clinical Versus un-clinical?

Started Dec 8, 2010 | Discussions thread
stealth3kpl Contributing Member • Posts: 758
Re: clinical Versus un-clinical?

nbanja wrote:

But now let me ask you why is an ASPH lens so expensive because of that element while some cheap Nikkor Zooms have it and they're worth no more then 200$.

I suspect this will be a moulded plastic lens? Is it an ED lens you're referring to? I can't recall if ED is a glass element or not (there are plastics with very high refractive indices). Either way, this glass/plastic element will be high production and of good quality but not technically as good as the Leica glass element. (I used to have the Nikon 55-200VR ED zoom. I'd recommend this lens to any Nikon DX user).

Or even the 50 f1.5 Nokton with TWO asph elements while much cheaper. Also, the Nokton's look is nothing really modern or '"clinical"...

This seems excellent value. The images I've seen are very good. The Voight 50/1.1 looks interesting too but I'm not keen on the bokeh/OOF of that lens from the images I've seen. All swirly and nauseating, he he. However, lets hope Voightlander or Zeiss bring out an M9 equivalent!


There are people who use cameras to make photos and there are people who make photos to use cameras. - John Sypal

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