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

Started Jan 27, 2013 | Discussions thread
ciresob Regular Member • Posts: 104
Re: They are not.....

Hmm yes, fair enough. Depends on subject, portraits are better not too sharp. Certainly, stopped down to f4, Tamron SP 90 is razor sharp and contrasty enough. My main use for it is at f4 & beyond for macro photography - can't fault it for that - wonderful results.

In terms of $$$ saved. These were lenses I got with my Nikon F2  second-hand in the early 1990s  (also a Kiron 28mm, all already v cheap then). They were put into storage in 2003-ish when I got my first digital camera (Canon S45), and forgotten about.

Last year my interest in photography was rekindled and I bought an OM-D ME-5. Seeing I already had the lenses from years ago, in effect they were free to me. Just the cost of an adapter. So for the 50mm to outperform in some respects the Oly 45,  and for the 90mm to remove the need to ever buy the 60mm macro is amazing, I think.

The only disappointment is the Kiron 28 - sadly no better than my kit 12-50 zoom at 28mm, which in turn does not hold a candle to the 12-35 Panny I just got.

 ciresob's gear list:ciresob's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 +3 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow