Wasn't Canon lens a f/0.95 and not f/0.79? I'm pretty sure it was. Lukasz -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mishka Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 7:01 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Rare 35mm lenses (was Re: Melbourne lens shopping + Beethoven's Ninth.)
> IMHO, the "limited" lenses are restoring their glory. The "K" > series was produced at time that quality meant everything. Then economics > and saleability prevailed. As far as I understand, A* lenses have never been victims of "economics and saleability". Still, FA* 85/1.4 goes for what (older) A*85/1.4 and (a lot older and slower) K85/1.8 I don't have doubts that they are good. My question is, are they *that* good? There are other lenses from the same time (C & N) that go for half the money (I seriously doubt that Cannon L glass is inferior to Pentax A*). Or is it simply the lust factor? -- which would be very understandable (found myself guilty of that on more than one occasion), since these lenses *are* rare, but that has little to do with photography. As for Cannon 50/0.79 -- at least I can understand why it is a collectible, there're not that many other 0.79 lenses around (in fact, I am not aware of any). Oh well, it's Friday... - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
