If you can find and afford the 50/2 macro over the
50/3.5 I would definitely recommend it over the 3.5
version. I find no degradation in image quality for my
50/2 throughout the range and with standard 4x6. 8x10
and larger there is only a very slight loss of image
quality wide open and I really need a loupe to see it.
The good (or bad thing) about the 50/2 is that it is
an Awfully sharp lens with high contrast and thus not
very flattering (but compared to 4x5 portraits I have
done over the past few days not even the legendary
90/2 can compete I'm afraid to say)
But for every other purpose I've used it for I have
been pleased by the exceptional results I've gotten
from this lens and can safely say it is one of the
lenses that stays nearly permanently welded to an OM
body. As a normal lens its great and has supplanted my
two 50/1.8 lenses and my single 1.4 except for very
low light shots. Unlike the 50/3.5, which darkens the
focusing aid of 1-13 screens at 1:2 macro this lens
remains bright and sharp. Colors seem to come out much
bolder than any other of my Zuikos as well and angles
and regions of major contrast are very clearly
accentuated.
Again this is just my one example though and all IMO.
But for my recommendation I would pick this lens hands
down over any of the other 50mm lenses.
Mark Lloyd
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com
< 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 >
|