Question about OM lens 50mm 1.2, 1.4, 1.8

[matt_mitchell]

<p>Forgive my ignorance here but I have an OM2 with a 50mm 1.4, and recently picked up a 55mm 1.2 (for $40. the seller thought it was a standard lens like a 50mm 1:2, instead of 1:1.2 - I was hoping I would eventually cash in on a mistake like that :) )<br>

Okay so the 1.2 has a really attractive big hole, is faster / lets in more light. But every time I read a review on a fast lens there always seems to be criticism and flaws of the photo quality when used wide open. So if this is this case, why would you have a 1.2 over the 1.4 or the 1.4 over the 1.8 if you are only shooting at f1.8 or higher? is there still an advantage to have the faster lens?<br>

The other question is if you are in a situation with low light , would it be better to use the 50mm 1.2 wide open with, say with 100 iso film, or a higher iso film and stop down the lens a little assuming you would have a shutter speed fast enough to take a photo hand held?<br>

Or is the extra f-stop just give a wider range of possibilities in shooting situations and not a quality advantage over the rest at smaller apertures? if so why are 50mm 1.2s / 1.4s held in higher esteem than 1.8? talking about standard lenses in general not specifically zuiko<br>

I hope people will see what I am trying to get at here even if I have not explained it well.</p>

 

[john gettis]

<p>One reason for a faster lens is that it is easier to focus in bad light. A faster lens lets more ight in so the image in the camera is brighter. john</p>

[tim_kohlman]

<p>I've never owned either of the f/1.2 lenses that olympus produce but I have several version of both the 50/1.4 and 50/1.8; I also have the 50/3.5 macro</p>

<p>I like the look of pushed film so It doesn't really bother me shooting stopped down, if there isn't enough light I just push it more. I tend to use the 50/1.8; it's sharper than the 50/1.4 that I have. the 3.5 is even better but hard to focus in low light because of the dim viewfinder image.</p>

<p>You know what I'd do in your situation? Shoot the same scene with both lenses wide open with your favourite 100iso film, and then shoot the same scene with your favourite 400iso film but stopped down a couple of stops. Compare the images and pick the one you like the best!</p>

[patrick j dempsey]

<p>In terms of f-stops, the old-school standard was f/2.8. One stop faster is f/2. f/1.8 became the standard a little while later and then f/1.4 became the faster option. f/1.4 is two stops faster than f/2.8. f/1.2 is only one stop faster than f/1.8. These are NOT huge leaps in terms of what film speed you need. You can pretty much be guaranteed that if you are in a situation that you need to shoot 1600 speed film, that there will be many darker places in the scene that you won't be able to shoot at all, no matter what lens you have. Remember that the fastest lens EVER MADE... f/0.9 Canon is still only two stops faster than f/1.8. Two stops is nothing in terms of light and real world lighting scenarios. And yet the price difference between f/1.8 and f/0.9 is easily several thousand dollars. </p>

<p>$40 for an f/1.2? That's a great bargain! And it would be a great bargain even for the f/1.4... let's face it, you got this lens at 10x less than the going rate! Is the f/1.2 going to preform any miracles? Probably not. I've personally found the f/1.4 virtually useless wide open as the DOF is so narrow that everything looks out of focus anyway... and it slows down shooting for me because I'm fussing with trying to get ANYTHING in focus instead of concentrating on composition. I can only imagine the f/1.2 being an order of magnitude more frustrating. Good luck with it, but honestly I think these super fast lenses are more collector's lenses than shooters... just my opinion.</p>

[pisq]

<p>Generally speaking, it would be true to say that the performance of a 50f1.2 would be better at 1.4, that a 50f1.4 would be. Similarly, a 50f1.4 would be better at f1.8. Stopping down the lens tends to help performance until f16 say, due to diffraction limitations.</p>

<p>I have found that to be true of the 55f1.2, at f2, it is very sharp and has good contrast, better sharpness than I get with the 50f1.8 at f1.8.</p>

<p>I think it all depends on how you use the lens, what you can accomplish...</p>

[william_white8]

<p>I've owned all three lenses.</p>

<p>the F1.2 is the best at all apertures that it shares with the other lenses. Plus, obviously is has F1.2. Yes, it is somewhat soft at F1.2, but the sort of photography you will be shooting at that aperture, who cares?</p>

[matthew_newton]

<p>I've heard differing things, but the 50mm f/1.2 is supposed to be the best 50 that Olympus made with the 50/1.8 Made In Japan (markings) being the next best in terms of sharpness at all aperatures. The 50/1.4 serial number > 1.1 million is the next best. From my testing the 50/1.8 MIJ is deffinitely better at f/1.8 then a 50/1.4 MC lens is at f/1.8 (and at f/2 and f/2.8 and after that there is no noticable difference between the two, the 50/1.4 is fine, the 50/1.8 MIJ is just better).<br>

In terms of the aperture, you have the advantage of brighter view finder along with being able to A) Use selectively shallower depth of field if the light isn't too bright, B) in low light situations have more shutter speed.<br>

In my experience, when needing ISO800 or 1600 film there are plenty of situations where an f/1.4 or 1.8 lens was okay, but some parts/times I need an f/1.2 lens (just as a contrast to needing a f/1.2 lens and some parts being to dark even for that).<br>

For most shooting, especially non-"I make money with my camera" photography I'd say save your money rather then get either of the 1.2 lenses (though you lucked out with $40 for a 55/1.2!), but if you have the spare change, one of the 1.2s isn't bad. One of these days I am going to try to lay my hands on a 50/1.2 (newer, sharper and 49mm filter thread).<br>

