Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
amin_sabet said:
I like that portrait, its background rendering is just like I've gotten from that lens shooting people with sky and trees in the background. I wish Olympus made 50s that had such nice bokeh
warren1960
Warren
Only the early version of the 55/1.2 has rare earth elements. The presence or lack of the yellow cast is probably a good indicator of which is which (better than "silver" vs. "black" nose.) Obviously if you scan or use it on a DSLR, the yellow tint can be addressed with software.
The softness of the 55 wide open can be a very creative tool. Especially for portraiture on a small frame DSLR, you end up with a very nice 90-110mm equivalent.
On an OM bod, you also get the twin-vision effect that the "long standard" 55-58mm gives . . . objects seen through the VF look the same as they do from the "air" through the other eye. (Not unlike another well known camera . . . )
The softness of the 55 wide open can be a very creative tool. Especially for portraiture on a small frame DSLR, you end up with a very nice 90-110mm equivalent.
On an OM bod, you also get the twin-vision effect that the "long standard" 55-58mm gives . . . objects seen through the VF look the same as they do from the "air" through the other eye. (Not unlike another well known camera . . . )
foto_fool
Well-known
Amin - nice shot with the 40/2. You should post it to the bokeh thread, or better yet - to the "lenses with 3D effect" thread 
. I like the tonality and texture. Film used? (or did I miss it on the flikr page).
. I like the tonality and texture. Film used? (or did I miss it on the flikr page).
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Warren: That's a good point. That's probably why I like my Helios 44M (M42 mount) ... I like shooting with wides, but there are times when I really like the "long normal". And yeah, the 50 DR on my M3 was very sweet to shoot.
Peter_Jones
Well-known
It is rumoured that the yellowing of the 55/1.2 OM lens will reduce if exposed to bright sunlight for a few hours , or a few trips to the sunbed
I believe the later 55/1.2 was non-radioactive.
I believe the later 55/1.2 was non-radioactive.
amin_sabet
Established
Chris and John, thanks for the nice comments. John, I used Ilford XP2 400. I'm going to go find that "lenses with 3D effect" John mentioned. Sounds like a great thread!
Prosaic
Well-known
To my eyes the 55/1.2 does pretty well:
http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=2059140003&size=o
(Not my picture, found in a quick search)
http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=2059140003&size=o
(Not my picture, found in a quick search)
crawdiddy
qu'est-ce que c'est?
warren1960 said:
I have a Canon FD 55mm f/1.2 lens, and I'm curious if anyone knows whether Canon also used rare earth elements in their version? I don't notice any yellowish cast. Btw, the Canon 55mm 1.2 lens is very nice, and I purchased it on ebay for about $140 2 years ago. A real bargain. The lens is super sharp, with creamy OOF elements.
As another aside, why were there so many 55mm standard lenses in the 60s-70s, to be pretty much eclipsed by 50mm later on? It seems that multiple lens makers went through the same transition.
Last edited:
foto_fool
Well-known
crawdiddy said:
I would agree with this take on the Canon 55/1.2 FD - I can't do a side-by side comparison, but the images I'm making with this lens have a better "look" than the few I made with the Zuiko 55/1.2.
I've seen some discussion that the first "silver nose" version of the 55/1.2 used a thorium glass rear element, but that was the only 55 to do so. The earlier 58/1.2 and the early 35/2.0 also did.
Someone else will have to take a stab at the question about the 55mm being supplanted by the 50mm focal length. I've read some on the subject but not enough to give an authoritative answer. My shallow understanding is that the glass formulations improved, making it possible to do things with the shorter focal lengths that couldn't be done when the speed wars first heated up.
And I've read that the change was not that large, as most "50mm" SLR lenses are actually 52mm or 53mm.
Chris101
summicronia
I do that now!Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Chris101 said:
I stopped years ago. After I graduated from art school I have never earned enough money to live (except for my time in Santa Fe) because people with art degrees are unemployable in Indiana. The cameras I have are good enough, I don't worry about getting anything else. I'm happy if I got to eat today and get to see my son a few days a week.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
I've been wondering ... Indiana? Yeah, it's pretty much a desert for artists. And Ft. Wayne is ... well, not exactly Indiana's artistic hotspot. Unless you consider RVs an art form. Maybe move to Brown County?
