If however you might be using two bodies in low light situations you'll probably not have a faster lens than your
50mms in that case you might find a use for them. I believe JCO uses them as high priced body caps. :-)
There are all kinds of reasons to have more than one 50mm you, have to decide if they are worth it for you. By the way
the f1.7's reversed are recommended for macro work and the f1.4's are not. No mention is made in the documentation
I have for the 2.0 or 1.2 lenses.
Toralf Lund wrote:
William Robb wrote:
What I was trying to say is that I would in any case be keeping both in the sense that have another 50mm, too. The question is really if there is any point in having two 50s in addition to the 40 (even though I have two bodies.)----- Original Message ----- From: "Toralf Lund" Subject: M50/1.7 vs M40 - prices?
Hello again.
I just found an advert for a used a Pentax body with an M40 lens.
I'm
wondering if I should try to talk the guy selling it into giving me
the
M40, and selling my M50/1.7 instead along with the body (I'm
assuming he
wants to have *some* lens to go with it.) What do you think about a
deal
like that? Which lens would you consider as being worth the most?
The 50mm is the "better" lens (as much as I hate to use that word
around here).
It is a stop and a half (thereabouts) faster, which means a brighter
screen to focus on, and is optically superior wrt sharpness and
contrast.
The 40 isn't a bad lens, but the 50 is better.
For myself, if I could afford both, I would keep both.
William Robb
