>On 8 Mar 2004 at 11:04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > OTOH, I'd join the support group. I've got guilt over ignoring my M50/2 > for years in preference to the A50/1.2 which I don't recall EVER shooting > wide open (good thing, too, from what I hear).
>Rob Suddert wrote: >Of course where appropriate it excels wide open just like the 20mm Bow >Wow Tak. >There is evidence of softening at the edges and a global reduction in >contrast >but in many low light situations this behaviour can indeed be an >advantage. None of the ones I was using it in. Honestly I sold my A50/1.2 a couple years back before I started to really look at the performance I was getting from my lenses, but if my fast AIS nikkors are any indication I can see why I've heard some awful things about its wide open performance. Keep in mind that I normally use a fast lens for action, not for portraiture. >The 50/1.2 lenses perform as well if not better than any other 50s from >5.6 onwards And is several times more expensive, which is really pointless if you don't actually shoot it at f1.2 every now and again. Back when I was in college I assumed that the faster lens would be the better one. Usually, it's the other way around. >and infinitely better at f1.2 than a slower lens :-) Half a stop to a stop better at f1.2 than a slower lens. Granted, there are times when you NEED that stop, but often you can compromise on shutter speed instead and actually get a sharper picture. When my 35/1.4 AIS nikkor got away I wasn't crushed, because I found that at f/1.4 it was unacceptable for my uses. At f/2.0, the much cheaper 35/2.0 lens was at least as good. It's not so much that I regret buying the 50/1.2, but that I regret not actually realizing how good the 50/2.0s that I kept winding up with were. DJE
