Hmm, all this talk about fast lenses makes me think.
I have few 0.95/50mm TV lenses - should I put them on ebay and hope someone
buys them for 2400$ ;-) ? Just kidding...
BTW, how sharp the A 1.2 is at 1.0 ;-) (the DOF at 1.0 is propably NONE, so
I would say that lens would be actually UNUSABLE for photography! You would
get almost nothing or every time the bad thing in focus. Like tip of
person's nose, but not their eyes. Perhaps nice for creative effects, but
at that cost? Canon snobbery, of course! I once tried an 1.2/100 lens, from
some surplus, which actually sort of covered 35mm at portrait range! It was
almost unusable for me - I could't get enough of subject into focus. Nice
for experiments at the price (I didn't buy it though), but that horrid $$$
canon? Nope! YMMV :)
Frantisek
At 14:29 7.2.2001 -0600, you wrote:
>
>Yeah, the F1.2 is sharper <g>.
>
>Todd
>
>At 08:36 PM 2/7/01 +0100, you wrote:
>>Hi
>>F1.0. Canon has made a 50mm f1.0. I saw (and handeled) a used one for sale
>>for 2,400$ (half of a new one). They say it's not especially good.
>>Jens
>>
>>-
>
>-
>This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
>go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
>visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
>
>
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
