Stu Warner
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.1 #7 · OM to EOS focus confirm adapter? | |
Well, I just bought an AF confirm adapter, shipping out of HK. Fingers crossed!
Thanks for the input Russell:
"The Oly is no great performer wide open (soft and milky) and the results I have seen from the Canon 50/1.2 have been much, much better at 1.2."
I'm not at all suprised. I also think the AF shift focus issues are overblown for real world use (though obviously I haven't actually verrified this belief through physical use). However, for me the cost and size issues are real stumbling blocks. It does seem that the Oly 50/1.2 is significantly better than the Nikon 50/1.2, which was the other option for me given current finances. My biggest dilemma was coughing up double the money over the OM 50/1.4.
"the 1.8 Plastic Fantastic is pretty hard to beat, both optically and for value."
Strongly agree. I reccomended this to a friend, and she has got some very nice portraits with it on her 350D. Even so, it is also soft wide open, and whilst being lightweight is not the fastest lens available. However, the biggest single problem for me is that under the very conditions when I want to use this type of lens, AF on my budget body does not work very well at all, so I always ended up switching to manual focus and struggling with the RIDICCULOUSLY small and fiddly focussing ring on the 50/1.8 II. I get the impression it was added as an afterthought  I have also heard people going through several copies of this lens over the space of three years, simply because the all-plastic build is so fragile (you are exactly right with "throw away option"). Hence the large demand for the version 1 metal mount - good luck in finding one at a decent price, if you manage to find one, it could work out great for you.
I'm afraid I have to disagree on the bokeh of the Canon 50/1.8 and 50/1.4. Bokeh is a very personal thing, but I find them both awkward, especially in the double rendering of out of focus highlights of the 1.4. Really, my decision to go for the OM 50/1.2 was based on comparing the OM 50/1.2 to the Canon 50/1.4 and the Nikon 50/1.2. Most people report that the Canon has horrendous flare and halation below f/2, coupled with poor AF in dim light. The OM 50/1.2 has pretty bad vignetting wide open, but this is something that I personally quite like and often add to shots - it's just as easy to correct of course. The Nikon was a distant third, offering nothing over the other two options.
Only time will tell if I have made the right decision or not. I have the Sigma 50 Macro to compare it to, and that sets a very high standard indeed from f/4 onwards.
It seems that most people take years to find the perfect 50. Maybe we should all just start saving and then plug either for the new Leica 50/1.4 ROM or the Canon 50/1.2L. 
Personally (again) I am coming to the conclusion that the bokeh a lens is capable of generating is just as important (possibly more so!) than the sharpenss. More specifically, it is the speed of transition between sharp subject and smooth OOF bokeh that attracts me to an image. If a lens is not very sharp and has lowsy bokeh than I find the image too busy and unclear. This is exactly the uncomfortable opinion I have come to regarding the Canon 50/1.4 after looking at many images wide open on various sample sites, and it is this that forced me to look elsewhere in the first place. Also, I noted that even at f/2, the best photos I'd seen from the 50/1.4 were conversions to black and white, in which the halation and flare had been removed to some extent to help reveal the underlying basic resolution of the image (I also noted that black and white resolution chart testers do seem to praise the 50/1.4 more than real-world users, and wondered if this might be the reason).
Anyway, good luck in your search for the 50/1.8 I.
|
