home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: rec.photo
- Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!decwrl!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnewsm!ka1gt
- From: ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins)
- Subject: Re: Advice on Canon 50 mm/f1.8 wanted
- Organization: AT&T
- Distribution: na
- Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 19:46:02 GMT
- Message-ID: <1992Nov16.194602.18566@cbnewsm.cb.att.com>
- References: <1992Nov11.160234.23567@kth.se> <1992Nov16.235617.1@cc.curtin.edu.au>
- Lines: 27
-
- In article <1992Nov16.235617.1@cc.curtin.edu.au>, zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au writes:
- > In article <1992Nov11.160234.23567@kth.se>, d90-nsc@nada.kth.se (Niclas Schopenhauer) writes:
- > >
- > >
- > > I am considering buying a 50 mm lens for my Canon 100 (Elan in the US, I
- > > believe). However, since the only 50 mm lens by Canon on the market (not counting
- > > the 50/f1.0) belongs to the II series which, I am told, have bad optical quality,
- > > I'm considering buying a second-hand copy of the old 50 mm f/1.8.
- > >
- >
- > I have a 50 f1.8 that I picked out of 5-6 second hand a 3 new IIs. The early
- > unit is of better build quality opticaly, though that may no longer be the case.
- > The II is a bit faster focusing, but nothing like a USM. The *BIG* loss on the
- > II is no focus scale, and no IR focus index.
- >
-
- For what it's worth, Popular Photography have tested both the original 50/1.8
- and the new plastic 50/1.8. The new plastic bodied lens actually tested out
- optically better than the original metal(?) bodied lens. Of course they only
- test one sample of each lens, so statistical variations may account for the
- difference. I thought the optical design was the same - or am I wrong?
-
-
- ===============================================================
- Bob Atkins AT&T Bell Labs email (direct) att!clockwise!rma
- ===============================================================
-
-