brainiac wrote:
Especially because snow flakes are hexagonal.
That was my point (of quote and posting of pic).... Initially I used to take same approach (only round...).... but now I am finding that is just a small part of bigger picture...
I love this lens, esp stopped down... as "brainiac" mentioned, sometimes provide the real picture..
htbyron wrote:
OM Zuiko 50mm f/1.2 on 20D:
An old shot, but one of my favorites with this lens. Wide open, IIRC.
How do you like the OM 50/1.2? I had the 55/1.2 and it wasn't sharp enough for me wide open.
TWoK wrote:
How do you like the OM 50/1.2? I had the 55/1.2 and it wasn't sharp enough for me wide open.
I like it a lot as a low-light lens with an old-school feel to it. Like my other zuikos, it is comparatively small and light with great build quality and usability. It was also quite inexpensive -- I think I paid under $250. Bokeh is not nearly as nice as the Rokkor, from what I've seen of samples in this thread and the AIT. But the price and adaptability are better from my perspective. It's a decent compromise, for me.
I find it hard to judge sharpness wide open. Until a month ago, I was shooting with a 20D and struggled to get focus nailed down with the tiny VF. Even now, with the 5DII, I find it difficult to discern the exact plane of focus, so I attribute some softness to my own focusing errors, combined with the very narrow DoF.
The OOF areas and highlights are not as pleasing to me as many of the Rokkor shots I have seen recently. But it's still nice, and at least as good as the Canon EF 50/1.4 I had for many years (which broke twice!).
I don't have access to 100% crops at the office, but I could post some later if folks are interested. The other images in that gallery of the lone sailor were also taken with the 50/1.2.
Have you compared it's low light performance next to any other fast lenses? I also found after checking several OM 55/1.2s that the are closer to a t/2.2-2.8 and thus were not very good for low light.
TWoK wrote:
Have you compared it's low light performance next to any other fast lenses? I also found after checking several OM 55/1.2s that the are closer to a t/2.2-2.8 and thus were not very good for low light.
Hmmm, that's the first I've heard of that. Remember, the 50 & 55 are quite different lenses based on what I've read. I think I did some tests against my EF 50/1.4 when I first got the Zuiko. I'll have to see if I saved the files. The EF prime has since died, so I would have to borrow another lens to compare.
TWoK wrote:
Have you compared it's low light performance next to any other fast lenses? I also found after checking several OM 55/1.2s that the are closer to a t/2.2-2.8 and thus were not very good for low light.
I went back to some test shots I did in my backyard when I got the OM 50/1.2, comparing it with my EF 50/1.4. I got shutter speeds of 1/2500 @ f/1.4 on the EF lens, and 1/3200 at f/1.2 on the OM lewns, so I believe it is faster than f/1.4
I've tested my Zuiko 50/1.2 against a half a dozen 50/1.4's and it was as fast as spec'd, or faster, relative to every 50/1.4 wide open.
htbyron wrote:
I went back to some test shots I did in my backyard when I got the OM 50/1.2, comparing it with my EF 50/1.4. I got shutter speeds of 1/2500 @ f/1.4 on the EF lens, and 1/3200 at f/1.2 on the OM lewns, so I believe it is faster than f/1.4
cogitech wrote:
Very nice Jay. I'd love to see many more samples from that lens!
Thanks Paul. When I get a chance I'll post a few more maybe in the Alt Image thread. I was just thinking about selling this lens since I picked up the 135L. Maybe I should reconsider
Sirfishalot wrote:
Thanks Paul. When I get a chance I'll post a few more maybe in the Alt Image thread. I was just thinking about selling this lens since I picked up the 135L. Maybe I should reconsider
JayT
Something tells me the L is better and more practical.
