Who says the 35/f2 has no magic?

stevo23 wrote:

kiwidad wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

kiwidad wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

Meetmer wrote:

You have expressed those views on other threads and I think most people seem to disagree with you. The 35 mm F2 is not perfect, but it’s totally awesome . Can’t recommend it enough.

Disagree that it has color fringing and distortion or disagree that it isn't a great lens to use? Both aberrations are documented/able. So you must mean the latter which is of course not what I'm saying.

I laugh how we argue over these refinements when folk are clamoring over old russian coke bottle lenses for their "character"

What refinements are you thinking of?

Well I would consider a sharp lens refined for instance of a russian helios 58 lens when it comes to sharpness.

One of the big problems we have in digital is apples and oranges. One manufacturer applies different levels of sharpness for instance in jpgs for instance than another so they have a reputation of being sharper. The average shooter doesn't hit RAW and make those comparisons.

Around here, I think there are enough people testing these things with Raw and certainly plenty of objective tests to be able to cut through those differences. Don't you think?

I have no issue with what my camera captures thru the 35 f2. Does it have flaws? perhaps.. do any lenses not have flaws? I haven't found perfect one (I can afford) yet.

So Otus isn't in your budget? Don't you have a car you can sell?

Kinda hard to get to work on a lens lol. and if someone did make a 12-600 f.95 zoom someone would find something wrong with it!

tell me again how "magic" is defined in technical terms?