I'm a little bit curious of the test reports of 50/1.0. In real life, I find it sharper wide open than 50/1.4 wide open. In my photos, 50/1.0 (@ 1.4) is considerably better than 50/1.4 (@ 1.4). Maybe my 50/1.4 is out of whack, but then again, I have seen similar quality in other pictures taken with similar lenses.
If anyone plans on buying this lens, a couple of comments, as this lens does have a learning curve:
- First, 50/1.0 is really a special purpose tool. There are better day-to-day lenses available for good light, unless you are specifically looking for effects it enables.
- Don't try to photograph people too close with it wide open. It just doesn't work that way. Instead, it is the best I have seen for half-body or full body sized photos in dark environments or when the depth of field is of importance.
- I also find that its AF is way more reliable than 50/1.4s. However, AF is also slow, so it cannot be used to photograph kids if they are moving.
- The way it renders bokeh requires some testing and experimenting. There are several things that one should know about it: faraway backgrounds tend to smoothen out great. Close by background might become a little tedious, and if photographing through leaves or random high contrast areas in background, vignetting causes a swirling sort of look into photos.
- It is great for old style half-body pictures! You don't believe it until you see it!
The only actual annoyance in this lens is flare, but on the other hand that is to be expected with such a fast lens.
About the lead based glasses, do you know the stuff it was replaced with? Prohibition of lead based glasses is a prime example of Green stupidity, if anything.