50mm f1.8?

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
Skip M wrote:

"Stacey" wrote in message


Is the 50 f1.4 any better wide open? Just curious as I know the old OM
50mm
f1.4 I have isn't as sharp as the 50 f1.8 at f1.8.

--

Stacey

The f1.4 isn't much, if any, better wide open, but it is slightly better
at f1.8 than the 50mm f1.8 is.



Thanx, several people had posted here that this 50mm f1.8 was "sharp" wide
open, nice to know the truth.
--

Stacey

Well, Stacey, it's about as sharp as a sub-$100 fast lens can be expected to
be, wide open or not. It is certainly "sharp enough" for most people, and
for those it's not, there's the f1.4, which costs nearly 4x as much. I've
never met a fast lens that was as sharp wide open as it is stopped down,
even moderately, and that includes my Schneider 50mm f2 for my old Exacta.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Well if anybody actually cares what this lens can do here are two
photos. The first is taken wide open, and I have said earlier it is
soft when wide open, but very useable. BTW this opens up my rather
eclectic book collecting to the world for viewing.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image...6/original,jpg
This next photo was taken at f 2.5 and looks pretty sharp to my eye.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image...0/original.jpg

Scott

Skip M wrote:

I've
never met a fast lens that was as sharp wide open as it is stopped down,
even moderately, and that includes my Schneider 50mm f2 for my old Exacta.


I've seen a few that were real close, the 180mm F2.8 sonar is one, the
Schneider 150mm F4 tele-xenar is and my new 11-22 ZD is another. This 50
f1.8 doesn't even look close... Fast lenses and -useable- fast lenses are 2
different things.
--

Stacey

rafe bustin wrote:


Horowitz and Hill. Right up there
with Betty Crocker, Scott Adams and
Mary Shelley. Nice collection,
but needs more fiction.

I have way too much fiction to fit on the bookcase, it is in other
shelves.

Scott

David J. Littleboy wrote:


and is on a crusade to prove that Canon is junk.


LOL Now that's funny!

You and Rafe post to EVERY olympus thread, even started several bad mouthing
them yourself about how useless they are and why any canon is SO much
better. You used this specific lens as an example of how much better a
canon is because it's .2f faster than the olympus version? Then said it's
"high quality is wideely post6ed on the net" so I was curious since you
said how good it is wide open that I looked for some real info and this was
what I found. Seems what you said and the truth don't quite agree?

The "crusade" seems to be canon owners bashing anything non-canon made
because only an idiot would buy something different from what they chose
and there can't be ANYTHING not absolutely perfect about what they own!

I'm done. Please feel free to attack anything you don't own as poor quality
since this somehow helps your self esteem. I was hopeing at one point to
try to explain why -SOME- people might enjoy something besides a canon. I
can see that's a waste of my time, enjoy cleaning your sensor...
--

Stacey

David J. Littleboy wrote:


and is on a crusade to prove that Canon is junk.


LOL Now that's funny!

You and Rafe post to EVERY olympus thread, even started several bad mouthing
them yourself about how useless they are and why any canon is SO much
better. You used this specific lens as an example of how much better a
canon is because it's .2f faster than the olympus version? Then said it's
"high quality is wideely post6ed on the net" so I was curious since you
said how good it is wide open that I looked for some real info and this was
what I found. Seems what you said and the truth don't quite agree?

The "crusade" seems to be canon owners bashing anything non-canon made
because only an idiot would buy something different from what they chose
and there can't be ANYTHING not absolutely perfect about what they own!

I'm done. Please feel free to attack anything you don't own as poor quality
since this somehow helps your self esteem. I was hopeing at one point to
try to explain why -SOME- people might enjoy something besides a canon. I
can see that's a waste of my time, enjoy cleaning your sensor...
--

Stacey

On 21 Feb 2005 20:15:07 -0800, "Scott W" wrote:

Well if anybody actually cares what this lens can do here are two
photos. The first is taken wide open, and I have said earlier it is
soft when wide open, but very useable. BTW this opens up my rather
eclectic book collecting to the world for viewing.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image...6/original,jpg
This next photo was taken at f 2.5 and looks pretty sharp to my eye.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image...0/original.jpg



Horowitz and Hill. Right up there
with Betty Crocker, Scott Adams and
Mary Shelley. Nice collection,
but needs more fiction.



rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

"Stacey" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:

and is on a crusade to prove that Canon is junk.

LOL Now that's funny!

You're the one who came up with the irreproducable results that the E300
"looked like medium format" and Canon images were "waxy".

Those are both completely ridiculous. So you've started out badly.

