I've worked for Uncle Sam for a long time and I've seen FAR too many rapings of the American taxpayer to cave in. I can't be specific without risk. I'm sure others here will agree.
Cheap for a branch of government that I watched push perfectly good helicopters into the ocean to save deck space. The military probably taught budgeting to the NSA.
When I was a GI photographer they gave me, for official use only and I had to give it back, a nifty M3 kit with three lenses in a Halliburton case! I couldn't believe it, not even a deposit required.
I don't see why you'd want a 90mm f1 lens on a rangefinder, anyway. With that little depth of field, I want an SLR so I can see if I'm sharp or not. If you stop it down enough to be sure the rangefinder will have you sharp, you might as well get a cheaper lens.
I don't see why you'd want a 90mm f1 lens on a rangefinder, anyway. With that little depth of field, I want an SLR so I can see if I'm sharp or not. If you stop it down enough to be sure the rangefinder will have you sharp, you might as well get a cheaper lens.
I'd have to see it to believe it with a 90mm at f1. I pull focus for a living and that's not much to work with unless you're doing what the navy probably was and focusing 30 feet and further a lot. At 12 feet if a person's eyes are sharp, their ears aren't. At 7 feet, a head and shoulders portrait length, you get 2" total depth of field. It sounds like a very, very expensive way to miss focus a lot to me.