> From: "Wayne Culberson"
>
> What am I missing here? To me, the numbers make it
> look like a macro lens, not a general all purpose 50mm for hand held
photography.
>
Iwert replied:
> Well,
>
> a classic "missing": emotion. Not everything is told by numbers.
> Some things cannot be named objectively.
> I can use it easily for "1:2" macro and as my everyday standard lens. So I
just need to carry one >lens, and don't have to change lenses. Another big
plus: I live in Belgium where available light can be >very scarce, even
during the day. So every F-stop extra is valuable. We're also known for
lot's of >rain, and that's where the build-in hood comes handy. As for macro
and handheld: I dare to use the >50f2 handheld at 1:2, 1/30 + f2, I couldn't
do that with the 90f2... I know the result maybe won't be >as tack-sharp as
on a tripod, but hey, I have the shot!, at f3.5 it would be near impossible.
>
> Iwert.
I agree that even for myself sometimes a choice of equipment might be based
on more of an emotion or a subjective feeling, than cold facts. If you feel
good about a piece of equipment, it is likely to work better for you. In
that case there is really no need to justify it for others' sake. But in my
case, I really would need a valid reason beyond feeling or emotion, even if
they were my own, to justify the 50/2 macro, because of the price.
Objectively, I cannot see the benefits of it, and based on Gary's tests, not
my own experience obviously, I'd opt for the slightly better contrast
characteristics of the 50/1.8 MIJ for a casual shooting lens.
I think this was partly Brian's point in the case of the reviewer comparing
the various 50mm's in the article with the 13 or so B&W snapshot type
images. The reviewer's statement to the effect that there really was no
better 50mm than the Zuiko 50/2 seems like a mostly subjective one in the
context of his sample pictures (albeit a statement that might be readily
accepted on this list without much questioning :-) We're quite willing to
accept his statement on the 50/2 unchallenged, but quickly bristle at his
remarks about the Zuiko 50/1.8 :-).
If I'm in a situation where I'm shooting casually with the 50/1.8, and I
think I might need the occasional macro shot, I take along the f = 40cm
close-up, as it is about all I can successfully hand hold for macro with an
OM. There is effectively no light loss with it of course, but you're quite a
ways from 1:2. More usually, macro shooting is something I go about
deliberately, toting along tripod, air release, and bag full of various
toys. I find it hard to mix the two types of shooting.
Wayne
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|