What?!? The lens comes without a cat photo preventer???!!!
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
And it actually weighs a smidge more than the 80mm 1.9 XCD. I've never tried out that one, but I've put my money on the 50mm 1.2s being better for my needs than the 80 1.9/X1D when it comes to family snapshots at the moment. No regrets so far...Indeed. That's bigger than a (fast) medium format lens!
And it actually weighs a smidge more than the 80mm 1.9 XCD. I've never tried out that one, but I've put my money on the 50mm 1.2s being better for my needs than the 80 1.9/X1D when it comes to family snapshots at the moment. No regrets so far...
It’s a fair question, one I’d say that isn’t specific to this lens, but to the world of lenses in general. Why in general do people go for 1.4 lenses over 1.8, or 2.0 over 2.8, or f2.8 over f4, when the latter is “good enough” at a lower price point in a smaller price package, and why do manufacturers continue to scratch people’s itch?I'm scratching my head a bit here, wondering what this lens is for. It's easy to figure out who it's for, since photo and camera enthusiasts are apparently queueing up to buy it, but how would it make a photo better compared to a 50mm lens that one can actually carry around?
I had some of the same thoughts when the 105mm f/1.4 in F-mount was launched, and when the 1.5 kg Sigma competitor came, I was flat out laughing. But those are telephoto/portrait lenses with twice the focal length.
There are some pretty cool 50mm lenses around, and even the somewhat bulky, not as sharp but very nice, 58mm f/1.4 is less than 400g. Is this about photography, or is it a question of having the sharpest, biggest knife, no matter what?
Please don't see this as an insult if you have already bought this lens. We all have different needs and urges. I'm just wondering...
Yep, ~1.6” longer and 0.3 pounds heavier if I did my math correctly. The canon is a few hundred more and 0.04” thicker. Another notable difference is the canon has a close focusing distance of 1.3” while the Nikon is 1.5”I think it's even bigger than the Canon's RZ 50mm 1.2, but at least it's cheaper!