Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/11/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>In a message dated 11/14/00 12:45:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, guybnt@idt.net >writes: > ><< in a word, it seems foolhardy to spend $3000 on a lens when there is a $600 > lens that would do the same thing. > > does that clear things up? >> > >Sure - if you can come up with a precise definition of "the same thing". > >Joe Sobel joe, in my post, this is precisely what i meant by "the same thing": both lenses (i.e. a 50/1.0 and a 50/2.8) permit the photographer to stop down to 5.6, 8, 11, and 16. my point, if that was equally unclear, was the following: if you always shoot at one of the above apertures, the 50/2.8 lens will do the trick nicely, and for a hell of a lot less money. now, before the impending tsunami of kneejerk responses defending a lugger's solms'-given right to stop down to f/16 his $3000 lens specifically designed to permit the user to get great results at f/1.0 i humbly add: GO FOR IT!!! guy