Actually, you'll find that plenty of "adults" will shoot at f1.4 or 1.8 when they need to. It's surely better to have a softer image with limited depth of field than no image at all, if for whatever reason you can't use flash or faster film.
I shot most of a roll of Ilford Delta 3200 at f1.7 for a party last year, the results had a '60s concert look (very popular with the Mod-inspired DJs) and meant that I didn't have to keep hurting people's eyes by firing a flash in a relatively dark room. They were grainy and a little soft but captured the atmosphere and looked pretty classy.
Why would I buy a lens I cannot use wide open? The extra element is ostensibly so they work properly at maximum aperture. You have some funny ideas, I think.:pouty:
Originally Posted by LaChou
135 is a focal length I've found is either too long or too short. A 105 is as long as I use in 35mm.
You see, the point of not using your lens wide open is deep. You must understand how the aperture works to see it. If you shoot wide open for whatever reason, you either don't undestand the meaning of the aperture, either you seek a "special look" you were talking about.
The "special look" is OK with those, who like it. But I have a better method then shooting wide open.
When I want to give my slides a certain old and a bit "washed out" look, I underexpose them and then overdevelop them a bit. They get pulled and acquire this particular uncontrasty look. Depending on the subject you shoot, It can be really great sometimes. It's a pity I do not have a scanner to show my work.
There are lenses that "mean" to be shot wide open, like 300/2.8 for example. If you think a little, you will see that there is no point in having a 300/1.2 lens. So, when manufacturers construct a 1.2 lens for you, they actually "please" you at these apertures, but nothing more. When they make a 300/2.8, they are being seriuos.
The OM Zuiko 50/1.4 is beautiful when shot at 1.4
Would you care to buy an aperture-free one? :-)))))
I have a friend who likes disassembling lenses in his free time. The ones he manages to assemble can be sold relly cheap. :-))).
Thanks but nobody answeered me really.There's no doubt that they did a comparison between these zuiko.which of these two glasses is technically better(contrast,sharpness,acutance,,,,)do someone help me?...i would to know only this thing...not the personal opinion.I know that all zuiko glasses are good/magnificent in some cases...but which zuiko 50 mm is better technically and objectively?I know that a magazine(i don't remeber the name) long time ago made a comparaison of these two lenses and won the 50 1.8. for its best performance,Did you rember this article?thank you very much
The sooner you try both of them, the sooner you will start thinking about something else.
You actually got all nessessary information. THEY ARE BOTH JUST ZUIKOS.
For example, if the answer was the 1.8, you would buy a 1.8 but there is always sample to sample variation. Magazines compare two specific lenses and one comes out on top; the next two samples may reverse the comparison. Buy one each, test them, then keep the better of the two. Tha way you know for sure you own the one that satisfies you.
Years ago I recall reading the pros would borrow a number of samples, test them, and only keep the best, or, they would request the factory to measure and select for them. Decentered elements during assembly can make a huge difference!
My own story: I once had two Contax Zeiss Planars, a 1.4 and a 1.7. Everyone raves about the 1.4. I tested both and the 1.7 was 10% better in lines resolved across the range, aperture to aperture.
You can often find the f1.8 lens for relatively little attached to an OM-10 or similar. My advice therefore:
Buy both, try them, sell the one you don't want. Assuming you pay reasonable amounts for them then you shouldn't lose any money.