Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site alice.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!ark
From: ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: net.rec.photo
Subject: Re: My first lens(es)
Message-ID: <3726@alice.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 14-May-85 16:12:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: alice.3726
Posted: Tue May 14 16:12:18 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 15-May-85 01:51:42 EDT
References: <929@peora.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 10

> 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.)?

In general, faster lenses are less sharp than slower ones.
If your present lens is unsatisfactory when stopped down to,
say, f/8, then you should invest some effort in understanding
the problem before throwing money at it.