Moose, I believe the 50/1.8 crosses an "acceptability" boundary for me,
my brother uses one as one of his primary lenses - has done so for
almost 4 years.
He's on his second one - the first one was dropped ever-so-slightly
(50cm or so) and on carpet, but still, the little plastic thing (which
he had owned from new, and was never abused) self-destructed.
This also allowed me to have a peek at its insides, never seen
such a simply or cheaply constructed lens, it's literally four pieces of
plastic (even the geared threads), with what seems to be very loose
tolerances (wobbly).
To be honest, if I wanted to use a 50/1.8 on a Canon EOS, I'd just stick
a Zuiko on it.
So, it produces results that count, but it's the least robust lens
I've ever
used. If i wanted a cheap, small, fantastic Canon 50mm, even though it's
a bit slower, I'd use the 50/2.5 Macro instead, or the MkI version of
the
50/1.8 which does seem to be a bit more robust.
Dawid
On 04 Jun 2010, at 7:31 AM, Moose wrote:
> 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/
|