I longed for an OM2 way back when, but due to financial constraints
never pursued it. In the last several years that has all changed. The
first OM-4t I held seemed so familiar,
Same here. It fit like a kid glove.
After you have been on the list for a while, I think you will change
your desire for the 50/1.2 to a 50/1.4 SN > 1e6.
Hmmm.
Having both, the 1.4 gets the most use. Even the fabled 50/1.8 MC "made in
Japan", or the50/2 macro are more useable to me. How many pictures can you
really take wide open with a 1.2? The only advantage I can think of is
focusing ability in the dark, or blurry nose with sharp eyes ... ahhh,
ignore all that! 50/1.2 is a neat (must have) lens. I just found a
50/1.2 lens hood for mine, you gotta have that as well. But you have to
promise not to smoke or drown any more oly gear now that Olympus has
stopped the OM line.
With me it's just the opposite, Wayne. I finally ran down a 50/1.4
(>1,100,000) this summer and bought it out of curiosity more than
anything--still haven't tested it, though. I admit the f/1.4 is easier to
use, but for me that's more about the (relative) ease of being able to fit
my thumb and finger on the aperture ring--that's a tough deal for me with
the f/1.2, as there's not much space on the latter lens at all.
That extra little bit of speed you get from the f/1.2, though, isn't what
that lens is about. In fact, it is a completely different lens from the
other two, certainly in terms of design and, I believe, in performance. I
don't say the other 50mm's are bad--indeed, I've always said the f/1.8 is
one of the best lenses I've ever used and a virtual giveaway for the price.
I used one for years (earned my living doing so) and loved it. In fact, I
found it to be of much higher quality than the Zuiko 55mm.
But the 50mm f/1.2 is superior to them all.
I don't have any images to show from the other two lenses (actually I might
have a couple from my daughter--I bought another f/1.4 for her from Gary
Reese this summer, though the serial number of that one was around 900,000
or so--very sharp images, by the way), but here's the 50mm f/1.2 in action:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=496126&size=lg
That's not what I'd call a perfect image but it's sharp and affords plenty
of contrast. I give all of the credit (or any rightfully due) to the glass
I used, not myself. About all I had to do was set up the tripod and tighten
the mounting screw. The lens then told me, "Okay, Bub. I'll take it from here."
Here's the same lens (actually, this is my other f/1.2 in action, the one I
picked up from Hawaiian Camera in July "on spec" after I alerted this list
but no one bothered to bid on it--I include this image to demonstrate that
at least with these two particular f/1.2 lenses the performance is quite
similar) in action. It's a more difficult shot insofar as it's hand held
from the seat of my cab as I was paused momentarily in traffic, plus the
lighting is "varied"--I fully expected to pick up some flare on this one
but the shot came out fairly clean--thank you very much Zuiko.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=535681&size=lg
I could post other pictures, but they all tell the same story: whether or
not anyone likes what my photographer's eye sees and all that, the glass we
speak to here knows what it's about and does its work competently. And then
some.
I don't say the f/1.4 or f/1.8 would render poorer results, though they
probably would at that, and this could probably be "demonstrated" to a
certain degree. I will say that the reason the f/1.2 costs as much as it
does is because it's a world-class lens, not because it's a fraction of a
stop faster. The results (consistently) speak for themselves as far as I'm
concerned.
Tris
< 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 >
|