how many $$$ have legacy lenses saved for you? and aren't they fun?

Started Jan 27, 2013 | Discussions thread
amtberg
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,409
Like?
Re: Vastly superior?
In reply to fermy, Jan 30, 2013

fermy wrote:

gtravis wrote:

tedolf wrote:

gtravis wrote:

Agree -- I jumped fully into legacy glass when I first got my G1 and bought adaptors for my Minolta and Pentax lenses.

It was kind of fun but in the end, the IQ just isn't that good from those old lenses. The lenses made for digital with all their in-camera and post-processing correction, etc. are visually superior to any of the legacy lenses I tried.

"vastly superior"?

Vastly superior!?

Really?

Got any examples to back that up?

I don't recall ever saying (or writing) "vastly superior."

Well, you've said that IQ from old lenses is "not that good", so "vastly superior" seems a perfectly reasonable inference, unless your images with native lenses are not good either.

Generally speaking the IQ from the MFT lenses is better than the IQ from the legacy lenses I tried -- especially wide open.  A lot of the fast older lenses are cr@p wide open.  Tried several in the 40mm-50mm range and none of them were as sharp as the Oly 45/1.8.  Bokeh is a matter of taste, but the older lenses I used tended to be quite busy in that department, which I don't like.

That's not to say that there aren't some great ones out there that I haven't tried, but I bet you'd have to pay at least the price of their MFT counterparts to match their IQ ... unless you just got a steal.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow