM
Zuiko 50/2.0
in terms of relative performance, i.e. the final image. This means it
has twice the absolute
resolving power of the OM 50/2.0 Macro.
I love the strange design with the concave front element, a rare
design. It's built like a cheap toy
compared to the OM 90/2.0 though (its spiritual forebear).
We did some extensive testing comparing the OMZ 50/2.0 to the Canon
100mm f/2.8 Macro, and
both seemed pretty much on par, optically. Both are perfect. The
substantially deeper depth of field
on a DZ 50mm on four thirds is (unlike in most of my style of "normal
shots") actually very nice for Macro,
where one can never have too much DOF.
The DZ 50/2.0 is an excellent all-purpose lens, though manual focusing
is not great (focus
throw way to long).
On 24 Feb 2009, at 11:48 AM, Moose wrote:
> Sandy Harris wrote:
>> Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> ... An A+ grade for centers and corners is set to the performance
>>> of a 50mm f/2.0 Zuiko Macro at f/8.*"
>>>
>>> ... the 50/2 macro, which set the standard for A+.
>>>
>>
>> Is the four thirds 50/2 as good? Would it work well as a general-
>> purpose short tele, street shots & portraits?
>>
> Others here will have opinions about that. I've never owned the OM
> 50/2,
> being perfectly happy with a 50/3.5 for macro and 50/1.4 > 1,085,000
> for
> te rest. And I've never owned a camera that would take the DZ 50/2.
>
> Moose
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|