Christoph;
Yes, this confirms what I have seen in all 4 of the lenses you mention.
50/1.4 MC will only be better than SC if glass is redesigned (or made to
better tolerance in later years?)
george
C. Hertzler wrote:
> george wrote:
> >> Known NOT GOOD: 50/1.2, 50/1.4
>
> >George, I'm curious if you remember if the 50/1.4 was MC or SC? I
> >have this lens in MC and have found it to be sharp even wide open.
>
> I have a 50/1.4 SC. In astro photography it is indeed not a good
> performer. Lots of coma in the corners. That means, the stars are
> looking like butterflies or at least elliptical. Same effect with
> fireworks, if you use the lens at 1.4 - if you need that, to get
> some ambient light. At 2.0 its already much better.
> The 50/1.4 MC might have the same problem, because the above is not a
> flare problem, but a result of the optical construction.
> The 50/1.8 is a better performer wide open for taking pictures of
> point sources like stars. When I was a physics student (15 years ago)
> I did some side by side astro tests with the 1.4 and 1.8 f=50 mm
> lenses, which gave this result.
> Other lenses which worked well in such applications: 300/4.5 and
> 90/2.0
>
> Christoph Hertzler
>
> < 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 >
|