Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Not a lot has changed ....
Just to show that not a lot has changed in many decades ...

I enjoyed reading this ...

Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
it took others years... but finally everyone did catch up in the end.
Four thirds group thought their product was future proof, however they didn't hesitate changing to MFT afterwards
Funny, there was a comment exactly to this effect in the DPReview's coverage of the new Fuji GFX mount fisheye from a chinese brand. The lens cost $200ish and a commenter wondered why anyone would put that on a body that costs $5000ish - not even implying that the lens isn't any good, just pointing out the price discrepancy.

Well... have I "defiled" my Canon 1D series camera by (routinely) mating it with a Canon 24-85 lens that similarly cost $200 or so, and - Heaven forbid! - by even using an APS-C fisheye lens on it? LOL.
while many totally disagree about for lenses, it's not the same for polarizers, you still often read, you won't put a 50$ polarizer on 1000$ lens...
The article sheds a glimpse of light on the advantages of MTF.
Assuming you get a good sample almost all (primary-manufacturer-) lenses are sharp - even the cheap ones.
You can't say the same for full format lenses, and even most APS-C lenses.

I'm not sure whether I agree with his argument about lenses. Yes, there is nothing wrong with using a TTArtisan lens on a Leica M but I wouldn't argue with performance but with lens "character".
The vast majority of today's lenses are optimized for sheer, almost clinical performance and they lose something along the way. Many of these cheaper Chinese lenses (and some Voigtlanders) don't use special glass and this has its merits in certain shooting scenarios. Not every shot has to be dead sharp.
He's absolutely right about AF speed. Some need this but for the vast majority of users, it's pretty irrelevant, I'd say.

When looking at the recent releases, I also don't see many reasons for buying primary manufacturer glass. Sigmas are good enough for basically everything. There are just a few exceptions - and if you don't use E- or L-mount you are out of luck, of course.

It's also funny that he mentioned the Leica SL. I've been drooling around the idea of buying a used Panasonic S1R - because they are so cheap.
You can't get more value for this amount of money. So far I didn't buy it because it's just too heavy for me personally and L-mount for testing only isn't yet there.
Chief Editor -

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
Oh no, not that "character" and "clinical look" spiel again. Big Grin Last I checked, it was mostly a method of subtly deriding lenses of better optical quality by the users of lower quality lenses - by implying that better lenses are instead missing some intangible quality. Smile

Most often directed against Sigma Art lenses and other modern, high quality lenses. Smile
I'm all in for ultimate performance ;-)

However, simple optics tend to have a good or very different bokeh, and some like the lower contrast or certain flare effects.
Chief Editor -

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)