Open Photography Forums  
HOME FORUMS NEWS FAQ SEARCH

Go Back   Open Photography Forums > Digital Camera Discussion > Lenses: DSLR and Rangefinder, MF adaptions to 35mm such Zoerk

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 21st, 2014, 10:50 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is online now
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,942
Default Leica, Zeiss or other expensive lenses v. lenses from that camera brand?

If one already owns vintage Leica, Zeiss, (or other excellent- thanks Michael Nagel for your important post below), glass, it makes sense to get adapters for one's modern DSLR or mirror less camera.

But why do we need to purchase the newly minted, especially Zeiss or Sigma "Art" glass for our cameras?

For me, the sony A7R has a seemingly adequate standard Sony Sonnar T* FE 35mm f/2.8 ZA Lens, (at $798). But now we are also offered a manual Zeiss Loxia 35mm f/2 Biogon T* Lens for Sony E at a price 50% higher! Does it really make sense?

Perhaps we do "need" this for detail-rich landscapes to get the most out of the 36 MP sony sensor? It looks like the camera platform could be seducing us to, "need" more expensive lenses as the sensors resolve more and more detail.

So have you also bought into a need for buying Zeiss and Leica lenses for you non Leica camera?

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old November 22nd, 2014, 02:32 AM
Michael Nagel Michael Nagel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich/Germany
Posts: 2,289
Default

Asher,

As your post is pretty narrowly focused on two big names, let me widen the focus a little...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
If one already owns vintage Leica or Zeiss glass, it makes sense to get adapters for one's modern DSLR or mirror less camera.
There is a lot of good vintage glass out there, there are great Contax (well, this is Zeiss), Minolta, Olympus, etc... lenses that are worth to be adapted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
But why do we need to purchase the newly minted, especially Zeiss or Sigma "Art" glass for our cameras?
If you see the need for you - go for it. I do not see a real need.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
For me, the sony A7R has a seemingly adequate standard Sony Sonnar T* FE 35mm f/2.8 ZA Lens, (at $798). But now we are also offered a manual Zeiss Loxia 35mm f/2 Biogon T* Lens for Sony E at a price 50% higher! Does it really make sense?
A friend is using the Pentax SMC-FA 31mm Limited on his A7R and the results seem to be up to the high expectations for this lens.
It depends on where is your sweet spot between spending and the image quality expected...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
Perhaps we do "need" this for detail-rich landscapes to get the most out of the 36 MP sony sensor? It looks like the camera platform could be seducing us to, "need" more expensive lenses as the sensors resolve more and more detail.

So have you also bought into a need for buying Zeiss and Leica lenses for you non Leica camera?
For me it is a clear no - in my particular case the FA Limiteds or the A*81/1.4 are good lenses and are sufficient for me.

For others there are Contax, Minolta, name them. There are many good lenses out there.
If you intend to spend less - there are many good Leica R lenses which could be adapted.

Best regards,
Michael
__________________
I do not call myself an artist, I just try to capture what I see.
If you need many words to describe what your picture means, it doesn't speak enough for itself.
my photos on flickr - here is the portion posted in OPF.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old November 22nd, 2014, 10:03 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is online now
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,942
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Nagel View Post
Asher,

As your post is pretty narrowly focused on two big names, let me widen the focus a little...

There is a lot of good vintage glass out there, there are great Contax (well, this is Zeiss), Minolta, Olympus, etc... lenses that are worth to be adapted.
An important correction, Michael - Thanks. I was moved by folks referencing the apparent need for Zeiss or Leica.

I myself, (in addition to the Zeiss 55mm 1.8 AF designed for the A7/A7R), use on a day to day basis, mostly Pentax/Pentacon glass with the M42 mount - the 135mm, 85mm, 50 mm. My most important wide angle lens is the Canon FD 20mm. I also use the Contax 18mm Distagon, 28mm 2.0 Distagon and the 28-85 Vario Sonnar.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Nagel View Post
A friend is using the Pentax SMC-FA 31mm Limited on his A7R and the results seem to be up to the high expectations for this lens.
It depends on where is your sweet spot between spending and the image quality expected..


