>From what I've seen of Popular Photography type lens tests is that the
faster versions of the same focal length generally score better (when
compared at the same aperature) as the slow lenses. The difference would be
biggest at the fastest aperature settings. It probably has to do with the
design of the faster lens being better, in order to accomidate the faster
speed.
At least this is from what I've seen, I could be totally wrong :).
Greg
-----Original Message-----
From: Marco Tomat <tom@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sunday, July 12, 1998 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: [OM] 50mm lenses...
>On Dom, 5 lug 1998 9:19, Lorna Olson <mailto:lornao@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>I have noticed that many members of this list "choose" to use the
>50/1.8....
>>Do you find this lens superior to the 50/1.4, or is it a decision based
>upon
>>price? I own the 50/1.4, as well as the 50/3.5 macro, and I find that the
>>1/4 pales in comparison.... So, would the 1.8 be a better lens? I desire
>a
>>cheap, small lens for times when I don't need to worry about the camera as
>>much.
>>
>
>Why not?
>
>In Italy the 1.4 is reputed as a *great* lens. I think you'll get no gain
>from a 1.8 one, it is by no means an half-way between 1.4 and 3.5 macro.
>But yes, it is cheaper and smaller.
>
>Marco
>
>
>
>< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
>< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
>< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|