Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,531   Posts: 1,572,521   Online: 1082
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15
  1. #1
    msbarnes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    382
    Images
    7

    zuiko 50mm 1.2 vs 1.4

    is the 1.2 worth it? it seems like a lot of money for a fraction of a stop advantage

  2. #2
    jjphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    146
    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.

    JJ
    Last edited by jjphoto; 03-28-2012 at 07:45 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  3. #3
    baachitraka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Bremen, Germany.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,557
    May be you can get yourself a 50mm f/1.4 and an 85mm f/2.0 instead of 50mm f/1.2.
    OM-1n: Do I need to own a Leica?
    Rolleicord Va: Humble.
    Holga 120GFN: Amazingly simple yet it produces outstanding negatives to print.

  4. #4
    EASmithV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,877
    Blog Entries
    4
    Images
    123
    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.
    www.EASmithV.com

    "The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera."— Dorothea Lange
    http://www.flickr.com/easmithv/
    RIP Kodachrome

  5. #5
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,529
    Images
    46
    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).

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    123
    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.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    79
    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.

  8. #8
    msbarnes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    382
    Images
    7
    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.

  9. #9
    AFenvy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    New Mexico
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    24
    Images
    4
    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.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    1,487
    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.
    - Bill Lynch

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin