----- Original Message ----- From: "Qkano" : >I was expecting facts! it was a direct question(50 mm F1.8 vs 50mm F1.4)! : : >there are lens better than others- that's a Fact! : : >there are realitties that are comparable- that's also a Fact! : : : A good lesson in how to make people angry! : Before you can decide which of something is "best" you need to decide on what criteria you are to judge them. It's not just photography, it's cars, holidays, computers, well, just about anything. precisely - for example, every wildlife photographer knows Novoflex lenses were among the best for their chosen use, for even though edge sharpness was appalling, the center sharpness was unparalleled. Angineaux's are searingly good lenses.. if you have the dollars! Fujinon lenses scream quality, unless you want to get your foot in the front door of an arrogant art director, then you'd better have a hasselblad. Tamron 17mm's beat Leitz 17mm's hands down in a scrum. Canon 50mm f1.8 is HEAPS sharper than the 1.2, but the f 0.95 is better in low light .. and the 3.5 beats them all if you have a need for flat field accuracy. things that affect any given individual lenses 'quality' can include in no particular order: edge sharpness, center sharpness, overall sharpness, bokeh, coma, flare, contrast, internal coating (IR anyone? don't even THINK of an anodized lens!), speed, minimum aperture, sharpest aperture, iris diffraction, durability of construction, coating, lack of coating, element composition (thorium yellow ;-), ease of use, vignetting, adaptability, distortion, spherical distortion, quality control, former use, fungus, grit, dust, haze etc etc etc. no one can really answer your question without taking the above into consideration. sorry. k
