July 2020 Part 2 — This Month Through Your Adapted Lens

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
GnarlydogOZ Senior Member • Posts: 1,357
Re: E.Zuiko 100mm f3.5 (for Pen-F system)

D Cox wrote:

I don't feel that way.

I regard modern lenses as rather sharp, much "truer" in the interpretation of detail and color than vintage ones (not that color should be a concern with digital photography since with a few clicks it can be adjusted to taste).

What modern lenses often do is render "too much" of reality where then the viewer gets lost in understanding the message a photographer was trying to convey. Too much and the eye starts to wonder and analyze instead of absorb the essence and spirit intended by the photographer.

Not unlike lenses that are deemed too sharp for portrait where they can "ruin" the final result of a lady's portrait because the viewer is distracted by the tiny pimples and imperfections instead of dwelling in her beauty.

Of course, the above concept is lost to the pixel peeper where technical perfection is paramount and character in a lens is a flaw.

I think it depends on the subject. A very detailed image can be perfect for many landscapes, where pixel peeping gives you the same effect as you get in real life with binoculars. Crisp fine detail also suits photos of big buildings, especially ones with elaborate carvings.

But definitely not for portraits. Not even of children with perfect complexions.

Landscapes that are more about the light and the mood then about the architecture of a distant farmhouse may also be better not too sharp.

Don Cox

Oh, I fully agree there. But for that I don't use adapted old glass but simply reach for my stupid sharp modern native glass    I gain nothing with vintage lenses: architecture or landscape doesn't call for "character"

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