> > There are reasons why people can and do sell. $1000, $3000 and $6000
> > lenses. Not quite so much reason why they do and can sell $10,000,
> > $30,000 and more lenses (except =A0in > 35mm formats where anything
> > goes)

> I'm wondering if we're going to start comparing photography stuff to
> audiophile stuff. =A0I guess we're still in the realm where differences
> are measurable, but are they really viewable under normal circumstances?

That was my reason for making a distinction between $1000 - $6000
range lenses and $10,000 - $30,000 lenses.
As Olin notes, the parameters that matter can in large part be measured.
As my many links showed - the major tool of MTF has a little more to
it than providing an eg 0 - 100 scale.
But, as in most things, the law of diminishing returns applies. There
are not so many tope end snak-oil sllers with lenses as with eg
audio-cables.
But at the very top end, once you are very very good as a lens maker,
you can probably double the price in return for some fairly esoteric
and only possibly useful manipulations. eg Carl Zeiss are among the
very very top of lens makers. If they have a $US5000 lens and decide
to make a $10,000 special version, for whatever reason, they WILL sell
some of them, rgarless of merit. The merit will be there, but few
would benefit greatly from them.

______________

Photographically this old (Sony do not make an equivalent) lens is
about as good as it gets.
Apart from being f3.5 (4 x less light than my f 1.8) it is superb.
$200-$300 second hand typically.
Less if lucky.


http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Minolta-AF-50-F3.5-Macro_lens96.html

______________

Possibly my best optical quality lens was also the lowest price one I
own, apart from "kit" lenses which don't count. About $US150 a year or
so ago. Sonly f1.8 50mm "prime". Superb. The f1.7 costs about double
and the f1.4 more to much more again. This is a plastic bodied lens
that would split if I dropped it except it is so light that it may
bounce. However, the lenses inside are based on a cash cow Minolta
desogn from probably 20+ years back which has long paid for itself.
Sony probably make a handsome profit on thes percentage wise, while
providing a performance:$ ratio possibly unmatched by anything else
you can buy.

This is an extremely good lense review site. Dedicated to Minolta A
mount equipment but 3rd party lenses often translate between brands.
User assessments go to make up an aggregate score with user comments
in 5 categories being available. For a lens that is at all known this
is about as good a way as any of deciding what a lens is like in all
real world situations.  Sometimes you can get a better idea than doing
a brief test yourself. Sometimes.

   http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/index.asp

My 50mm f1.8 SAL50F18 is here.
User overall rating 4.33/5 which is very good but not utterly superb.
But sharpness is 4.58, colour 4.52, distortion 4.53 and flare control
4.,.43 all from 60 reviews.
Build is 3.57 due to the cheap plastic body - still OK considering,
and I frankly am very happy with ther resultant $ tradeoff.
$149 retail.

        http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Sony-AF-DT-50-F1.8-SAM_lens523.html

The $369 f1.4 50mm is here
4.61 overall, with 4.73, 4.78, 4.85, 4.46 ratings as abovce and build =3D 4=
..21.
A definitely superior lens.
100 reviewers.

  http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Sony-AF-50-F1.4-_lens305.html

The f1.4 lets in (1.8/1.4)^2 =3D 65% more light than the f1.8 "fully
stopped down".
Which helps - and the depth of field is even shallower - which is one
reason why you mayu use a lens at f 1.x.

This was taken with my f 1.8 50mm lens, and makes ue of several of
it's attributes.
Theo\rough glass, low level display lighting 0.2 seconds hand held -
unlike Olin & squirrel I had display cases to lean on.
f 1.8 allows me to pick out one head only.

        http://public.fotki.com/RussellMc/atw/china1102/rmatw1102/random-mu=
sings-dog-2.html

Same lens THROUGH (essentially invisible) cage bars at f1.8
         http://public.fotki.com/RussellMc/srs/through-the-bars.html

Smaller aperture but 250 mm focal length allows a similar result.
(Only one head but no background)
This lens cost about 5 x as much but isn't as "good" (but is very
flexible as 18-250mm)

        http://public.fotki.com/RussellMc/srs/dsc08575-10000227.html

500mm at close range does the same thing  - sometimes more so
    http://public.fotki.com/RussellMc/srs/pict2720r2bs.html
   About $800 new for Sony version (mirror lens)



..

--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.