The only thing that always bothered me with my 50 f1.2 before it
tumbled into the river
was the fact that the focussing ring is of a bigger diamater than the
aperture ring. It probably has to
do with the 49mm filter, but I always liked the handling of the 55 f1.2 more.
Iwert
2009/10/24 Joel Wilcox <jfwilcox@xxxxxxxxx>:
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> NSURIT@xxxxxxx wrote:
>>> OK, I 'm trying to replace my stolen gear and am well on my way. Figured
>>> the 50mm f1.2 in near mint to mint condition would be a problem ...
>>>
>>
>> I'm still mystified by the allure of the 50/1.2.* It's only 1/3 stop
>> faster than f1.4. In return for more money, you get a lens that performs
>> slightly less well and is slightly bigger and heavier.
>
> Just one of those things, I guess. I had an opportunity to pick one
> up new when a friend was traveling in Japan during the last days of
> OM. I figured I'd probably sell it, but there's something about it on
> an OM body. The way I shoot, a good 1.8 is just fine most of the
> time, but I enjoy the tactile qualities of the 1.2. Not totally
> irrational, but nearly so. At f4 or 2.8 at least it does not
> disappoint and I've needed those stops a lot lately.
>
> It's probably one of the smaller 1.2 lenses out there. That might
> have something to do with it too.
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|