You and Rafe post to EVERY olympus thread, even started several bad
mouthing
them yourself about how useless they are and why any canon is SO much
better. You used this specific lens as an example of how much better a
canon is because it's .2f faster than the olympus version?

Not me. I didn't mention the 50/1.8, only the 50/1.4. And only with the
concept that in conjunction with the faster sensor it's two stops faster
than anything Oly offers.

If you want to compare f/2.0 lenses wide open, try the Canon 100/2.0. The
Canon 50mm lenses are designed as normal angle of view lenses, so the Oly
lens has a lot easier time of it.

As I've pointed out, the 4/3 idea is a good idea: smaller format lenses
always perform better in lp/mm terms (but _not_ lph terms) than larger
format lenses. If you got your facts right and understood the advantages
(and disadvantages) of the 4/3 format, there is an argument for it. (In
particular, moving to a larger format runs into diminishing returns, so the
smaller format is often not as bad as the geometry predicts.) You haven't
made that argument, though.

Then said it's
"high quality is wideely post6ed on the net" so I was curious since you
said how good it is wide open that I looked for some real info and this
was
what I found. Seems what you said and the truth don't quite agree?

The 50/1.4 is a lovely portrait lens at f/1.4 and provides low-light
performance the E300 can't dream of. And stopped down, it's one of the best
lenses you can buy for any camera for any amount of money. Oly has nothing
close.

The "crusade" seems to be canon owners bashing anything non-canon made
because only an idiot would buy something different from what they chose
and there can't be ANYTHING not absolutely perfect about what they own!

The Canon fans are irritated at how badly certain 4/3 fans have got it.

There's a gaping hole between APS-C and 6.6x8.8mm, and filling it makes
sense. Claiming that a smaller sensor is anything other that a convenience
for image quality tradeoff though, is simply contrary to fact.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"Stacey" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:

and is on a crusade to prove that Canon is junk.

LOL Now that's funny!

You're the one who came up with the irreproducable results that the E300
"looked like medium format" and Canon images were "waxy".

Those are both completely ridiculous. So you've started out badly.

You and Rafe post to EVERY olympus thread, even started several bad
mouthing
them yourself about how useless they are and why any canon is SO much
better. You used this specific lens as an example of how much better a
canon is because it's .2f faster than the olympus version?

Not me. I didn't mention the 50/1.8, only the 50/1.4. And only with the
concept that in conjunction with the faster sensor it's two stops faster
than anything Oly offers.

If you want to compare f/2.0 lenses wide open, try the Canon 100/2.0. The
Canon 50mm lenses are designed as normal angle of view lenses, so the Oly
lens has a lot easier time of it.

As I've pointed out, the 4/3 idea is a good idea: smaller format lenses
always perform better in lp/mm terms (but _not_ lph terms) than larger
format lenses. If you got your facts right and understood the advantages
(and disadvantages) of the 4/3 format, there is an argument for it. (In
particular, moving to a larger format runs into diminishing returns, so the
smaller format is often not as bad as the geometry predicts.) You haven't
made that argument, though.

Then said it's
"high quality is wideely post6ed on the net" so I was curious since you
said how good it is wide open that I looked for some real info and this
was
what I found. Seems what you said and the truth don't quite agree?

The 50/1.4 is a lovely portrait lens at f/1.4 and provides low-light
performance the E300 can't dream of. And stopped down, it's one of the best
lenses you can buy for any camera for any amount of money. Oly has nothing
close.

The "crusade" seems to be canon owners bashing anything non-canon made
because only an idiot would buy something different from what they chose
and there can't be ANYTHING not absolutely perfect about what they own!

The Canon fans are irritated at how badly certain 4/3 fans have got it.

There's a gaping hole between APS-C and 6.6x8.8mm, and filling it makes
sense. Claiming that a smaller sensor is anything other that a convenience
for image quality tradeoff though, is simply contrary to fact.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Stacey wrote:

The "crusade" seems to be canon owners bashing anything non-canon
made
because only an idiot would buy something different from what they
chose
and there can't be ANYTHING not absolutely perfect about what they
own!


Is that what this whole thread is about? Canon vs. Olymus?

There is nothing wrong with the E300, a fine camera that can take great
photos.... of course it is not a 20D

Ok I am sorry for that, really. The E300 really does look like a
pretty good camera, and for $700 a real bargin. It is really unfair to
compare it to the 20D, which costs almost twice as much.

But if my choice were between a film 35mm and the E300 I would go for
the E300 in a heart beat. The E300 is a great camera because it does
give a alternative to the rather costly Canon DSLRs. And in the end it
might well have more of an impact of digital photography then Canon's
cameras.

Scott