K01, who is "ugly" now?

Started Oct 26, 2013 | Discussions thread
Rod McD Veteran Member • Posts: 5,767
Re: All manufacturers MTFs graphs look brilliant...

marike6 wrote:

viking79 wrote:

marike6 wrote:

At least on a Nikon or Canon FF you can mount a $200 50 f/1.8 with terrific optics. 1000 USD for a 55 f/1.8 normal lens??? Yikes.

The New Nikon 58mm f/1.4 is $1700 US and is not a better performer. I agree the new 55mm f/1.8 is on the high side, but it is also a much more expensive lens design than a $200 50mm f/1.8, it is a much better lens than those lenses (more comparable to a Leica).



Wow, you are really drinking the manufacturers MTF Kool-aid. Sony has not shipped a single 55 f/1.8 yet you are already telling people which lenses it's better than based on its manufacturer MTFs or some Wordpress blog post?

The OP was about comparison of the camera's' aesthetic styles with that of the Pentax K01.  Surely an entirely subjective matter? A camera is a tool for a purpose, not bling.

To turn to your criticisms of Sony's new products........ I think you too are deploring the price of the Sony lenses without really knowing their performance either. We haven't seen any independent tests for their new lenses but the field tests from the photographers who've had access to one suggest that they're very good indeed.

When someone actually tests new 55 f/1.8 on an optical bench we'll see it performs about the same as most other 50s. BUT I'd bet anything like ALL mirrorless lenses it doesn't optically correct for distortion and vignetting like ALL DSLR lenses are, meaning the optical engineers had a MUCH easier time designing it having only resolution, coma and astigmatism to worry about. So no, a lens that uses software correction is not "more expensive to design".

It is not correct that all 50mm DSLR lenses are distortion and vignette free.  Nor is it correct that ALL mirror-less lenses are corrected by software.  Over generalisation.

And the new Nikon 58 f/1.4 is too expensive for a normal lens, BUT it has a faster max aperture and a much better build quality including a distance scale, something ALL lenses at such a high price point should have.

"Too expensive" is a term relative to the buyer not the lens.  Perhaps it's cost of manufacture and its results are worth it.  I'd also prefer to see an aperture ring and a distance scale, but with modern electronics they're unfortunately becoming a thing of the past.  As far as maximum aperture goes, it's dependent on your uses..... I'd rather have a slow lens with optimal IQ at every available aperture than a faster lens compromised for speed.

But my point is cost of ownership matters for most amateurs. Professionals may be able to justify a $1000 f/1.8 normal lens, most amateurs cannot. Nor would they be well served by such lenses when they are much faster max aperture lenses for less.

A good many amateurs I know own more gear (and more expensive gear) than some of the professionals I know......

Same as above for Sony's $1200 f4 standard zoom. My Nikon 70-200 f4 VR was only $200 more than the Sony 24-70 f4, to give you an idea of how ridiculously priced the Sony standard zoom is. The Nikkor 70-200 f4 VR is an expensive lens for sure, but it's a 70-200mm telephoto zoom. The Sony f4 standard zoom is beyond expensive. And don't bother looking up MTFs for the f4 zoom or telling me about some blue sticker. My RX100 has a blue sticker too, before it fell off.

Cheers, Markus

Apples and oranges.

Regards, Rod

 Rod McD's gear list:Rod McD's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X Olympus Tough TG-4 Fujifilm X-T1 Voigtlander 90mm F3.5 APO-Lanthar SL II Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +9 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow