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

Started Jan 27, 2013 | Discussions thread
amtberg
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,341
Like?
Re: Lens hood....
In reply to tedolf, Jan 30, 2013

tedolf wrote:

amtberg wrote:

tedolf wrote:

amtberg wrote:

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.

Cr@p wide open.

They are "pleasingly soft".

Tried several in the 40mm-50mm range and none of them were as sharp as the Oly 45/1.8.

So, who wants to shoot a head and shoulders portrait of a beatiful girl wide open and "sharp"?

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.

Hmmmm......

Which ones did you try

How many aperture blades did they have?

Did you even know?

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 ...

Now here you are wrong.

There are some great portrait lenses in the sub $50.00 catagory.

unless you just got a steal.

Most of them are steals.

TEdolph

I tried the Super Takumar 50/1.4, which has eight aperture blades, and the Konica Hexanon 40/1.8, which has six oddly shaped blades, and the Voigtlander 40/1.4, which I believe has 10 blades. The Tak and Konica were unuseable wide open, as far as I'm concerned. There's a difference between a pleasant glow and cr@p. The Voigt was bad wide open and only good stopped down. Likewise the Tak. The Hexanon lens is very sharp stopped down but flares like super nova.

You have problems with flare shooting portraits indoors?

Or out doors in the shade?

Did you use a lens hood?

You do remeber that the manufacturers of these lenses at the time always recomended use of a hood out doors, right?

TEdolphI

No, I don't have a hood for it, and that would make a big difference. I use my hand as a makeshift hood when the sun is out of the frame, but with a bright light source in the frame it's really bad and a hood isn't going to do anything about that.

Again, my point is not that these lenses can't be used to take good photos in the right conditions; my point is that they are not as good as modern lenses in most cases.

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