Ken Norton wrote:
>> Never had one, so just speculative Moose drivel. I do have the latest
>> 50/1.4, and have never seen where an extra 1/3 stop would have made a
>> difference for me.
>>
>>
>
> Strange thing. Some of us feel there are other optical characteristics
> other than just "sharpness". But I know that you know that.
>
Yeah, I'm assuming that those characteristics would be much the same for
those two lenses. Both come from the later stages of OM lens
development, use the almost identical double-gauss design, would have
the same coatings, etc.
> I'm a fan of the 50 F1.4, had a nice silver-nosed one.
As you know, quite a different lens from the last multi-coated version
in both resolution/sharpness and those other characteristics you talk
about. I wouldn't assume the same relationship to the 50/1.2 as for my
late 50/1.4. I have an early one, too, but honestly don't know much
about it. I'd expect your 50/1.4 to be closer to the 55/1.2 of more
similar vintage.
> Bokeh of the 1.4 is pretty good, but just a touch "crunchy" (current word of
> the week) as compared to some other lenses. I prefer the Bokeh, even with
> the DoF and AoV differences of the 35 F2.8 to the 50 F1.4.
>
The bokeh of all lenses seems to depend a lot on aperture and subject
and background distances from the lens. The 50s do seem to be touchier
than some others, though.
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/
|