clivengu: i mentioned on top, that zuiko is olympus system's lens. it has 2.0x crop factor, means the DOF also 2stop more... hence, the result out from that F2 lens is = FF at F4. the only benefit from that lens is the shutter gain from the bright lens.
vikingw2k, moo, banzai: i tested the KM 35G (not sony coating), its rather, hard to use, coz, u dont really understand why cant u get sharp picture. also, FYI, 35mm on crop @ F1.4 has better DOF then 50mm F1.4 on FF. hence, theoretically, its easier to get a good focus photo then 50 F1.4's shallow dof. so, practically, 35mm is a better 'range' to use then 50mm, but if u were a pixel peeper, 50mm F1.4 "Sigma" definitely wins ur heart
myjunk: dear myjunk, i think u get offended right to the heart, why? my gear HAD already limiting of what i can shoot, but it Does Not stop me from pushing it (as a lot of people knows here...) and i still pushes it harder and ppl seen my works on the limit
and close friend knows what is my next haul... i mean, how do u define limiting u? ur body has not even combo-ed
with all the available(ok i was harsh) with at least 5 lens and break the limit of the body WITH the LENS? aside iso, u are like telling, the new body has 5fps, the old body has 3fps, time to upgrade @.@ or the 3fps is limiting u. i dont think iso is even a limitation~ to me, its a weakness, and weakness means challenges for u to find ways to overcome it!(which improves the shooting skill) upgrading is not the answer, because it does not improve the skill.
200F4 vs 50 F1.4: i said this, because i afraid people will argue with me when i said 50F1.4 for shuttlespeed improvement(which can be compensate by iso on high end bodies or ur case, canon bodies) into a bokeh debate, hence i pin point the bokeh-ness of 200mm if far nicer(softer creamy bokeh) then 50mm (harsh sharp bokeh). maybe my example of 200 is a little too over the line, perhaps i say a 135mm F2 is even better then 50mm at F1.4, do u agree? flattering effect? i tot that is user's problem? not camera or lenses. waittttt... i hope u dont rejudge this topic into other issue, as i am on 'bokeh' issue only.
if it's a really experienced photographer, the first thing they going to fire back at me bout the 200mm is the shake vs 50mm.... 200 shake more violently compare to handheld 50mm, that definately the strength of why a 50mm is better at low light/natural light~ but u still lose out on nicer bokeh. again, it depend what people really wan out of the photo and situation they are in (small room, big hall etc)
i dont have to convince myself. coz i been using those gears i mentioned all the while. i know what i am talking about, and i overcome the weakness of each lenses.
Banzai_san: when u talk about the 35mm and 50mm comparison, seriously, when u buys it, its about what u need, not which is better... summore u cant directly compare a 35 with 50... u should taken a 50 vs 50 and 35 vs 35..., what if a person pops up with the question, 35G vs sigma50F1.4 vs 85F1.4Z vs 135F1.8Z? LOL
QUOTE(kev da man @ May 3 2010, 10:21 PM)
not all G lenses are great la...
+100....
for example, the sony 70-200G is a 9 year old design... (or was it 7?) and its pretty soft at 70 and 200 end compare to newer sigma and tamron.
Added on May 3, 2010, 11:05 pmcarry 2 bodies, i did that once... and on wedding coz i was solo (partner sick) and i can say, morning u can shoot a lot, once night come, i rather pass the wedding money to other photographer to shoot... that day onwards, i never carry 2 bodies if i shoot a whole day.
event (2-5 hours) still bearable... wedding(morning and night session) = dead wish....
This post has been edited by ieR: May 3 2010, 11:05 PM 
May 3 2010, 08:09 PM
(although I know I maybe wrong 
)
Quote
0.0191sec
0.24
6 queries
GZIP Disabled