DWThomas
Subscriber
I have the 50 and don't actually use it a lot, although it is a nice piece of glass. Just the way I see things, I guess, but I would likely use a 40 even less. I might add, in the PS series at least, even the 50 needs a really wide lens hood and has little tolerance for sticking stuff on the front without vignetting (and takes 77mm filters too).
I have the 50, 65, 80, 110 1:1 macro, and 150, all of PS flavor. (Had I known I would wind up with a 50, I might have skipped the 65.) A while back I acquired an S series 2x tel-extender that jumped in front of me. I've verified it works, but again, haven't done much with it. There were a couple of zooms made, however it's been eons since I saw one go by, and the pricing was not for the faint of heart -- especially considering they were only 2:1 zoom ratio!
I admit to having 45º and 90º prism finders, although 98% of the time I use the WLF. The prisms are handy if you put the camera up high to look over something. Of course with the square format one can sometimes work around that by tilting the camera 90º and "looking in the side" as it were (I've done both).
I have the 50, 65, 80, 110 1:1 macro, and 150, all of PS flavor. (Had I known I would wind up with a 50, I might have skipped the 65.) A while back I acquired an S series 2x tel-extender that jumped in front of me. I've verified it works, but again, haven't done much with it. There were a couple of zooms made, however it's been eons since I saw one go by, and the pricing was not for the faint of heart -- especially considering they were only 2:1 zoom ratio!
I admit to having 45º and 90º prism finders, although 98% of the time I use the WLF. The prisms are handy if you put the camera up high to look over something. Of course with the square format one can sometimes work around that by tilting the camera 90º and "looking in the side" as it were (I've done both).