Hey, I remember that shot, W in U! She's a real cutie, and that's one terrific photo of her.
Funny (and I don't mean this as a criticism of your post), but I'm always amused when I hear, "I rarely use the lens wider than [insert an aperture here]". Why buy a fast lens if you aren't going to use it wide open a lot? I have an M 2.0 50mm. If I was happy shooting at 5.6, I'd stick with that lens. That being said, I guess I know what you mean. You rarely use your M 1.4 wider than 5.6, but you have the option to do so, if need be. Still, it always strikes me as odd... Having gotten that off my chest, I do appreciate your comments, really <vbg> cheers, frank William Johnson wrote: > Hi Frank, > > I think it's a very good lens. I have two of them and as far as I can tell, > they perform identical to each other. Both a bit worse wide open than > either the K50/1.4 or FA50/1.4 that I also own, but I prefer the bokeh of > the M50/1.4 and I think that it is quite sharp for impromptu portraits from > about f/2 and below. I rarely use a 50mm lens stopped down past about f/5.6 > but when I have it seems to perform well at those apertures also. > > I actually prefer the M50/1.4 to the K or FA. Here is an example of a PUG > submission with the M50/1.4 stopped down to either f/2 or f/2.5 > > http://pug.komkon.org/02sep/sbanana.html > > The price is maybe kind of high, but probably only compared to buying online > with the associated risks. You only live once, if you want it, buy it! > > William in Utah. > > PS. How's that for enablement? ;-) > -- "What a senseless waste of human life" -The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch
