Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '35mm Cameras and Accessories' started by msbarnes, Mar 28, 2012.
is the 1.2 worth it? it seems like a lot of money for a fraction of a stop advantage
Worth is a subjective quality and I doubt many people would ever really agree regardless of the lens in question.
The 50/1.4 sell for around $100, the 50/1.2 (not 55mm) sells for around $500. The 1.2 is not 5 times better no matter how you twist things but if you want the look that the 1.2 gives you then that's the cost of doing business. Is it worth it? You can only answer that for yourself.
May be you can get yourself a 50mm f/1.4 and an 85mm f/2.0 instead of 50mm f/1.2.
It's only worth it if you shoot wide open a lot. Then again, it would be sharper at f8 than the 1.4 if you get off on shooting test charts.
baachitraka's sig-line line-up makes the most sense to me.
I'd even consider the 50mm f/1.8 which (like the 35mm f/2.8) is lighter weight than its brighter sibling.
I'm a backpacker who chose OM-System for its light weight compared to other systems.
If you must spend a lot of money for a 50mm, I'd recommend the f/2.0 Macro. Or you could find the 40mm f/2.0 Pancake, which saves a lot of weight (by "replacing" the 35mm and 50mm in the backpack).
I picked up a 1.4 a while ago (under 1.1m serial) and I actually find myself using the 1.8 more. Partly because it's lighter and smaller, but for me it's largely because it seems far easier to focus. The 1.8 just seems to snap more than the 1.4 for me. I picked up the 1.4 for the extra stop because I shoot in low light a lot, but I find I don't need it much. It seems like people either have the lights on and the 1.8 is fine or the lights off and the extra stop is nowhere near enough. I kind of wonder how a 1.1m serial would do, and the 1.2, but I rarely find I need more than the 1.4.
I only have a 1.1m+ 1.4 so I can't really compare, but the 50/1.2 is said to have rather nervous OOF areas. Unlike the 55/1.2 which should be nicer but a bit softer.
It was late, I was bored, and was dreaming about getting a 50mm. I just got into the OM system a few months ago but I've held off on a 50mm because it is my favorite focal length and I was unsure on which one to get.
I should have been clear: What I care most about is bokeh.
I think I'll just get the 50mm f1.4. The difference in terms of exposure is probably negligible and the fastest glass is always the most expensive. Even if the bokeh is better on the 50/55mm f1.2 I don't think it'll be 5x better. And with that kind of money, I can get a 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f2.
I never found the out of focus areas very pleasant from the pictures I have seen taken with the 50mm f1.2. My late production 1.1m+ serial 50mm f1.4 renders beautifully, is smooth and contrasty, and very sharp wide open as well. The out of focus areas are probably nicer than any other 50mm lens I have used. I had a 50mm f1.8 lens, the "Made in Japan" version, that produced some of the sharpest and most detailed images I have gotten from any Zuiko 50mm, but I sold it because the smoothness of the 50mm f1.4 suited my style more than the clinical sharpness of the f1.8.
I have both MC and silver-nosed 50/1.4's as well as 8 or 9 1.8's of mixed versions.
I like the silver nose versions best for their look.
I have always wanted a 55/1.2 but never wanted to pay those prices.
Anyway... I find the bokeh much better from the 1.4 than the 1.8 and I think it's because of the 8 blades versus 6.
I would advise anyone with a silver-nose to use a lens hood out in daylight if glare is a concern. It will also help contrast.
I don't think the 1.2 is worth the extra cost over a 1.4. Bit I definitely think the 1.4 is worth it over the 1.8
The 1.8 is perfect for light weight, sharpness and contrast if those are your requirements.
The 50f1.2 is one of the few Zuikos I don't have, and have little desire for. The photos I've seen from it look soft and noticeably less attractive than from the f1.4. And even my f1.4 hardly ever gets used. As others have pointed out the f1.8 is a beautiful little lens, and the MIJ version is sharp enough to shave with.
The 1.2 has a very distinct look to it compared to the others. Honestly, probably the best 50mm Zuiko is the 3.5 Macro.
i´d say one must search for the lens of his taste, because there are more zuiko 50s which have something to offer -
55/1.2 has very special rendering wide-open with nervous curly bokeh, but is rather soft and takes 55mm filters which is a disadvantage. I won´t go for it unless you want to shoot wide-open.
50/1.2 has nice creamy bokeh, better sharpness and less CA, but also less character. advantage - 49mm filters
50/1.4 >1.1M sn: I´d say it´s as precise as zeiss, but with different colours
50/1.8 late MC or MIJ: some say "rangefinder-ly" sharp, I would grade it as most-sharp non-macro
50/2 macro: great sharpness acros whole frame, nice and smooth bokeh, you won´t believe your eyes how it can take portraits
personally, I would choose 55/1.2 for character and 50/1.8MIJ for sharpness
I only have the 1.2 in Pentax and Minolta so I can't really say just how much lovelier the results from the Olympus will be until I get one . . .
How do you compare 50/1.2 with 85/2.0?