On 6/3/2010 3:10 AM, Dawid Loubser wrote:
> [BIG snip].
> Canon's plastic fantastic 50/1.8 is a similar story, optically fantastic, but
> a cheap piece of junk otherwise. I find it interesting that the OM system
> didn't per se produce any badly-built lenses. Perhaps just a different era?
>
I'm always curious about the "piece of junk" epithet about this lens. It
seems to me to be better suited for some users than a more sturdily made
lens. What are your criteria? Mine are:
1. Excellent images. And it scores here.
2. Reliability. OK, so it's plastic, and rattles. Still, for an amateur
like me, it's the same as new a year or two later, and it's mostly in
the bag with me. I don't use it often, but when I do, its done the job
so far. For heavier duty use, harsh treatment or conditions, sure, use a
pro lens. But practically, even if it eventually gets broken, it's so
cheap a replacement is no big deal (and I won't need to buy the hood again).
3. There when I need it. It's tiny and weighs nothing, so I usually have
it with me. If I had the serious 50/1.4, I'd have it along less often,
as it wouldn't fit where the 1.8 does and would add weight to the kit.
I'm not interested in finding a bigger bag or leaving another lens home.
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/
|