Originally posted by lurchlarson Since my wife got her 50mm f/2 Macro for her Olympus e-620, I've been wondering which lens I should get first. The da* 16-50 or the da* 50-135.
I'm sure the 50-135 is probably better for portraits, which I have been shooting a lot of lately. For the rest of my photography I would use the 16-50 more often.
So here's my question. For those of you who own both, which lens is sharper at 50mm f/2.8? f/4?
I hear that Oly Macro 50/2 is a stellar lens--can't imagine either of these will match it for sharpness!
Actually the 50 1.7 in your signature would be sharper than the DA* zooms
The DA*16-50 has a curved focus plane, so if you're shooting something like a brick wall or a focus chart, it will definitely be sharper in the center than in the edges (as the photozone tests have borne out). Makes it tough to get a subject in focus in the sides of the frame, if that's your thing, but the edges do get better when you stop down. I usually stop down to f/5.6 when using this, so sometimes I wonder if I could've stuck with the kit. The kit lens is good, and if you're wanting to do portraits, looks like there's more of a hole in your lineup.
Another thing to consider (since you mention macro) is that the DA 16-50 focuses down to 30 cm, while for the 50-135 you'll need a meter or so. I found the 50-135 to be sharper than the 16-50 at any given aperture, but I liked the 16-50 better for size and weight reasons and it's a better range for me for a walkaround. For longer stuff, I use primes now.