> Maybe in this case. 1.0 and 1.2 are very large apertures but there will > always be those who want very shallow depth of field. You can get some > really nice and different pictures from a 50/1.0 shot wide open.
And you can always shut them down to f1.8 if you really want a wider DOF :o)
I've long been amused by these religious wars - normally over whether an f1.4 is worth the money CF an f1.8. Strangely the two camps seem to comprise those who've bought the aforementioned lenses.
I have the 50/1.8 II. I can't complain about the optical quality of this lens, but the build is rather flimsy, I certainly don't like the focus ring, and the autofocus is not very good. I might get rid of it and get the 50/1.4 instead. It's not like the 50/1.4 costs a fortune.
Personally, I bought the 1.4 "because I could". I've never found fault with it: At 1.4 it lets me shoot in really low light on ISO 800 neg. film. At f1.8 I've never found it to be better than the f1.8 lens wide open admittedly: then again, I've never compared the two :o).
I'm sure it's not all "inverse snobbery" that leads some to the choice of the cheaper but lighter lens. There's for sure room for understanding why others find one tool fit for purpose - that they have different requirements.
Yeah. I'd say if one rarely would use a 50mm, go for the 1.8, but if one think it'll be used frequently, go for the 1.4.
-- - Marius
* **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
