woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,772
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
Just for fun...
Fstoppers asks if you can tell the difference between a modern lens, the Sony 55mm f1.8, and an old Nikon 50mm f2 AI...
I have that Sony lens and I'd say it's outstanding. When I tested mine my benchmarks were the old Sigma 50mm f1.4 and Canon f2.5 macro I used on my 5D and the Sony is just so much "better" if your criteria is sharpness across the frame and into the extreme corners and including wide open performance. I'd say it was better than the Canon f2.5 at any aperture the Canon could match with the proviso that the Canon whilst not being a 1:1 macro could focus closer. I've since bought the Voigtlander 50mm f2 apo in e mount and I'd say that that is an even better lens than the Sony.
Looking at older 50mm lenses I have the Zuiko f1.4 and f1.8, FD f1.4 and f1.8, Rokkor f1.2, 1.4 and f1.7 and the 55mm f1.7, Nikon AI-S f1.4, 1.8 and Nippon Kogaku f1.4 and f2 and a Sigma 50mm f2.8 macro in Rokkor mount which is a different beast as it is a 1:1 macro.
I do like my old lenses and stopped down there's less visible difference to modern lenses but I do believe that if you look closer towards the edges and into the corners you will see differences. That's not to say that these old lenses are bad, they are in fact perfectly useable but just not as good if you go pixel peeping the extremes of the frame. At larger apertures I'd say that the differences are often much more obvious with the more modern lenses displaying less funky bokeh and artefacts but of course looking at technical optical properties ignores the look and if you/we just like the look a lens gives then that's enough.
Fstoppers asks if you can tell the difference between a modern lens, the Sony 55mm f1.8, and an old Nikon 50mm f2 AI...
Can You Tell the Difference Between a $1,000 Modern Lens and a $50 Vintage Lens? I Bet Not!
For most modern photographers, the thought of shooting a vintage prime instead of a new autofocus lens is a non-starter. If this applies to you, do you think you could tell the difference in a blind comparison? I would be willing to bet not. In this article, I am going to present a series of...
fstoppers.com
I have that Sony lens and I'd say it's outstanding. When I tested mine my benchmarks were the old Sigma 50mm f1.4 and Canon f2.5 macro I used on my 5D and the Sony is just so much "better" if your criteria is sharpness across the frame and into the extreme corners and including wide open performance. I'd say it was better than the Canon f2.5 at any aperture the Canon could match with the proviso that the Canon whilst not being a 1:1 macro could focus closer. I've since bought the Voigtlander 50mm f2 apo in e mount and I'd say that that is an even better lens than the Sony.
Looking at older 50mm lenses I have the Zuiko f1.4 and f1.8, FD f1.4 and f1.8, Rokkor f1.2, 1.4 and f1.7 and the 55mm f1.7, Nikon AI-S f1.4, 1.8 and Nippon Kogaku f1.4 and f2 and a Sigma 50mm f2.8 macro in Rokkor mount which is a different beast as it is a 1:1 macro.
I do like my old lenses and stopped down there's less visible difference to modern lenses but I do believe that if you look closer towards the edges and into the corners you will see differences. That's not to say that these old lenses are bad, they are in fact perfectly useable but just not as good if you go pixel peeping the extremes of the frame. At larger apertures I'd say that the differences are often much more obvious with the more modern lenses displaying less funky bokeh and artefacts but of course looking at technical optical properties ignores the look and if you/we just like the look a lens gives then that's enough.