On 21 Oct 2010, at 7:09 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
> If given a choice between a 35/1.4 and a 50/1.4 lens, I'd choose the
> 35mm.
> Since it doesn't exist, well, then the 50/1.4 serves me duty for the
> hyper-bright lenses these days. Unfortunately, at 1.4, it doesn't
> gain you
> anything on digital, where you have to stop down to F2 to get rid of
> the
> fringing and the max aperture of the mirror chamber in the E-
> thingies is
> 1.8.
Hi Ken,
I suspect, had the OM system continue for another decade or so, we
would have seen both
the 85 f/1.4, and a compact 35mm f/1.4. Oh, men can dream, can't
they...?
So, for the same reasons as you, I really enjoy the 50mm f/1.4. The
proportions are absolutely
perfect on an OM body. But you know what I really, really would have
liked?
(I guess this is strange, and only for 50mm geeks). I would, above any
other OM lens now
(and I say this only because I own my dream OM lenses), have liked the
optics of the
Zuiko 50mm f/2.0 Macro (the optical cell is quite tiny, not much
bigger than the 50/1.8)
in a standard, compact lens barrel, with a standard 0.45m min focusing
distance.
From what I have seen of the 50mm f/2.0 Macro, such a lens would live
on my OM all the time.
As it is, it's a pity the 50 Macro is, for all intents, as large as
the 90 Macro. The 50/1.8, 1.4
and 1.2 are great, but they do not have the "internally-illuminated"
hyper-clarity that the
f/2.0 Macros have.
One of these days I should just give in to saying "no, you're not a
collector" and get all
the Zuiko 50mm lens models, then they won't bother me anymore. Then I
can throw all of them
out but the 50 Macro, live with its bulk, and be happy :-)
Zuikoholism is a funny condition.
Dawid
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|