I mostly agree with you as my tee-shirt woudl testify to. A
comparison in macro land would be interesting. One thing for certain
the bokeh of the 50/2 is MUCH better and can be nice but not always.
It still can still get quite edgy (I recall some of the
Moosterizaitons of some Graham shots with it) and distracting but less
harsh than the 50/3.5. As a normal lens at normal distances
it seems to have a special character that is difficult to characterize.
Mike
Perhaps so. There's this guy thing about wanting biggest, fastest,
etc.,
so the 50/2 may have eclipsed the 50/3.5 in many minds. I just don't
see
the point of a faster lens to be used stopped down for macro if it
isn't
better at sharpness, field flatness and vignetting.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|