Lotusm50 wrote:
I think you'll find that very few 50mm lenses are a "noticeable" improvement over your SMC tak (BTW, I have one of those as well). All 50mm's from reputable manufacturers are really pretty good. It depends on what you're using it for, some 50's might be a little better for some uses (as optimization/design tradeoffs can vary between manufacturers) and some notions of "better" are clearly subjective and go beyond normally measurable parameters.
I find it interesting that "All 50mm's from reputable manufacturers are really pretty good" when the price of 50mm just for Nikon mounts vary from $100 to $1300 - that a big variance in price for all to be "pretty good", wouldn't you say?
The law of diminishing returns certainly applies, and does premiums paid for rarity, uniqueness (particularly in some qualitative manner), speed (an f1.2 commands significantly more than an f1.4), AF or MF, fad and fashion, historical significance, and collect-ability. All of these can influence a price, and cause it to deviate from a simple linear price performance relationship. And like I said, some of these factors "are clearly subjective and go beyond normally measurable parameters". While a Zeiss 50/1.4 may or may not be marginally better, quantitatively, than another 50/1.4, some find a discernible, qualitative, "zeiss look" subjectively appealing ("better"?) and are willing to pay extra for it. People can and do spend a lot for very small differences in performance, and spend a lot for characteristics unrelated to measurable performance.
