Rod McD

Lives in Australia Australia
Joined on Jan 15, 2010

Comments

Total: 281, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Hmmm..... Much as I like the concept of premium quality small lenses - like Zeiss Loxias for a wider range of mounts - the prices proposed for these are over the top. US$5.5K (AUD $7.2K) for a 24mm in modest speed? I'll stick to my excellent Fuji 23/1.4 and lug the extra 50grams thanks.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2017 at 07:52 UTC as 22nd comment

I'm currently a Fuji user and only use non-OEM lenses when there's an FL that Fuji doesn't offer. That means adapters and manual focus. I tried many a MF 300 & 400mm from the film-era and found most wanting on digital by today's standards. I finally tried the Canon FD 300/4L and have to say that I'm very happy with its IQ - very sharp, near-zero CAs and a build quality that puts many current lenses to shame. A great testament to a thirty year old design.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2017 at 10:13 UTC as 134th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Rod McD: Surely all of the arguments raised here comparing FF & MF can just as well be cited between any two formats? 1" upgrading to MFT, MFT to APSC, APSC to FF and FF to MF as you see them in print here. Despite all these points, the IQ certainly looks great in online images and the early reviews seem to be dripping with enthusiasm.

To think that the systems are competition rather complementary options would be a mistake. MF will never offer the lens range or lens speed of smaller formats and it's likely to remain costly. OTOH lovers of resolution - landscape, architecture and fashion enthusiasts might just find it just ticks their boxes. Personally, I can't afford it anyway, so I've no vested interest here......

There is a pre-occupation emerging in a great many of the comments here about MF versus FF and fast lenses. While that may apply at maximum aperture, the very types of photography where MF might excel - let's say studio, landscape and architecture - don't typically require fast lenses at all. MF never did and never will trump FF for portability, lens range and lens speed. It will attract those whose needs are met by what it does offer. Which is why it will remain niche, but nevertheless be appreciated by its owners and users.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2017 at 21:14 UTC

Surely all of the arguments raised here comparing FF & MF can just as well be cited between any two formats? 1" upgrading to MFT, MFT to APSC, APSC to FF and FF to MF as you see them in print here. Despite all these points, the IQ certainly looks great in online images and the early reviews seem to be dripping with enthusiasm.

To think that the systems are competition rather complementary options would be a mistake. MF will never offer the lens range or lens speed of smaller formats and it's likely to remain costly. OTOH lovers of resolution - landscape, architecture and fashion enthusiasts might just find it just ticks their boxes. Personally, I can't afford it anyway, so I've no vested interest here......

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2017 at 12:16 UTC as 418th comment | 9 replies

We get the same sort of thing in the great salt lakes in South Australia. They're beautiful wilderness areas. Vehicle tracks do change that natural vastness that people come to see and appreciate. They do heal over time, particularly after a rain event, but yeah, it takes time. And everyone else has to look at their monument to their thoughtlessness for a few years....

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2017 at 12:26 UTC as 57th comment

1) Keep making great DSLRs. 2) Let's see a good mirror-less FF platform to offer some competition to Sony. And 3) bring back high grade, large sensor, fixed lens compacts - the DLs or something like them with in-built EVFs.

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2017 at 20:25 UTC as 66th comment | 1 reply

DPR - Is there any chance they'd let you try the set for sample photos? There are simply no tests or reviews anywhere on the net. I've been watching them for the 75mm because Fuji offers nothing near the old 105mm FL that I happen to like.... It's hard to buy new designs in a total vacuum about IQ and BQ. These are not inexpensive lenses - they're chasing Voigtlander prices. Their ads talk about classic quality, but if that means soft wide open and a truckload of film-era CAs, no thanks. Let's see some images.....

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2017 at 03:35 UTC as 3rd comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Rod McD: Its a great pity Cosina don't offer them in other mirror-less mounts too. Why not Fuji, MFT and Canon M? Those of us who would like to use them will have to adapt the old Leica M mount lenses they already have out. For me personally the Apo Lanthar 65/2 is the most interesting of the three. I'm not sure if that will even be available in Leica M mount either.

I'd agree that a crop-sensor-only lens would restrict that lens to that sensor. Obviously a lens with a specific mount would have to be marketed to owners of that platform - as is the case with other independents now. I was suggesting that the same lens should be made in addition to FF options so no loss to FF platforms. I don't know that adapters are the perfect answer. (Like you I already use quite a few.) With no electronic contacts, Cosina would only need to change the lens rear barrel length and mounts. Samyang already follow that approach with a number of their MF lenses - successfully as far as anyone can tell.

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2017 at 03:18 UTC
In reply to:

Rod McD: Its a great pity Cosina don't offer them in other mirror-less mounts too. Why not Fuji, MFT and Canon M? Those of us who would like to use them will have to adapt the old Leica M mount lenses they already have out. For me personally the Apo Lanthar 65/2 is the most interesting of the three. I'm not sure if that will even be available in Leica M mount either.

@ Richard Murdey. Surely value is entirely subjective? If someone buys a Voigtlander lens, that deal is presumably good for both Cosina and the buyer. I use an Apo Lanthar SL90/3.5 on APSC and it's an excellent small all-round short tele, semi macro and occasional long portrait lens. I bought it because Fuji didn't offer a 90mm at the time. They've since released their 90/2 but I kept the Voigtlander - it's half the size of the Fuji lens, focuses closer, has a better MF implementation and great rendering. What's not to like?

