Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site peora.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
From: jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos)
Newsgroups: net.rec.photo
Subject: Re: My first lens(es)
Message-ID: <929@peora.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 13-May-85 09:52:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: peora.929
Posted: Mon May 13 09:52:46 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 14-May-85 20:35:57 EDT
References: <1015@ihuxb.UUCP> <1366@watdcsu.UUCP>
Organization: Perkin-Elmer SDC, Orlando, Fl.
Lines: 22

I would like to ask a related question.

I am presently seriously considering buying a Canon 50mm 1.2L lens.  I have
recently switched to Canon (the T70) after many years with a Nikon F
(remember those? no through-the-lens anything!), and am not that familiar
with Canon lenses.  However, I presently have the plain old Canon 50mm 1.8
lens that comes with the camera, and am generally disappointed with the
lack of sharpness of it.

My question is... is the "L" lens worth the $100 difference compared to the
plain 50mm 1.2 lens?  By "worth", I mean this: suppose I make landscape-type
photographs, using extremely fine-grain film, and want very high resolution.
Is there a visible difference between the L and non-L lens?  Or is the L
only better in unusual situations (low light with wide apertures, etc.)?

I do want the sharpest lens I can get, so if there is a visible difference
under normal circumstances, I would rather buy the "L".
-- 
Full-Name:  J. Eric Roskos
UUCP:       ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
US Mail:    MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
	    2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642