It's interesting to speculate what kind of project would only or best
work with the 50/2. If it is a macro project on any 3D subject, the
speed will be of no use, as DOF will require stopping down. If it is a
2D project, it is most likely stationary and speed, while possibly
convenient, isn't essential. If it isn't a macro project, then the 50/2
isn't really necessary, as the special design for close-up work isn't
necessary. If the subject is alive, the very close working distance of a
50mm lens is a potential problem.
My point is that I find it hard to imagine a situation in which the 50/2
would be noticeably superior to other, cheaper Zuikos.
In a post some time ago, I compared 50mm Zuikos based on Gary's tests:
---------------------
I know these comparisons aren't really valid at the 1/3 grade level, but
just for fun... I converted all the resolution grades to numbers, A+=9,
C-=1 and the contrast grades to numbers, VH=5, ML=1. I then added up the
two resolution scores for each f-stop for each lens and selected a
winner based on high score. I then added the contrast scores to the
totals. Since I use only one contrast score and the contrast numbers are
lower, this total is still heavily resolution rated.
Here are the winners based on the exercise:
f-stop Resol. R & C
f/1.4 f1.4 f1.4
f/2 f1.4 f1.4
f/2.8 f1.4 f1.4
f/4 f1.8 f1.8 (scores of all lenses basically a tie)
f/5.6 f3.5 f1.8
f/8 f2.0 f2.0+f3.5
f/11 f3.5 f3.5
f/16 f3.5 f3.5
f/22 f3.5 f3.5
Now, some of the scores are too close to be meaningful, but I think you
see the point, the f1.4 is the best general use lens.
Gary did say later that he doesn't think the results for the 50/2 at f2
& 2.8 in his test are up to the performance of most 50/2s.
--------------------------
Gary's tests were run at a 1:40 repro ratio and don't speak to macro
performance. At non-macro distance, from f2 to f4, the best lens is the
latest f1.4 and 1.8 versions. From f8 to f16, the f3.5 macro is equal to
or better than the f2 and f5.6 is a tie between f1.8 and f3.5 lenses.
Now none of this is absolute, but certainly the f2 macro doesn't jump
out of the pack in any way. I don't have any way to compare macro
performance of the f2 and 3.5 macro lenses, but I do know from much
experience that the f3.5 is an excellent macro lens with very flat field
and excellent resolution to well beyond 1:2.
My personal conclusion has been that I have no particular use for a
50/2. It's too short for the field, no better than a late f1.4 for
normal photography, and no better than the f3.5 macro for bench macro
work. I'm not trying to dissuade anybody from getting a 50/2, just
adding some possible perspective. I have all the others, but not a 50/2,
so maybe I'm missing some special factor.
Moose
Richard Smith wrote:
No offense taken, and I understand! An oxymoron -- maybe. But how does one
go about obtaining this lens? For what I am doing, I need this lens. What
could possibly be more honest and direct?
< 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 >
|