Robert Meier wrote:
>From time to time I hear from people swearing on the
high quality of old lenses. I wonder if these claims
are really true? I agree that the heavy lenses built
with metal and glass make a more solid impression then
the light lenses made of plastic. But what about the
optical quality? I would expect that although the
newer lenses are cheaper the new designs, techniques
and even bigger mass-market can make up for a lot. So
for example how does an FD50/1.4 compare to an
EOS50/1.4. Or a FD70-210 macro to an EOS70-210/3.5-4.5
or EOS75-300IS?
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert,
Its kind of like an old wives tale. It gets larger as
time goes on. Granted you can look up tests of say a
FD50mm F1.8 v a newer EF50mm F1.8II on Photodo and the
FD will have a slight edge on it.
But other lenses, like the FD20-35F3.5L do not do as
well as the much less expensive EF20-35F3.5-4.5 USM.
FWIW, Pop Photo recently did a test of a new Sigma zoom
v. a 1975 Vivitar Series 1 F3.5 (which was made by Kiron).
The Sigma did slightly better but its a variable aperture
and the Vivitar a fixed aperture so its not a perfect
comparison, but was better at the middle apertures.
The only like to like is a FD100-300F5.6 v EF100-300F5.6
and the latter and more plastic lens wins by a good margin.
In the end, plastic or metal makes little difference.
Its the glass, coating, and optical design.
Peter K
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
