Originally posted by Rondec I know you're a big 18-135 proponent, Norm, but these aren't necessarily the best photos to show case its sharpness.
As to whether or not you need a fast lens, it obviously depends on what you are shooting. It is just that you had indicated that you didn't really know why you would need a fast lens and I think the situations are pretty obvious.
All of this is sort of convoluted, but I think the thing that stands out to me is that there are a mixture of features that play into size of lens -- size of mount, registration distance, focal length, maximum aperture, and generally how corrected a lens is. Of these things, presence of in lens motor is probably one of the smallest factors -- obviously it does add some size, but not a huge amount.
No the question was not whether I needed a fast lens, it was whether or not I need an ƒ1.2 lens. As for criticizing the sharpness of the images posted, let's just not go there. you can argue that kind of nonsense all day. You want to see some terribly unsharp images with really bad bokeh, go through the ƒ1.2 lens club and get back to me.
What I said was
Quote: most of us if we want a fast lens think DA* 55 1.4.
, that was my comment...did you read it? Or did you just jump in cold?
Just for the record, so why you're posting an ƒ2 image in a discussion of the need for ƒ1.2 lenses is beyond me.
I don't even think of ƒ1.8 as a fast lens, I think of it as a common lens. Because it's what used to come on every SLR camera made.
Now what does any of this have to do with the DA 18-135 mistakenly being posted as discontinued?
Let the thread die.
I swear, most threads go from off topic to stupid, to stupider to stupidest.
And don't bother telling me what I might need fast lenses for, I know you what a fast lens is for. Did you really think I didn't? Like that you had to show me?
Oh wait, I shouldn't have posted that , it's not sharp enough.
Taken in the darkened bat and owl room at Birdland in Niagara falls...