mynikonf2
OEM
OK, here it is...
We have heard it said that the 50/1.4, with serial # over 1.1 mill., is a better lens (sharpness?, color rendition?, contrast?, light fall-off in the corners?) than the earlier 50/1.4's so let's see it. Show us the proof of it with photos. We're looking for those shots that best represent the weakness of the early 50/1.4's verses those that demonstrate the strengths of the late 50/1.4's.
We have heard it said that the 50/1.4, with serial # over 1.1 mill., is a better lens (sharpness?, color rendition?, contrast?, light fall-off in the corners?) than the earlier 50/1.4's so let's see it. Show us the proof of it with photos. We're looking for those shots that best represent the weakness of the early 50/1.4's verses those that demonstrate the strengths of the late 50/1.4's.
Spyderman
Well-known
I doubt you could tell by photos which is from early silver nose, later SC, early MC and >1.1mil.
The differences are usually so small, that it takes comparissons of large prints / 100% scans to see them.
For example I have an early MC version, with serial just a few samples over 1mil. and i'm absolutely satisfied with it. And sorry but I don't have any pictures at hand at the moment. I may post some when I get home.
The differences are usually so small, that it takes comparissons of large prints / 100% scans to see them.
For example I have an early MC version, with serial just a few samples over 1mil. and i'm absolutely satisfied with it. And sorry but I don't have any pictures at hand at the moment. I may post some when I get home.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
To do the comparison properly, someone would have to have a sample of each version (since there are more than one pre-1.1M version,) and have controlled conditions. Even so, I'm looking forward to this!
One of my 50/1.4s is ~600K serial number (MC, I think -- don't have it with me,) and I am happy with it.
One of my 50/1.4s is ~600K serial number (MC, I think -- don't have it with me,) and I am happy with it.
George S.
How many is enough?
I still propose that it may be difficult to come to any conclusive declaration as to which version of which, by now, 30 year old lens is "better". Even if you just decide to concentrate on say, sharpness- by now so many years have gone by and unless whomever is doing the test has owned all versions since new and stored them in exactly the same conditions, there's bound to be some difference between lens # 998700 and #1000002 if they were stored in different climates and one owner was attentive and one just tossed it in a drawer for 15 years and forgot about it. And what about sample vairiation with regard to haze, dust, or which anal retentive gear fondler cleaned a front element too aggressively for the past 15 years and maybe wore off 80% of the coatings? It would be impossible to tell. Adding to the mix whether or not one lens or the other had had a CLA 1, 5, or 10 years in the past ( and just who did that CLA? Was it John Hermanson- a top notch Olympus tech, or someone's drunk Uncle Bill? ) could further muck up any comparison so that you maybe couldn't come up with a "definitive" rating or ranking. (IMO)
You certainly may be able to say that this 50/1.4 is sharper than that 50/1.2, but I don't think that after this much time using only one example of each lens, with storage and condition variation you could definitively say that all 50/1.4s are this much sharper than all 50/1.2s, etc.
I take all ratings with a grain of salt and just try to get a very clean example of a particular lens that I'm interested in and try it out myself to see if it gives me what I'm looking for. Heck, what lens works for me in portraiture may not work for you in macro or shooting stage performances. If I hate it, it just goes back on fleabay.
You certainly may be able to say that this 50/1.4 is sharper than that 50/1.2, but I don't think that after this much time using only one example of each lens, with storage and condition variation you could definitively say that all 50/1.4s are this much sharper than all 50/1.2s, etc.
I take all ratings with a grain of salt and just try to get a very clean example of a particular lens that I'm interested in and try it out myself to see if it gives me what I'm looking for. Heck, what lens works for me in portraiture may not work for you in macro or shooting stage performances. If I hate it, it just goes back on fleabay.
Last edited:
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
George: Yup. In the end, it's the photos that a photographer makes that count.
