>
> Yup, it sure does. I wonder though, at optimum aperture (~f/5.6)
> whether one will be able to clearly differentiate a shot from the 50/1.4
> and the 50/2.0
> Macro?
>
> Any opinions / samples, anybody?
>
Without a comparative? Probably not. However, when doing copy-stand work,
I'd put my money on the macro lenses. In the natural world, it doesn't
matter so much whether a lens is highly corrected for flat-field attributes
and distortion as there are not many flat and perfectly aligned subjects to
worry about. A flower picture is not going to really stress these lenses too
much, but a photograph of a postage stamp might.
My 50/3.5 is a lovely lens in nearly every regard. I don't understand
negative comments about its bokeh characteristics as I find mine (old
silvernosed version) to be capable of producing some of the finest
bokeh-blobs with beautifully feathered penumbra as I've ever seen. Maybe
they changed the lens formula in later versions which destroyed this
aspect--I don't know, I only know my own lens.
The 90/2 is also one of those lenses that makes you scream for joy at the
delight of the images it is capable of producing. One person's dissenting
opinion regarding this lens is most certainly not universally agreed upon.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|