On 12/21/2015 8:51 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
Another vote for the lowly 50/3.5.
I've never thought of it as lowly. One of my first posts on this list was about the f3.5 vs. the non-lowly f2. Based on
Gary's lens tests and macro use to 1:2, I couldn't see what the point of the extra speed and cost was.
Various folks, including, if I remember correctly, Gary, said that they were really better at f2 than the test showed. I
still couldn't see the point, as the two looked the same at the practical working apertures of f8-11.
My subsequent testing, as re-reported yesterday, convinced me I was probably right. The 50/3.5 @ 1:2 is really, really
good.
Then again, I found the 90/2 to be lowly. If it didn't claim to be a Macro lens, I'd have no complaint, but past about
1:4, it went all mushy. Likely the only OM lens I bought, tried out, and sold on fairly promptly (which is why it wasn't
in the above test.)
Cutting Sharpness Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|