Jonas B
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
mawz wrote:
The ZD version is if anything the better of the two, but is unsuitable for adaptation due to having an electronically controlled aperture and focus, a short register (~38mm) and low coverage (4/3rds only).
It's still an excellent price for an excellent lens with only one significant weakness. Like the other early 4/3rds lenses the focus-by-wire system has poor resolution resulting in imprecise manual focus. The later 4/3rds lenses from Olympus have finer control over manual focusing and are therefore much nicer to work with in MF mode.
This discussion is off topic of course, but the whacko focus-by-wire system on the ZD50/2 Macro is why I prefer to use the Zuiko OM50/2 Macro also on my G1.
Optically these two lenses are pretty similar. The OM version is a tad "sharper" wide open then ZD version (my two copies compared) and the manual focusing is so much better. It's unfortunate for a macro lens having thad bad MF. The ZD has a tad better contrast, or less flare, and it is weather shielded.
The ZD weakness(es) is not only the MF but also the AF. It is rightly considered as "very slow" to AF. The main problem is that there is no focus limiter. Both versions suffer from longitudinal CA (or if it is defocus CA nowadays).
Olympus will probably make a µ4/3 version of the ZD50/2. I hope they have changed the MF system and added a focus limiter. Hmm, Olympus always made excellent macro lenses.
/Jonas
|