With 50/1.4 SN ~ 600K, Tri-X pushed ... to 1600 I think
Uncropped:
100% crop:
With 50/1.4 SN ~ 600K, Tri-X pushed ... to 1600 I think
Uncropped:
100% crop:
jesse1dog
Light Catcher
And there seems to be a big difference in price developing between 50mm f1.4 lenses before and after the 'magic' 1100000 number. This evening on eBay one of the big number versions has just gone for £78+, and that's after an 'immaculate' dealer version went for bin £69 just a few days back. I've been plotting prices over the last few weeks and low numbered lenses seem to have reached anything from £38 to £53. Now I reckon that's a pretty big difference between the low and high numbered versions. It must be worth it to someone but are the results going to be that much better, if better at all?
George S.
How many is enough?
Wow Trius, the in-focus hand and pencil really jumps out of the background, kind of what the Leica snobs are always crowing about. 
I always said Zuiko glass is as good as anything. And at a little less than 3K per lens too!
I always said Zuiko glass is as good as anything. And at a little less than 3K per lens too!
FrankS
Registered User
http://omexperience.wordpress.com/comparisons-thoughts-misc/zuiko-50mm-shoot-out/
i think this site has testing info on the zuiko 50's.
i think this site has testing info on the zuiko 50's.
mynikonf2
OEM
Yes, I agree. The reason for posting this thread, was that I wanted to see the supporting evidence for the claim of superiority of the 1.1 mill. 50/1.4.
Are they better at producing images whose "superiority" can be readily observed by the untrained eye? If I can only see a dicernable difference is by the photographing of brick walls or the magnifying of the edges of leaves, branches & flowers, then is it really worth extra money for photography or is it for the prestige ownership?
Do I own the best for the right reason? :angel:
PatrickT
New Rangefinder User
I have to say that while I have never used a >1.1mil 50/1.4, I am INCREDIBLY happy with my sub 1.1mil 50. No 100% crops, but you can see all of the ones I have online here:
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=50/1.4&w=84341102@N00&s=int
Note that these were all taken on a 5D through an adapter.
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=50/1.4&w=84341102@N00&s=int
Note that these were all taken on a 5D through an adapter.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Well, I think there IS some evidence in that Gary Reese's tests showed slightly better results from the >1.1M 50/1.4. But his tests didn't account for sample variation.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
As if we are really going to see any real difference in web posted images ... c'mon now!
There may be some subtle variations in contrast and sharpness but everyone post processes differently so unless we have one individual with both lenses who is prepared to spend some time with a tripod under controlled conditions ... then produce drum scans from the same roll of film and upload them for us all to examine we're not going to achieve anything.
Except of course to perpuate the myth that the late lens is better than the early version and thus drive the prices higher still!
Are we in danger of becoming as obsessive about lens signature as our over zealous Leica brothers and sisters? I hope not ... I thought we had more sense and just enjoyed using our equipment!
There may be some subtle variations in contrast and sharpness but everyone post processes differently so unless we have one individual with both lenses who is prepared to spend some time with a tripod under controlled conditions ... then produce drum scans from the same roll of film and upload them for us all to examine we're not going to achieve anything.
Except of course to perpuate the myth that the late lens is better than the early version and thus drive the prices higher still!
Are we in danger of becoming as obsessive about lens signature as our over zealous Leica brothers and sisters? I hope not ... I thought we had more sense and just enjoyed using our equipment!
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I could see a big difference between one with a serial in the 650,000 range and my 1.1+ lenses, of which I have two. My older lens may have been a bad sample, but it really wasn't a bad lens, it was good until you compared it to the newer one.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
A couple of samples from my early version to amuse us in the meantime, both at f1.4 from memory ... if someone wants to send me their later '+mil' version I'll go back and shoot the same photos!
serial number ... #379215
serial number ... #379215
serial number ... #379215
serial number ... #379215
Last edited:
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Yeah, a web-based evaluation is fairly useless. Gimme identical shots printed on fibre-base glossy.