On 4/6/2010 4:48 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
> Moose, I'm sorry. I tried to avoid your bowl of cheerios when I had to pee.
> I'm not sure what I'm supposed to say.
Needn't have said anything. I said my piece. I suppose our difference
may be a matter of definition. To me, a 'sleeper', in pretty much
anything, is a person or thing that's generally regarded as of
pedestrian or not first rank quality, and which turns out to be an
outstanding performer.
If you more or less agree with that definition, my complaint may be seen
as social, not technical. If the last ver. of the 50/1.4 were indeed a
sleeper, I would have no complaint whatsoever about what you said.
My contention was that it doesn't fit the definition, as it has been
praised often over the years both here and elsewhere. Thus to call it
such and gush about its unexpectedly wonderful qualities is to imply
either that others had not already known, and said, that, or that a lens
isn't really any good until you have weighed in on its quality. I doubt
you meant it either way.
If I'd known you were about to be "Stormed", I wouldn't have gone off on
something to relatively abstruse and OT. I hope you, your neighbors and
town are able to recover quickly and fully.
> I guess I could acknowledge the superiority of your knowledge of all things
> 50mm.
Nah. Most of my knowledge is academic, while it appears that your
knowledge of earlier versions is more from practical experience.
My personal experience of 50mm OMZs is limited to three lenses.
1. An early 50/1.8 that came with my first OM-1 around 1974. Not a very
inspiring lens, which I pretty much abandoned when I got the 35-70/3.6,
using it only for low light. I know Maitani was a genius, but he and his
optical engineers were behind Nikon on that one. The 50/2 Nikkor on my
previous Ftn was a much better lens. Then again, soon the 37-70/3.6
stomped the Nikkor 43-86 my dad had.
2. A 1,124,xxx 50/1.4. When I first found this list, one of my first
posts was a compilation of Gary's tests and a bit of other material
asking a regular list newbee question about which is best. Based on list
responses, a couple of emails with Gary and a bit more research, I
bought this lens and it is the only 'standard' OM lens I've used since.
The reason I have no practical experience with other 50/1.4s is simply
that the first one I bought was the best.
3. I have two MC 50/3.5 macro lenses. For what they were designed for,
they are outstanding. Seem to be optimum @ 1:2 and still darned good
from 1:1 to infinity. Fabulous flat copy lenses, for which they've been
used a lot, with great sharpness, flat field, v. low distortion and no
vignetting at copy apertures. I have several macro lenses and none is
better than the 50/3.5 for that use, although the current Tamron 90/2.8
is about the same at 1:2 and a tad better at 1:1. Poor bokeh with
close-up subject and relatively distant background, but then that's not
what it was designed for.
It appears from my list, that my overzealous collecting phase brought
five 50/1.4s in, but only a couple remain, at least findably. But I've
never used any but the latest one.
Now I DO have a pretty good memory for some sorts of trivia and a file
of list posts on lenses to browse, but anything I say about any lenses
other than the above is "reporting of things heard". Included in the
trivia rattling around in my head are your pronouncements on 50/1.4
lenses, which I thought at the time were meant to include the latest 5/1.4.
It seems to me that your well used, but small range of things OM have
given you relatively narrow, very deep, knowledge of some lenses,
bodies, etc., where there are others here who have much broader,
although generally less deep, direct knowledge of OM equipment.
I'll never know the subtleties of silver nosed 100/2.8s by short serial
number range - will go to my grave having only had one close to, but not
within, the 'magic' range. Nor d I have any personal experience with
early 50/1.4s. Yet I knew the overall qualities and value of the best of
the 50/1.4s, 300/4.5, and perhaps others, long before you discovered
them, and perhaps a few others you may yet discover.
Sharing knowledge makes us all better.
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/
|