http://ganymeta.org/~darren/photo_f1.2_conversion.php

i think i’ve made my point if that is the best counterargument you can provide. your knowledge of “optics” clearly doesn’t extend beyond the price and the color of the lens. forgive us all if we don’t take your opinion seriously.

The advantage of my modding method is that it doesn’t require any expensive parts; a non-electric conversion costs about $5-10 plus the lens, adding electronics obviously depends on obtaining a proper microchip for the camera (but for Sony DSLRs it’s about $40 extra). The mod is also very easy to do, took me about 45 minutes initially, most of the time after that (can be hours) is spent adjusting the infinity focus position to desired accuracy (personally I wanted it good enough for astrophotography, which took more effort than most people need).

As for the lens itself, the 58mm f/1.2 is a superb lens, perhaps the best bokeh of any I’ve seen. Not the sharpest, though, but for just sharpness there are so many others. Anyone commenting above about the advantages of “expensive glass” is missing the point entirely (plus that lens WAS expensive glass when new).

@5: well there are (for example) current standard AF f1.4 50mm lenses in the A-mount (Sony/Minolta) family and also for Pentax. I don’t know very well other mounts, but i’m sure there are for Canon, Nikon, etc

I only wish I knew enough about optics to do this, as it would make me happy to have somthing faster than a 1.8 50mm

utility/cost will not be constant. It is true that an item’s price (especially with respected brands) is a good indicator of that item’s performance, but often the best value will not come from the most expensive item.

suppose ‘a’ is twice as good as ‘b’, but costs ten times as much as ‘b’ does. if you photograph for sports illustrated (for example), ‘a’ might be worth that extra cost. for many applications though, ‘b’ will be the better bargain.

and your statement that “Generally you’re not going to get good quality unless your drop the big bucks” is inaccurate. many a cheap camera will give you “good” quality. Professionals spend the extra money because they need “really fucking good” quality (for large prints, etc.).

I think canon made a 50mm f/1.0 lens recently that cost around $1000. A 40 year old, manual focus f/1.4 lens might cost $20….

I’m tired of writing this, i feel like i’m explaining something to a child.

Generally you’re not going to get good quality unless your drop the big bucks, just take a look at Canons L series of lenses. Take a look at the sidelines of any sporting event and you’ll see tons of white lenses (L lenses) – professional grade lenses!

as a lighting designer (and therefore in need of the ability to beautifully capture my work), I am tremendously envious of people who can take pictures like that. (Even the ones documenting the hack, much less the neat shit he did with the lenses)

Super sweet!