I had to do a double take on this one. I didn't think either of the f1.2
lenses were especially highly rated for resolution & contrast. I guess the
main thing is that you see them as interchangeable, so the one with the
better contrast is assumed the way to go. Bob Gries tried a silver nose 55
alongside his 50 f1.2 and had a slight preference for the 55. Several list
members have felt the 1.2 vs 1.4 is not a good trade off. There is a list
member who strongly believes in the 100 f2.8 even though almost every 90mm
macro has higher ratings. I see the 1.2 lenses as strictly special purpose
since I'm happy with the 35-xx zooms. I think each potential owner of a 1.2
lens needs to make his own judgement which is better and if they even really
need it. Me ... we'll I'm sure I'll need both, one of these days.
Cost of manufacturing drives most design changes. When you think about the
concern over a gram of mercury in thermometers, it's pretty hard to imagine
using radioactive glass anymore.
-jeff
>From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] Re: WTT 50f1.2 for 55f1.2
>
>Well, this is the first time I've ever wished I had a 55/1.2. You really
>want to trade one of the best 50mm lenses Oly made for a strictly middle
>of the road lens? You already own the successor to the SC,
>non-radioactive 55/1.2. It was replaced by the 50/1.2 rather than simply
>becoming MC. Now why would Oly go to all that trouble? Unless the old
>design just wasn't up to their later standards.....
>
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|