mawz wrote:
Is marginally better worth the difference? personally I don't think so. The 50/1.8 is the one EF lens everybody should own IMHO, even if you have a better 50.
I have owned two 50mm f1.8 in last one year, and end up selling both. Not sure whats the reason, those suckers never able to focus on point. To me, the quality control of those lenses are too cheap for shallow DOF of f1.8.
Although, I didnt find something really bad in lens... its just focussing issue which really a make or break issue to me....
If you like weired bokeh, this issue doesnt matter
I'm not saying the 50/1.4 isn't better than the 1.8. I'm just saying it's not $300 better. I've owned two of the EF 50/1.8 II's over the years and always have liked it.
I'd rather have a EF 50/1.8 and a adapted f1.4 or f1.2 solution than the 50/1.4 USM.
The 50/1.8 II's are a good deal new or used (They're only $80 or so new). The mkI version gets pricey and I'd rather just buy 2 mkII's than 1 mkI despite the mkI's better build.
debuggerus wrote:
Hmm, I had a different experience. I Find that both of my canon 50 1.4 are better in term of sharpness and bokeh than my 50 1.8 I and 50 1.8 II. I rarely used the 1.8s after I obtained the 1.4s. The only problem I had with one of the ef 50 1.4 was its AF stopped functioning after a while. With all that said, I dont use either EF 50mm anymore. I am using the rokkor 50 1.2/1.4 and SMC tak 50 1.4. Well, I am confusing you more...?
But in those you have to focus manualy, and in the 50mm range i wanted something that was more practical.
I already opened a process in Paypal because on the item description it was Zuiko and not H.Zuiko. Let's see what the seller have to say.
But i found a lens and don't know if it's any good. It's a Carl Zeiss 28/2.8 Jena Multi-coated Olympus mount. Is it good?
You can do better than a Carl Zeiss Jena, for similar money. The OM 28/3.5 or 28/2.8 should be similarly priced (well under $100)
Carl Zeiss Jena is the eastern German side of Zeiss, and was a different company through the Soviet years, producing decent optics that were not up to the newer Carl Zeiss AG designs.
Pedro Pedras wrote:
I saw an YUS Automatic 28mm/2.8 with the adaptor for $90. Is this any good? And the Yashika ML 50mm/1.4 with adaptor for $160, good?
Avoid YUS.... atleast at this price. I once tested YUS (I think its C/Y mount), Nikkor-H 28mm f2.8, Tamron Adapt-a-matic (old mount) 28mm f2.8 and Tamron AD-2 28mm f2.5. YUS was softest of all other. Surprisingly, old Tamron was not that bad. Nikkor and Adapt-All mount Tamron were the best.
ML lenses are best in Yashica brand. Rumor is, Yashica tried to copy Zeiss design for most of these lenses. But $160 for f1.4 lens... no way... If you really want f1.4, good and cheap... go for Sears/Mamiya/Tomiaka 55mm f1.4... (also found in Rolleinar brand).
mawz wrote:
You can do better than a Carl Zeiss Jena, for similar money. The OM 28/3.5 or 28/2.8 should be similarly priced (well under $100)
Carl Zeiss Jena is the eastern German side of Zeiss, and was a different company through the Soviet years, producing decent optics that were not up to the newer Carl Zeiss AG designs.
asbalyan wrote:
Avoid YUS.... atleast at this price. I once tested YUS (I think its C/Y mount), Nikkor-H 28mm f2.8, Tamron Adapt-a-matic (old mount) 28mm f2.8 and Tamron AD-2 28mm f2.5. YUS was softest of all other. Surprisingly, old Tamron was not that bad. Nikkor and Adapt-All mount Tamron were the best.
ML lenses are best in Yashica brand. Rumor is, Yashica tried to copy Zeiss design for most of these lenses. But $160 for f1.4 lens... no way... If you really want f1.4, good and cheap... go for Sears/Mamiya/Tomiaka 55mm f1.4... (also found in Rolleinar brand).
I've got the ML 28/2.8 (YUS in other markets). Complete dog despite being the 'high-end' Yashica line (DSB was their low-end). I use my AD-2 28/2.5 or just put my Zeiss 28-70 to 28mm.
But what you guys think about the lenses in the links above? Are they both multi-coated? Cause the one saying MC on the lens is much older than the other. But the more recent and more expensive one has in the description that it is a multi-coated. Can you guys help me please!!
Silentlight wrote:
Others have mentioned Zuiko 24/2.8... make sure it doesn't say H.Zuiko on it. The H.Zuiko wasn't multi-coated.
Well, i've been reading some sites and the H means that it is composed by 8 elements.
"G-Zuiko means there are 7 elements in its optical composition. (E=5, F=6, G=7, H=8, I=9; J=10, K=11). Some Zuikos show "AUTO-S" denoting the lense as a Standard, while AUTO-W and AUTO-T refer to Wideangle and Telephoto construction. All newer series of Zuiko dropped such classifications."
Some of them can be MC and some not. But the H doesn't mean that is or is not MC.
In my case the lens is not MC, not because of the H but because it doesn't have the MC on it.
If you do further research you will find some data showing that the EF 50/1.8 II is *better* in MTF than the EF 50/1.4 by f5.6 (http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/50mm/index.htm), at f2 they are essentially equal and in between I think it comes down to "look" more than anything else (and I more often prefer the look from the 1.8 in *my* real life photos)...
I think getting a 50/1.8 II + one or two alt lenses for less than the EF 50/1.4 is a much better deal. My main pair is the EF 50/1.8 II and Summicron 50 (plus a Super-Tak 50 for fast and more distinctive)... all three with adaptors cost barely more than just the EF 50/1.4 which I hated.
My 50/1.8 II is perfectly accurate in AF on every body I've shot it on (as was my MK I)... I think most people's problems with it are psychological...
One of the pages refered that some were and in that other forum one of them refer that only the ones above 185300 are MC. I canīt see the number on mine so i'll wait for it.
