Upload & Sell: Off
thanks for the replies.
I forgot to mention that expensive lenses are pretty much out of the question. If I had the money, I'd probably go and buy a 50 1.2L which has AF and be done with it...
I can't even decide for myself what I want...
I mean, If I wanna go down the 50-55-58mm 1.2 lens road, I know that I can't expect the lens to excel in sharpness or anything at 1.2 You buy a 1.2 lens for its character and feel of the photos that it takes...
If I wanna go down the 50-55-58mm 1.4 lens road, I'll consider sharpness also, because I can accept a not-that-razor-sharp 1.2 lens, but a 1.4 one should perform better...
And as far as 1.7 1.8 or 2.0 lenses are concerned, if I were to get one of these, it would really have to be a performer,since i would renounce fast aperture (such as 1.2 or 1.4, for 1.8, 2.0 )
I don't want to become a snob and get a lens just because it looks cool or just because it's 'sought after' by others on the internet.
I remember that a few months ago I desperately wanted a 58mm Biotar, just because it looks how it looks and because it's a zeiss..
That was stupid,because any Helios (44M-2, -4,-6,-7) performs perhaps exactly the same (or better) than that lens..
I had a Tair-11A (133mm silver lens, 20 blades, 2.8 aperture, m39 mount) and I felt so 'cool' owning it....instead of caring more about the photos it took. (it was actually a pretty good lens)
I sold it when I bought the 135L (which pretty much destroys any other 100/135mm lenses), but I don't have the 135L anymore now...
So in order to have a more accurate 'input' from you guys, on this issue, I would like to know:
in terms of 50-55-58mm 1.2 lenses, which are worth looking at (and mention what are their strenghts & weaknesses, for instance this is sharp and has no CA, or this is soft but has etc etc)
also in terms of 50-55-58mm 1.4 /1.5 lenses....and then in terms of 50-55-58mm 1.7/1.8/2.0 lenses
I'm not interested in lenses slower than 2.0
many thanks and I appreciate the effort.