Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site wdl1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!amd!pesnta!hplabs!hpda!fortune!wdl1!wunder
From: wunder@wdl1.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.rec.photo
Subject: Re: My first lens(es)
Message-ID: <434@wdl1.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 21-May-85 10:24:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: wdl1.434
Posted: Tue May 21 10:24:44 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 25-May-85 05:48:44 EDT
Sender: notes@wdl1.UUCP
Organization: Ford Aerospace, Western Development Laboratories
Lines: 31
Nf-ID: #R:ihuxb:-101500:wdl1:7300007:000:1283
Nf-From: wdl1!wunder    May 21 01:24:00 1985

About five years ago I read a lens test in Modern/Popular Photo
(does it really matter?) that tested all 50mm lense for a bunch
of manufacturers.  In every case, the 50/1.4 was the sharpest lens.

My guess was this:

  1.7/1.8/1.9:	cheap, volume production
  1.4:		costs more, works better
  1.2:		extra speed hurts overall performance

I don't want to guess whether the 1.2L is a "better lens" than the 1.4.
It is really hard to make a 1.2 lens, and the aspherical element may
just correct it back to FD50/1.4 standards.  The 1.2L lens is almost
certainly sharper wide open, but it may not be any better at f/5.6.

Remember, the 1.2 lens is an entire 1/3 stop faster than the 1.4
lens.  Who really cares?  There's no useful depth of field there
anyway.  I remember stopping "down" to f/2 to get someone's nose and
eyes both in focus.

My Canon FD 50/1.4 ws a darling lens, sharp and fast -- but when it
was stolen I bought a 35/2 and an 85/1.8, so I guess that I shouldn't
talk much about 50's.  It's not a useful focal length for me.  I take
about 100% of my pictures with the 35.  It is a real sharp lens, too.

w underwood

PS: You could write Canon and ask for test results.  They were pretty
friendly to a couple of poor student photographers, even lending us
a 600/4.5 (wow).