LonelyBoy said:Thanks for the explanation (truly), but I note you didn't mention the Sigma 50 Art. I thought it was retrofocal as well, and certainly cheaper than the Zeiss? Large, yes, but affordable (at least, relatively).
And, if I'm wrong and that level of quality can be achieved with a DG formula, great! I take that comment back. But I'd like better optics than the current 50/1.4, especially if the price is going to approach or exceed that of the 50A.
Also, "legendary" it may be, but isn't the 50/1.0 not known for great image quality?
I did forget about the Sigma! I looked it up and I think you're right, it looks like a retrofocus design.
I think the current EF 50mm 1.4 is an aberration- it's just not a good lens at all. Suited perhaps for the expectations of photogs in the mid-90s, but not for today's high-resolution digital sensors. Nikon's new 50mm 1.4 AFs and 58mm 1.4 AFs are both modified gauss-type designs and both perform excellently even wide-open so it can be done. Not that I think the retrofocus 50's are not worth it, but I'd personally like to see more work done on optimizing max-aperture performance of double-gauss designs before jumping to massive retrofocus lenses.
Upvote
0