John Kokola wrote: >Gerry Morgan Wrote > > The 35/2 is very sharp, with good contrast. I mainly use mine between > f/5.6 > > and f/8, and I'm very pleased with the results. I think it's every bit as > > good as the 50 f/1.8 (another lens that is excellent, provided you don't > > use it wide open). > >Gerry -- do you mean the 50/1.8, or the 50/1.4? I've never had a really good >lens -- the sharpest pictures I've taken have been with my 50/1.8 II. I do >like it but haven't had anything to compare it to. (I may acquire a 28-135 >IS from B&H -- I'll be in NYC this Friday.)
I mean the f/1.8. I think it's a very good lens, provided you don't use it wide open. By the way, there's a comparison of the f/1.8 and the f/1.4 (with scanned details of the images produced by each lens) at http://cybaea.com/photo/lens-quality-50.html (the f/1.4 does much better at wider apertures, but the differences are more subtle when the lenses are stopped down). Gerry * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
