The problem with the radioactive 1.2 (and radioactive 1.4's) is that they
will get more and more yellow with age.
Another difference between the 50/1.2 and the 55/1.2 according to a British
test around 1982 is that the 50/1.2 had good definition from corner to
corner, whereas the 55/1.2 was much better in the center than in the
corners.
Regards/Mvh.,
Roger Key
Per Ohstrom wrote:
Absolutely!
Thank you Moose for a great and exhaustive coverage of OM standard
lenses. I can see clearly that I have to try the 55/1.2, and I might even
explain why to my wife! :-) The problem is, I can also see that I have to
try a 50/1.2. (sigh!) And Schnooz has just convinced me that I need the
StopClock Professional in stead of the lowlier (and of course cheaper)
Analyser Pro (deep sigh!) which will benefit my bank account even less.
Just one little question is lingering in my mind: How can I tell the
difference between the two versions of the 55/1.2? Is it the yellow glass
one should look for? What colour does the non-radioactive glass have?
-poo
At 22:10 2003-03-31, R. Jackson wrote:
>Yeah, no kidding. Thanks Moose. FWIW, my 50mm f1.8 is an MC version,
>serial #2885413. It has never exactly knocked me out, but it's not a bad
>lens at all, either. I was mainly just wondering if the difference between
>a 1.8 and a 1.2 was worth pursuing for limited-light shooting, but Moose
>has this exchange down to a dissertation. ;-)
>
>-Rob
>
>On Monday, March 31, 2003, at 11:59 AM, Piers Hemy wrote:
>
>>Moose
>>
>>Thank you for an outstandingly helpful distillation of datat and
translation
>>of information into wise counsel (not that it is out of character) in a
form
>>which I haven't seen before. Bravo.
>>
>>Piers
< 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 >
|