Most of my available light (IE tungsten/CFL lit) indoor shooting I find light levels are such that with ISO400 film I tend to need around f/1.4-f/2 and 1/60s shutter speed. So having f/1.2 available would occasionally let me bump the shutter speed to 1/125s or take pictures in somewhat dimmer interiors.</p>

[mrraz]

<p>Patrick, f/1.4 is just one stop faster then f/2.8 not 2.</p>

[jim_baker6]

<p>Errr...isn't the sequence f2.8, f2, f1.4...which makes 2 stops, I think!<br>

I share Patrick's concern about handling a lens at f1.2, although I have never handled an f1.2 lens. I find it a bit hit-and-miss when using a fast lens wide open. You have to be so careful that you risk missing the shot anyway. Also large totally-out-of-focus areas can look odd so you have to compose differently. I'm happy with my f1.8 even though it's not MiJ. The biggest effect on image quality comes from having a tripod. Bright conditions (=fast shutter speed) improve the image quality as well but the scene can be washed out. With my 50mm and 24mm lenses + a tripod I prefer 100 ASA. If I'm hand-held and using my 135mm or 200mm lenses, I prefer 400 ASA film. </p>

[matt_mitchell]

<p>Thanks for the answers so far, it has made things a little clearer in my mind</p>

[mrraz]

<p>Jim, f/2.8 to f/1.4 is still just one complete f/stop. f/2 is a half stop between the two up or down.</p>

<p>Matt, with some amount of practice you should be able to shoot handheld at a 30th wide open and get acceptable images. I know this can be done because I've done it with both Nikon F's and Olympus OM-1's.</p>

 

[david_carroll4]

<p>Sorry Glenn, the one stop progression is 1.0, 1.4, 2.0. 2.8. 4.0, 5.6 etc etc. f/2.0 is one stop less than f/1.4 and one stop more than f/2.8.</p>

[dan_b.4]

<p>Mr. Carroll is correct on the matter of f/stops. From 5.6, it goes to 8, then 11, 16, 22, etc. All you have to do is check them with your light meter, assuming it's working accurately.</p>

[patrick j dempsey]

<p>Shutter speed and ASA stops are one half, and aperture stops are x.72 or thereabouts. One stop is one half of the light. An f/stop is the ratio between the focal length and the diameter... and in a round-about way it relates to the area of the circle of the aperture, because diameter can be used to calculate area.</p>

<p>F = f/stop, fl = focal length, d = diameter, a = area, r = radius</p>

<p>F = fl / d or:<br /> d = fl / F<br /> r = d/2<br /> a = pi * r^2 or:<br /> a = (d/2)^2 * pi</p>

<p>If we swap out diameter for focal length over f/stop we get a simple formula that can be used to compare the area at different apertures:</p>

<p>a = ((fl/F)/2)^2 * pi</p>

<p>So, looking directly at the areas for the various f/stops:</p>

<p>50mm f/4 = 122.7 mm^2 ~ 125 mm^2<br /> 50mm f/2.8 = 250.5 mm^2 ~ 250 mm ^2<br /> 50mm f/2 = 490.9 mm^2 ~ 500 mm ^2<br /> 50mm f/1.4 = 1001.8 mm^2 ~ 1000 mm^2</p>

<p>As you can see, with each f/stop, the area of the circle of the aperture basically doubles. These numbers are not exact but apertures are not really circles and f/stops are not 100% accurate anyway. Motion picture lenses are actually calibrated in t/stops were the light is actually measured into stops where the area is exactly one half. So that is why f/stop numbers do not double the same way shutter speeds to.</p>

[ken_max__parks]

<p>Matt, you got one heck of a bargain lens. That lens sells used for more than $300.00, depending upon condition.<br /> <br /> I've used the the 50mm f/1.2 lens for years... and still use it on the Olympus E-3 and E-30. It's a great piece of glass, especially in low light conditions. And like everyone has reported, the lens offers greater view ability (more light) into your viewfinder.<br /> <br /> I'd never depart with this lens. And now that the focal length factor is 2X with the 4/3 DSLRs, this is a wonderful portrait lens at the 35mm equivalent of 110mm.<br /> <br /> Happy shooting!</p>

<p> </p>

[john_hermanson2]

<p>50mnm f1.8, multicoated with "made in Japan" on the name ring (as opposed to just "Japan") is the desirable one, the 50mm 1.4 above (I think) serial number 1,100,000 is the desirable MC one. All 50mm f1.2 are excellent (not to be confused with the single coated 55mm f1.2 from the 70s). I got a couple of the 50 1.2 in as part of a lens collection I bought from Olympus. John</p>

[jeff_guthrie]

<p>I like the 55/1.2 very much. I love the effects I get when shooting this lens wide open at close objects. I also use it a lot when shooting scenery at night; when focused to infinity, the narrow depth of field is not an issue. It's true that the Zuiko 55/1.2 is larger than the 50/1.2, but compared to Nikon and Canon lenses of the same type (and I have both), it is quite compact.</p>

 

[rogerjporter]

<p>I have the 55 1.2 also, and i adore it, enough that it's my standard lens on my Canon digital slr. that is quite a bargain, i think i paid 275 for mine and thought i got an amazing deal. I feel cheated now! I get a bit of a halo at 1.2 outdoors in the sun on white objects, the Leica forum guys call it the "Leica glow". At f4 or so it looks so sharp i am tempted to soften it some in photoshop! have fun with it!<br>