For me it is a clear no - in my particular case the FA Limiteds or the A*81/1.4 are good lenses and are sufficient for me. .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Nagel View Post
...........Leica R lenses which could be adapted.
A major point. ....and the camera bodies themselves with a digital back. These are, perhaps, the most overlooked bargains.

Thanks you for broadening the discussion.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old November 22nd, 2014, 05:56 PM
Tom dinning Tom dinning is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 2,088
Default

I read, with constant fascination, the threads about gear.
I wonder to myself if this is the difference between those who enjoy the journey and those who look forward to the destination. Or a bit of each.
I don't have a lot of cash to throw about on gear. I do what I can with what I can afford or need at the time. The 10-30 mm lens on the Nikon V2 is as useful and effective as any under the right circumstances. Which brand and which model doesn't enter much into the picture any more, and maybe never did.
I don't understand.
What difference does it make? Really! If Asher spends $2000 on a lens And I use a $200 lens on mine, does this make a difference to the function of the photograph? Am I to envy what he has? Would you all be more impressed if you knew which bit of gear was used?
I know its an old argument but I am often asked the question. One of my students pulled out a photo the other day from a book I had given him to read. The photo was blurred, grainy, hastily put together and hardly beautiful. He was fascinated. All he wanted to do was to take photos like that. He was not interested in the gear but the photo. I know the photo well and the circumstances under which it was taken and the camera an lens most likely used. None of this was important. I wanted to hug the student. Unfortunately this would have been seen to be inappropriate. He's a married man.
I understand there is a place for technological advancement. But for the simple things in life, as most of us see photography anyway, is it important?
How important is it to have a Leica or a Zeiss lens or an A7II or whatever? Are we led to believe this will make the difference or are we trying to impress someone. Is it that we might be drawn to look longer at a photo taken with such gear? Does he buyer of such gear know what they are doing? And why? If I stand at the urinal and look down the line, does the man with the biggest dick win? And what does he win?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old November 22nd, 2014, 11:18 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is online now
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,942
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom dinning View Post
I read, with constant fascination, the threads about gear.
I wonder to myself if this is the difference between those who enjoy the journey and those who look forward to the destination. Or a bit of each.
I don't have a lot of cash to throw about on gear. I do what I can with what I can afford or need at the time. The 10-30 mm lens on the Nikon V2 is as useful and effective as any under the right circumstances. Which brand and which model doesn't enter much into the picture any more, and maybe never did.
I don't understand.
What difference does it make? Really! If Asher spends $2000 on a lens And I use a $200 lens on mine, does this make a difference to the function of the photograph? Am I to envy what he has? Would you all be more impressed if you knew which bit of gear was used?
I know its an old argument but I am often asked the question. One of my students pulled out a photo the other day from a book I had given him to read. The photo was blurred, grainy, hastily put together and hardly beautiful. He was fascinated. All he wanted to do was to take photos like that. He was not interested in the gear but the photo. I know the photo well and the circumstances under which it was taken and the camera an lens most likely used. None of this was important. I wanted to hug the student. Unfortunately this would have been seen to be inappropriate. He's a married man.
I understand there is a place for technological advancement. But for the simple things in life, as most of us see photography anyway, is it important?
Tom,

Happy you stopped by to chat! However you have made some assumptions or inferences that are essentially incorrect.

No one here buys gear to "impress" you - or anyone else, for that matter! We assume that each of us has grown out of being awed by high ticket items and are more concerned with getting on with making images, each according to his/her needs and inner instincts for expression.

So, you Tom, are "preaching to the choir" when you laud the brilliant, but fuzzy images that work without need of some elite camera. But you do express these good thoughts as well as anyone!

Here we just treasure the art and craft and magnetic draw of the image. No one, AFAIK has any affection for cameras for status, only for particular unique imaging capabilities for the job at hand.

Shooting 100 people in an orchestra on a poorly lit stage, an orthogonal image of a tall building or a violinist for a page spread in a magazine, requires, in each case, unique technique and gear for the most professional results. The delightfully arty blurred image wont suffice in these cases! So this thread then is about that "something extra" that makes the choice of gear entirely different.

