on 2012-08-28 20:05 John Celio wrote
I've spent enough time futzing around with old lenses to know that
modern glass does everything I need and does it faster and a lot more
conveniently. You guys can go on using your "vintage" equipment, I'm
not telling you to stop, just quit acting like every lens comparison
needs to include stuff from fifty years ago. That was technology then,
this is technology now. I've gotten rid of all but three of my
pre-digital lenses because modern lenses just work better on dSLRs,
hands down.
i understand your point, though i don't think it deserves such an absolute
statement; for one thing it depends on which lenses you compare, and what your
priorities are; i'd think that 50mm primes are a group where older lenses often
do compare well to newer; it would be nice to put a fine point on that — how
much am i losing by spending only $40 on a lens versus $2-400?
not much, i bet, but i'm open to learning i'm wrong
i almost always manual focus, for example, and the review didn't do a thorough
comparison of the focus feel; comparing to some MF lenses might have drawn that
issue out; i have to guess that the focus action of the D FA 50 macro would be
the only one in the review comparable to the action on my lowly A 50/1.7
i think i'd enjoy that macro, but it would take a special bargain for me to
have the chance, and i'd still carry the A 50/1.7 much more often because of
its size, weight and aperture advantages (i do have a M42 Macro-Takumar 50/2.8
which is wonderful adapted to Panasonic GH2; the EVF actually compensates a bit
for the manual aperture)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