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Trius said:
There's nothing in Brown County. In the fall a lot of artists and photographers go there to paint/draw/photograph the beautiful fall trees in the Hoosier National Forest. That's the sum total of the art scene there. Fort Wayne actually has a pretty vibrant art scene. There's a very nice art museum, a nonprofit community gallery that shows work from all over the country, and 4 or 5 commercial galleries. The problem is, none of this pays artists. Unless the city is a place where so much fine art is bought and sold that an artist can live off such sales, artist need jobs. I think New York, LA, and San Francisco are about it as far as places art sells that much. A lot of art sells in Santa Fe too but most of the artists there are trustfund babies, not fulltime professionals. From what I was able to find out in my time there, few Santa Fe artists make any real money. The galleries make the money, the artists live off their family's money. My family is not wealthy, and I have to earn my living. In many medium to large cities artists work as graphic designers, teachers, and even many work in totally un-artistic fields like selling insurance. Not in Indiana. There an art degree makes you unemployable for ANYTHING but graphic design jobs, and they're not hiring.
Why do I stay here, why did I come back? For my son. He's 10 yrs old and his mother is a mental case. Getting custody of him would cost me, my attorney has told me, probably $7000 and a few years of court fights during which my ex would probably refuse to let me see him and the courts here won't make her. As it is now she lets me spend as much time as I want with him and i missed him too much when I was in NM. He spent part of the summer there with me and I visited Indiana a couple times but the costs of all that travel killed me.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Chris: All the best. You certainly have your priorities straight. Sometime I'll stop in Ft. Wayne and the coffee's on me.
foto_fool
Well-known
Hang in there for that 10-year-old, Chris. He'll remember it later, and be a better man for it himself.
wintoid
Back to film
plummerl
Well-known
Chris, I thought I remembered the same thing. However, I just peeked at the back of a Modern Photography from Sept. 1984. I was rather astonished at what I found (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2465/3894583652_0e66d8fd5b_o.jpg) (this is an ad for B&H Photo). The 50/1.2 is listed at $179, which would be $371 today. Of course, even that price, in those days was probably a big chunk of change.
Last edited:
pagpow
Well-known
Chris -- do you think this is true of all the 1.8 and 1.4 Zuiko 50s, including the MIOJ 1.8 and the 1.4 above 1.1M also?
I'm presuming the picture of the young man you've posted later in this thread is of your son? shot w. one of the 50s?
All the best.
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
I've been looking at my little OM kit and thinking I'd like to add a few lenses - the 50/1.2 is one, along with a 35/2 and 90/2. I already have a 24/2.8 and 135/3.5, so I would be set unless I wanted to stretch to a 180/2.8.
But I think a 50/1.2 is first on the list!
But I think a 50/1.2 is first on the list!
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
The photo of my son looking at a snail in a jar was shot with a Nikon D70 and 28mm f3.8D AF-Nikkor. I used it because someone asked why I was back in Indiana starving when I could have been making good money in Santa Fe. He's the reason! I got custody of him last year after the state institutionalized his mother.
About the Zuiko lenses: The 50/1.8 MIJ version has hideous bokeh, but the lens is incredibly sharp. I use mine when I am shooting things at small apertures so that bokeh is not an issue, because the lens is VERY sharp. I think the 50/1.4 with the 1.1+ million serial number is a pretty nice lens. It is very sharp and has pretty good bokeh. Its my normal everyday use 50 on my Olympus cameras. It is a huge improvement over the earlier 50/1.4 that i had. That was a black-nose lens with a serial around 600,000. It had harsher bokeh, though not as bad as the MIJ 1.8, and was not as sharp as the later f1.4, especially wide open.
Here's some shots with the 1.1+million 50/1.4
My son at age 11, shot at about f5.6 I think
My grandpa's dog. Shot at f2 or 1.4, I forget! Focused on his eye.
Grandpa's 18 yr old cat, Molly. Shot at f8, I think.
A little drawing by one of my young cousins, who was 6 yrs old. Hanging on the window at Grandpa's house a couple weeks after he died. Shot at f2.8