--- "Sinha, Shashvat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No doubt about it, the 1.8 gives more bang for the
> buck than any other lens in
> the lineup. Its nearly as good as a 1.4. But the 1.4
> is still a better lens in
> absolute terms, especially with color rendition and
> bokeh. Tom sent a link to
> the photo.net page
> http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/. I know I
> get a
> very nice quality to my photographs with the 1.4 and
> this page shows that the
> 1.8 might not have been so satisfying.
You get what you pay for is the guiding principle.
Also, we are back to the same Olympian thinking "it
has to be the absolutely best-est".
Time and again I see so many photos in magazines which
are simply stunning because of - get this - NOT the
lens quality - but the composition of the photographer
who exposed the picture - even with the 28-90 that is
so often derided. This makes me think that it is my
technique that I must spend time on, not researching
which lens is better and beating it to death to the
n-th degree.
There is no end to "Faster Higher and Stronger" type
of thinking and if that is all what one wants - keep
spending the money for that iota of a difference -
that makes you - the photographer and not the people
who see and appreciate your photos, satisfied. This is
IMHO more psychological than factual.
Meanwhile I am going out to take more pictures with my
cheap, humble, NON USM, NON Metal mount, NON FTM, NON
Macro but otherwise stellar performer 50/1.8 II
- Harman
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
