"Graham" <graham@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:Q8udnexRAqZ_lYPVnZ2dnUVZ8uSdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Many thanks for the clear and concise reply. What you have said checks
out
> with the two lenses I have had for years. One is a Canon 35-70 zoom with
> the bayonet mount and the other a 300mm telephoto with the silver collar
> design you described.
>
> Many thanks for clearing this up for me. I now know what to look for
with
> more confidence. I was going to buy the f 1.4 Canon 50mm FD lens for £45
> as I've always wanted a really bright, fast lens having had the dark
> f3.5 - 4.5 35-70mm zoom all these years. I suppose I could go for a f
1.8,
> but tempted to get the 1.4. I am no expert in photography, but at least
in
> theory I understand the f1.4 is more than just a marginal amount
brighter
> than the 1.8. However, in practice I don't know if it will really make
> much difference (IE allowing me to use fast shutter speed to prevent
> camera shake blurring in low light). As I said I am very much an
amateur,
> but dabbled for many, many years.
>
The f/1.4 is marginally better than the f/1.8, but sometimes that
fractional
stop is all you need. All other things being equal, if you can afford the
f/1.4, buy it. Or you could save your pennies (pence?) for an f/1.2.
For more info about your camera and the lens options once available, check
up the Canon Museum at
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/index.html
|
