> Jim Davis [mailto:ydavis@;hkg.odn.ne.jp] wrote: > No, the 'pseudo-focus ring' is on the end of the 1.8 Mk.II lens, a > really poor position I think. And it's not so hot optically wide open > either...
I presume you mean relative to the 50/1.4? My understanding was that the Mk.I and Mk.II 50/1.8 were optically identical. FWIW, I have the 50/1.8 Mk.II. It has a very flimsy, plasticcy "feel" to it, though its results are compensatory (though I have only rarely shot wide open). For AUS$155, and keeping in mind it was my first prime, I figured that if I liked it, and in a few years it broke (and hey, in a few years it might be still as good as new!), then I'd replace it. I'd replace it with the 50/1.4, and be a snob with you too, Jim! ;-) Of course, I've a Zuiko 50/1.4 on my Olympus OM1, so I'd have to manipulate myself about the definition of the word "need" <g> I'd still recommend the Mk.II (or Mk.II if that's your poison) to anyone looking who's unsure whether they're going to use a 50 prime much, especially if you're coming from a 28-80 or 28-90 "kit" lens like I was. The limited "range" is surprisingly liberating, and the cost compared to the 50/1.4 was tiny for me (see comments below). > The 50/1.8 Mk.I was actually 15,000 yen and since it doesn't have USM > and FTM, and the like new 50/1.4 beside it was only 31,000 yen, and > I'd sworn only to buy USM lenses, I bit the bullet and got the better > lens. I'm going from memory, but I believe the 50/1.8 Mk.I was AUS$155, but the 50/1.4 was over AUS$600 at the time, so you're talking four 1.8's to each 1.4. New prices these, of course. Cheers Marc Sydney, Oz * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
