Garry mentioned that he thought the 50mm f1.4 to be not that great on
the basis of magazine lens tests. I would agree whole heartedly in
the case of the single coated version, which I have owned. However
Shaun Weber posted a summary of an article a while back which
would indicate a Multicoated f1.4 is superior (in the test criteria
Doris) to a MC f1.8 and only marginally inferior to the 50mm f1.2
(all of which are MC I believe).
I decided on the f1.2 as Garry did and managed to acquire one. I
have not had any problem with flare as alluded to by Lars, much less
in fact than the f1.4 SC. The only drawback I have found
with the f1.2 is that you could probably buy 3 or 4 f1.4 MCs for the
same price.
Here is the original post again courtesy of Shaun Weber.
Giles
------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
As a result of some of the questions regarding the performance of the
various Zuiko standards, multi-coated(MC) and single coated(SC), I
dug around in mymagazine collection and came up with an issue of
Photography(March 1983) that tested out all six Zuiko 50s. I shall
summarise the results below :
Key : C=Centre, E=Edge, Hi=High contrast target, Lo=Low contrast
target Results are cycles per mm
55/1.2(SC) C/Hi C/Lo E/Hi E/Lo (7 elements/6 Groups)
1.2 36 21 24 18
2 54 33 27 27
2.8 60 42 30 30
4 66 42 36 36
8 66 48 36 33
Tester's comment: Distortion low, flare not as good as 50/1.2
50/1.2(MC) C/Hi C/Lo E/Hi E/Lo (7/6)
1.2 42 36 42 30
2 60 42 48 36
2.8 66 54 54 48
4 72 60 66 54
8 66 60 72 60
Tester's comment: great performance regardless of speed, distortion,
flare low
50/1.4(SC) C/Hi C/Lo E/Hi E/Lo (7/6)
1.4 42 33 42 33
2 42 33 42 33
2.8 60 48 42 42
4 66 54 48 48
8 60 60 54 54
Tester's comment: Beautiful even performance, lacks bite,
mild barrel distortion, flare performance poor.
50/1.4(MC) C/Hi C/Lo E/Hi E/Lo (7/6)
1.4 54 42 48 33
2 60 48 48 33
2.8 72 60 60 48
4 72 54 54 54
8 72 66 54 54
Tester's comment: Very good overall performance, good flare
resistance, mild barrel distortion.
50/1.8(SC) C/Hi C/Lo E/Hi E/Lo (6/5) Chrome front
1.8 42 36 42 30
2.8 54 42 42 30
4 72 60 48 42
8 72 60 72 54
Tester's comment: Close in performance to new MC design,
very low distortion, flare resistance good.
50/1.8(MC) C/Hi C/Lo E/Hi E/Lo (6/4)
1.8 48 42 48 36
2.8 66 54 48 42
4 72 66 60 48
8 72 66 66 54
Tester's comment: Good performance, in difficult conditions
slightly better than SC design, very low distortion,
flare resistance slightly better than SC design.
For refernce, I add from the same issue the test of an M series
Leica 50/1.4, widely acknowledged to be amongst the best 50mm
designs.
Sum'lux 50/1.4 C/Hi C/Lo E/Hi E/Lo
1.4 48 42 30 27
2 60 54 30 27
2.8 72 66 33 30
4 72 72 48 36
5.6 72 72 48 36
8 72 72 54 48
Numbers are not always = the quality you want
---------------------------------------------
Hard figures give some indication of the quality of the final image,
but cannot describe adequately the "flavour" of the final image which
is manufactured by the mix of all kinds of optical attributes and
distortions. To this end, some of the lovliest images I have seen,
taken with a 50mm lens have been with the 50/1.2MC, which if you like
that sort of thing, has an exquisite soft look to the final image,
despite having resolved image details well. I guess it takes us back
to the Astro-debate, where some lens characteristics will simply not
do, whereas the lens may be perfectly matched to other uses.
Modern Photography Tests
------------------------
A note of caution when referring back to Modern Photography tests. The
testing technique was altered slightly in about 1982. Lens tests
before this date are not directly comparable to later ones.
Be warned also that magazines are often quite fickle when it comes to
their tests and comments. For instance, the British magazine "Buying
Cameras", recently gave a list of recommended lenses, giving modest
ratings to Zuiko lenses they had raved about in previous issues and
inexplicably boosting lenses from other manufacturers that had tested
poorly in earlier editions. Be wary of numbers.
Regards,
Shaun Weber,
Cape Town.
------------------------------------------------------------------
> Olympus Shooters,
>
> My original 50mm prime was ruined in a flood about 5 years ago. As I had the
> Zuiko 35-70 F3.5-4.5, I survived. Now I'd like to invest in some primes and
> wondered if others thought I should resist the incredible bargains on the
> 1.8s and go for a good 1.4, or is it not really worth the extra dough? From
> the FAQ it seems that the 1.8s are a trifle more variable.
>
> Regards,
>
> Joel
############################################################
| This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List
| To receive the Digest version mailto:listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| with "subscribe olympus-digest" in the message body.
| To unsubscribe from the current list mailto:listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| with "unsubscribe olympus" in the body.
| For questions mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html
############################################################
|