>> |
heavyweather
!4AIf7oXcbA
>>248281 On a crop body, I think I'd agree with you. Smaller viewfinder, only the central portion of the imaging circle used, AF is good, etc etc. In fact, I really don't think most people need a 1.2. But shooting full frame, there's a much greater difference in character between the 1.4 and 1.2. The 1.2 is an arguably inferior optic. Honestly, the way it vignettes and is so soft due to the DoF (it's razor sharp where it IS in focus, but that ain't much) makes it more like a really exotic Holga effect, in a way. Not for every situation, but it's nice to have the ability to produce a totally crazy frame or a really nice crisp one. I don't regret a single dollar I spent on the lens. It's still really a bargain when you look at how much other 1.2s go for... I've seen most Zuikos and Takumars up in the $500-600 range, and Canons obviously are a lot more.
Course, the worth of a lens is ultimately measured by how much you use it, so it's specific to every person.
|