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 23:19 UTC
In reply to:

Rod McD: Its a great pity Cosina don't offer them in other mirror-less mounts too. Why not Fuji, MFT and Canon M? Those of us who would like to use them will have to adapt the old Leica M mount lenses they already have out. For me personally the Apo Lanthar 65/2 is the most interesting of the three. I'm not sure if that will even be available in Leica M mount either.

I know full well that these are FF lenses. A good many mirror-less users do use MF FF lenses on smaller formats and they're not all used film-era glass. If you're making the point that the numbers may not be there to make it economic, OK, you may well be right. OTOH, you can't use what you can't mount. If they were offered in more mounts so that adapters could be avoided, maybe the take up would be higher.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 12:41 UTC

Its a great pity Cosina don't offer them in other mirror-less mounts too. Why not Fuji, MFT and Canon M? Those of us who would like to use them will have to adapt the old Leica M mount lenses they already have out. For me personally the Apo Lanthar 65/2 is the most interesting of the three. I'm not sure if that will even be available in Leica M mount either.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 21:39 UTC as 16th comment | 8 replies
On article Fotodiox Pro launches five GFX lens adapters (77 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rod McD: Hmm.... Apart from using other medium format film lens adapters, I can only think of a few uses (macro & TS perhaps) for 35mm/FF lenses that actually make sense unless you're cropping to FF anyway. In which case why bother to spend $7K to get FF?

And yes some FF lenses project a larger image circle than required to cover FF, but one needs to be very careful not assume that the area beyond the intended usage offers excellence in IQ simply because it's there. It can deteriorate quite rapidly.....

Many lenses have image circles bigger than the film/sensor sizes their designers intended them for. My point was that users shouldn't assume the IQ is excellent outside that area. And excellence is why one buys MF. If you look at lens test charts published by lab test sites, it's very obvious that IQ falls away WITHIN the intended area as one approaches the corners. That deterioration continues the closer one gets to the edge (as one can see if one uses TS adapters). I do acknowledge that a 30.6mpx FF crop might be useful in its own right and that portrait photogs may not care because they're interested in centre dominant subjects. But to anyone interested in say landscape or architecture it may be very important.

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2017 at 21:43 UTC
On article Fotodiox Pro launches five GFX lens adapters (77 comments in total)

Hmm.... Apart from using other medium format film lens adapters, I can only think of a few uses (macro & TS perhaps) for 35mm/FF lenses that actually make sense unless you're cropping to FF anyway. In which case why bother to spend $7K to get FF?

And yes some FF lenses project a larger image circle than required to cover FF, but one needs to be very careful not assume that the area beyond the intended usage offers excellence in IQ simply because it's there. It can deteriorate quite rapidly.....

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2017 at 06:05 UTC as 9th comment | 4 replies

Pity - I would have been interested to check out and perhaps buy the 24-85.

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2017 at 21:36 UTC as 165th comment

What's with all these high-end and aspirant high-end designs that have clanking great metal buckles and fasteners all over them? Metal fasteners, glass surfaces and camera bodies just seem like such a poor mix when manufacturers have access to high grade nylon and Fastex type fasteners...... Retro isn't always good.

Link | Posted on Feb 12, 2017 at 04:31 UTC as 24th comment
In reply to:

evogt500: Kinda pricy for a 50/2.

@villagranvicent. There is no previous 50mm lens in Fuji's lens range, faster or otherwise. And why not be objective and see how the new lens actually performs? The first one has yet to be sold.....

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2017 at 07:01 UTC
On article Feisty upstart: Hands-on with the Fujifilm X-T20 (356 comments in total)

I'm an XT1 owner. Is this possibly a great economic upgrade path to the 24mpx sensor and AF improvements? Possibly, but it means no AF joystick and a reduced EVF, both of which one might use routinely. And no sealing. Perhaps three of the best physical things on the XT2 missing. And no battery/power grip if one uses one. OTOH, smaller and a lot lighter. Or wait to see the XE3....? Decisions, decisions.....

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2017 at 06:50 UTC as 96th comment
In reply to:

thubten: Its hard to find a $1000 f4.5 lens under 400mm

Not really. Try Voigtlander 10, 12 & 15mm ultra wide angles.....

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 02:33 UTC

Interesting..... It might be nice as a hiking/ landscape lens in FF or APSC. The slow aperture wouldn't matter and the low weight would be an asset. The devil, of course, is in the detail...... It will be nice to hear about the actual IQ when some make it into the field. Until then, all we're going to see here is conjecture.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 02:30 UTC as 9th comment
On article New 20mm F2 4.5x macro lens released by Mitakon (122 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ace of Sevens: That focal range seems to mean this will have very limited applications. How is this considered a macro lens?

It's ONLY a macro lens. Maximum magnification is 4.5x, minimum 4.0x. It doesn't do anything else - ie it's a highly specialised lens for very close up photography somewhere in the range between the usual 1:2/1:1 macro lenses (that also focus to infinity) and microscopy.

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2016 at 23:19 UTC
Total: 281, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »