On putting money into 4:3 gear ...

Started May 11, 2013 | Discussions thread
TrapperJohn
Forum ProPosts: 10,418
Like?
The eye test reveals otherwise
In reply to Craig from Nevada, May 19, 2013

I've had the 14-54 for ages. Good lens.

I've seen quite a few 14-35 F2 shots posted online that made me want to run out and get one... ultra sharp definition. The price has always stopped me, but if one turned up in the $1k range, I'd be sorely tempted to do something ugly to my bank account.

Same goes for the 50-200 vs 35-100. By the numbers, the 50-200 is a bargain and the 35-100 is pricey. But... I've seen quite a few 35-100 shots posted here that were dazzling. So when I had a chance to get one at an unheard of price, I leaped on it. True that in bright light, there isn't a lot of difference between those two lenses, IQ wise. But, when the light starts getting dim, the 35-100 really comes to life. There is a 'bit of extra' IQ in a 35-100 shot. If you don't see it, be happy. If you do see it, it's an expensive taste to acquire.

I expect the 90-250 is much the same, wish I had the funds to grab one, though I'd really prefer a 150F2. Smaller, less expensive, still wicked sharp definition.

All these discussions on lenses, comparing specs, relative light gathering, blah blah, completely miss the point of ultra high grade glass.

The F2 SHG lenses, much like the finer Leica glass, quite probably like the best L or Nikkor lenses, produce images that speak to the soul, when they are used to their best effect. You have to use them to see why the SHG lens costs more.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
skeys MOD
skeys MOD
+1New
skeys MOD
Say,New
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow