venchka said:
Speaking of mythical lenses scarcer than a Noctilux 1.2, a Canon 200/1.8 lens is for sale on the Texas Photo Forum.
If I had the resources, I would buy this lens and a Canon 5D. You would need a 2x4 to get the grin off of my face. 😀
Oh, and I would also use it on my Elan II E with Kodachrome! 😎
I have one and sold my 300 2.8 because the 200 1.8 with the 1.4x was even sharper wide open than the 300 without the extender. The 200 1.8 is probably the finest lens of any kind for any format that I've ever owned. The 135 F2 and 85 F1.2 are so close in performance that they could for all practical purposes be considered equals.
Funny what the 200 1.8 is going for now. There's a guy in Korea that seems to get his hands on quite a few and sells them onevilbay. I've seen pristine ones go for nearly 6K. I think I paid about $2,600 for my copy and it was mint minus but that's been a number of years ago.
I use the 200 wide open for fashion and rarely stop down more than 2.8.
Nikon makes some superb glass to. That's why I can't see any future in Zeiss glass in F mount. The Zeiss offers nothing that the Nikon glass doesn't have. Anyway, when you get to the level of glass from each of the top makers the differences are very slight. Look at the lenses that Nikon makes that are super performers, the 24 2.8, 28 PC, 50 Micro, 85 1.4, 105 2.5 and micro 2.8, 180 2.8, another legend 300 F2 with matched 1.4x, 300 2.8, 400 2.8, 400 3.5, 600 f4 and on and on.
Remember, the majority of the top digital and 35 shooters in the world either use Canon or Nikon. There are very good reasons why and it's not price.