Ok, so I own the f/1.4 which seems to take great pictures and is a $300 lens. The f/1.2 is slighly faster but costs $1600 instead of $300. WTF??? Does it *really* perform *that* much better?
(I have their L-series f/2.8 35-70 and 70-200IS so I'm not adverse to buying good glass, but I can't see the justification of $1300 to go from f/1.4 to f/1.2.
12-23-2006, 09:12 PM
I'd wait so that they can shake out any productions issues, like they had witht he initial batch of 24-105s.
12-23-2006, 10:03 PM
1/3 of a stop at f/1.2 - 1.4 is far more significant that 1/3 of a stop at f/11.
Is it worth $1300 more?
Depends. For a pro that shoots in low light without flash it probably pays for itself in a few months. For mere mortals it's a really sweet thing to lust after until you can justify the purchase.
For me, it'll be a toss up between that and the 85mm L prime glass that I'll add next.
Sounds like a killer portrait lens . . . and the previous version of the lens rated as the #3 lens on <A HREF="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/best_canon_eos_lenses.html">The Best Canon EOS Lenses</A> (presumably the new generation is even better.)
I'm going to be shooting a friend's wedding in June -- perhaps that'll be a good excuse to get my first L-series prime. :)
12-24-2006, 09:19 AM
Good review <a href="http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=48957">here</a>. Complete waste of $, IMHO.
12-24-2006, 11:01 AM
<a href="http://photobucket.com/" target="_blank"><img src="http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o320/quatime03/Florence/VESPA.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a>