Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: notesfiles - hp 1.2 08/01/83; site hp-pcd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!hplabs!hp-pcd!jimd
From: jimd@hp-pcd.UUCP (jimd)
Newsgroups: net.rec.photo
Subject: Re: How sharp are Minolta lenses
Message-ID: <15500002@hpcvre.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 24-Jan-86 19:28:00 EST
Article-I.D.: hpcvre.15500002
Posted: Fri Jan 24 19:28:00 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 28-Jan-86 05:39:13 EST
References: <2625@amdahl.UUCP>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard - Corvallis, OR
Lines: 24
Nf-ID: #R:amdahl:-262500:hpcvre:15500002:000:767
Nf-From: hpcvre!jimd    Jan 24 16:28:00 1986




	With respect to the Canon products, the salesman may indeed be
	correct about the sharpness of the various flavors of 50mm
	lenses.  My perception is this:

		50mm f1.8:	Cheapo 50mm - reasonable quality
		50mm f1.4:	The "standard" 50. Excellent image
				quality. Many lenses are compared to this.
		50mm f1.2:	Faster than the f1.4, but sacrifices a
				little image quality. Better than 1.8.
		50mm f1.2L:	Expensive, but the best 50mm ever built.

	Also, the Canon 24mm f1.4L is within a split hair of being the
	best "pretty wide angle" lens you can get.  I'm sure Nikon has
	a equal :-)

	I'm not sure how all these trends (will) compare to Minolta - just
	thought I'd mention it.

	Jim (I've gone broke buying camera gear" Donnelly

	ihnp4!hplabs!hp-pcd!jimd