Zuiko 50 f/1.2 compared with others

[frederick_lau2]

Could anybody share with me his/her experience (not just opinions) or

sample photos of Zuiko 50 f/1.2 ?

Any information/experience with this Zuiko 50 f/1.2 compared with :

(a) Other Zuiko 50 & 55 ?

(b) Other SLR makes of 50/55 f/1.2 (e.g. Nikkor 50 f/1.2) ?

Thanks !

[richard_oleson]

I'd be interested in this too... I haven't had the Zuiko but I have a really nasty looking 50/1.5 AIS Nikkor (long story) and I was really surprised by it. I was expecting it to be a little soft, especially with visible coating damage on the front, but it's very sharp and surprisingly contrasty.

 

rick :)=

[lex_jenkins]

Try this site:

 

http://members.aol.com/olympusom/lenstests/default.htm

 

Besides tests - not opinions, but actual tests - of virtually all Zuiko lenses it also has tests of other camera brand and some third party lenses. Courtesy of Gary Reese.

[duane_kucheran]

FWIW here's a link to a number of comparisons:

 

http://frozenmoments.virtualave.net/LensTests/LensTestIndex007.htm

 

Cheers,

 

Duane

[mark_bouquet1]

Duane,

That link to lens comparison tests is interesting, but really very obsolete. All the Olympus 50mm lenses tested are old non-multicoated versions. The f/1.2 is actually the old 55mm model that preceded the more recent 50mm lens. It appears to me that a lot of the other manufacturer's lenses are also older production. It kind of seems like the page creators took some ancient lens test data and made a webpage from it.

[frederick_lau]

The web links above lead to test data and charts. I do appreciate people putting effort in obtaining and publishing them.

In fact I use them as one of the many reference to decide on selecting lenses.

However, I do believe that lens optics is complex and it is not easy to quantify a lens' characteristics/quality by a few data points.

My feeling is, even in the camera lens industry, it is not an easy task to describe how a lens will behave using a few parameters.

(Just think of the vast numbers of parameters : different focussing distances, different apertures, different aberrations, colour transmissions, etc , many of them depend on each other).

For this posting I am expecting contributions from users who have non-trivial (not nominal) experience with this Zuiko 50 f/1.2 plus other 50mm (e.g. f/1.4; f/1.8 or other brand's 50mm f1.2).

I am still open for feedback.

[fast_primes]

Frederick,

 

I own or owned all the other OM 50mm lenses (including the older 55F1.2) except the 50F2.0 Macro. That said, the 50F1.2 been my main normal for the past 3 years. It's as sharp as a late model 50F1.4MC (serial number > 900K), slightly sharper than the older "blacknose"/non-thorium 55F1.2 (the 55 is still a sharp lens), but a 50F3.MC macro that I once had, did edge out a slightly more crystalline sharpness using Kodachrome.

 

In terms of "bokeh", it's the best of the OM 50s--giving a smoother and creamier background than any of the rest. I suspect it beats the fabled 50F2.0 macro in this regard also, as it only has 6 diaphragm blades (to the 50F1.2's 8) and others have termed the macro's bokeh "complex". This is a very subjective aspect, but an important one to me.

 

Wide open, I find it sharp with no noticeable fall off, but the Canon 50F1.2 "L" lens (8 elements, aspheric surface and floating element overkill design) is distinctly sharper wide open, but the OM still has better bokeh. The 50F1.2 also matches the OM 50F1.4MC wide open, IMHO! Stopped down, it's a match for most other 50s.

 

Lastly keep in mind, it's incredibly petite and inconspicuous for such a well behaved fast lens, with ONLY a 49mm filter thread! I highly recommend it!

[frederick_lau2]

FAST PRIMES,

 

Thanks for your sharing.

 

Do you have some typical photo to show us ?

[robert_gries]

I have recently been using the 50/1.2 with excellent results. Quite sharp from edge to edge and really nice after f2. Wide open it is a bit soft, but supposedly somewhere between f1.2 and f2 it starts to behave well.

 

Bokeh is great, but it does have a tendancy to get "bubbly" in the highlights when used close to wide open. I hope to have some scans of some recent work soon.

 

I can also mention that it does not have the "double line" bokeh like the 50/1.4 does. I think in tests the 50/1.4 may be sharper at f2 and wide open, but the 50/1.2 has a special "look" that I enjoy.

 

I have also used the 50/1.8, 50/1.4, 50/3.5 and 50/2 lenses. I prefer the 50/1.2 for size and weight over the 50/2, but this lens is quite nice. An example:

 

http://www.nothingrhymeswithorange.com/gries/Asides/MA-PL-01.jpg

 

and one with available light at f2:

 

http://www.nothingrhymeswithorange.com/gries/Asides/MA-PL-03.jpg

 

You can't go wrong with the 50/1.2.

[robert_gries]

also, check out these images from another Olympus List member C.H. Ling:

 

http://www.accura.com.hk/5012.jpg (at f1.2)

 

http://www.accura.com.hk/5007.jpg (at f4)

[alan_krantz]

Yuck. The 007 picture has very disturbing 'bookeh'. If this is the nature of the 50 f/1.2 lens it would drive me batty... Do you not agree ?

[robert_gries]

Not really. I don't know of any other lens that would have rendered such bright elements in the background at that DoF. I am quite happy with the 50/1.2 and find that the few peculiarities don't come close to its more favorable characteristics.

[robert_gries]

Some more 50/1.2 shots are here:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=368106

 

Apologies for the crap scans. They were made on a flat bed from the 4R prints.

 

What I refer to as the "bubbles" aren't quite as noticable in these conditions.