I think you may gain something in terms of the way light and shade are rendered with better glass. But it would be more in regard to finer rendering of detail within those areas rather than opening up shadows or preserving highlights. Some of the lenses you mention are not highly regarded. But you don't have to go to another brand to get good glass. Many Pentax lenses are counted amont the best you can buy. Some of yours fallinto this category as well. That M 50/1.7 is a marvelous lens, and it's quite inexpensive.
But I think what you're really talking about is the way detail is rendered in shadows and highlights. These attributes are much more dependent on workflow than equipment. If you're shooting digital, you'll have to shoot RAW and process each frame very carefully to achieve optimum results. If you're shooting film, you'll have to find a film that works well with the processing that's available to you. Then it will have to be printed or scanned just so to achieve good results. Most labs will just pump up the saturation and contrast so that the machine prints "pop." That's why I'm very enamored of the digital workflow. I control the entire process. If the results aren't good it's my fault. > Mike, > > Ability to render very subtle changes of light and shade. This in turn > gives the image very 3D look. You almost feel like you're present on > site. > > This is what I would call plasticity. > > The lens that is not like this has very few distinguishable > transitions from light to darkness and back. So you get mighty > contrast image but it lacks detail, lacks fine representation, lack > this natural look. > > Do I make sense? > > > Not sure what you mean by plasticity. > > > > mike > > > -- > Boris >