Still, as apparently in your case, absent a need for either detail-rich images, working in low light, or the unusually special drawing character of some particular lens, then, of course, save your money - such equipment has scant utility for you, just larger files and becomes more "stuff" to get stolen!

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old November 23rd, 2014, 02:54 AM
Tom dinning Tom dinning is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 2,088
Default

Always happy to chat, Asher. It's a quiet sunday and too bloody hot to go out.
I'm not easily impressed so its all wasted on me anyway.
I wasn't suggesting anyone was out to impress me in particular. And if its not to impress the impressionable, why mention it? Does the mention of a zeiss or leica in connection with a photo of any real value? I can understand a mention of an f stop or focal length but surely there is in the back of each of our contemptuous minds the thought that someone out there will be impressed by my ownership of a very expensive piece of equipment. Contrary to popular belief on OPF, I'm inclined to think that members here are as gullible enough to be wanton of another person's trinkets, otherwise, there's be no point in flashing glossy centerfolds of Sony A7's and the like at us in the hope we might get a hard on and rush to the shop and satisfy our desires.
I know the people here are a cut above the rest. It's why I am still here. Never the less, I still think they are human and have all the qualities that humans can possess, including greed, envy and a capitalist streak as wide as Sunset Boulevarde.
I also understand the need for technical quality. It just seems that the discussions become as blurred as the photos I take. There isn't a sign at the top of the post that says:
"Dinning, keep out and mind your own business". I will always remain your 12th man on the jury, Asher.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old November 23rd, 2014, 05:32 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is online now
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,942
Default

Tom,

I think I know the folk here very well and have visited more than a few and hosted a number in my home - enough at least to be able to say with, some insight, that folk here have gotten over any gear lust and simply want to make the picture that their minds have conjured up.

.....and yes, like you and I they do have their weaknesses but unnecessary lust for gear is not one of them.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old November 23rd, 2014, 08:11 AM
Doug Kerr Doug Kerr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Alamogordo, New Mexico, USA
Posts: 8,603
Default

Hi, Asher,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
Tom,

Happy you stopped by to chat! However you have made some assumptions or inferences that are essentially incorrect.

No one here buys gear to "impress" you - or anyone else, for that matter! We assume that each of us has grown out of being awed by high ticket items and are more concerned with getting on with making images, each according to his/her needs and inner instincts for expression.

So, you Tom, are "preaching to the choir" when you laud the brilliant, but fuzzy images that work without need of some elite camera. But you do express these good thoughts as well as anyone!

Here we just treasure the art and craft and magnetic draw of the image. No one, AFAIK has any affection for cameras for status, only for particular unique imaging capabilities for the job at hand.

Shooting 100 people in an orchestra on a poorly lit stage, an orthogonal image of a tall building or a violinist for a page spread in a magazine, requires, in each case, unique technique and gear for the most professional results. The delightfully arty blurred image wont suffice in these cases! So this thread then is about that "something extra" that makes the choice of gear entirely different.

Still, as apparently in your case, absent a need for either detail-rich images, working in low light, or the unusually special drawing character of some particular lens, then, of course, save your money - such equipment has scant utility for you, just larger files and becomes more "stuff" to get stolen!
Well said.

Thank you.

Best regards,

Doug
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old November 23rd, 2014, 10:06 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is online now
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,942
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Kerr View Post
Hi, Asher,



Well said.

Thank you.

Best regards,

Doug
Thanks for the affirmation, Doug!

I'm used to using specific radiation machines for particular physical challenges of treating a superficial skin tumor or an irregularly shaped cancer between the lungs or in the tiny pituitary fossa. Different energies of photons or electrons are useful in each circumstance.

Same with photography. If one just does walk around casual photography, then a single 24mm 50 80mm lens would suffice and there's little demand for either great resolution or freedom from peripheral artifacts.

However, try taking a picture of an orchestra from balcony with that and one is doomed to failure. To get the 100-1200 people spread out on a stage one does need a camera with the highest dynamic range as the lighting is poor at the sides and back. Also without sufficient ability to capture such a detailed rich scene, the faces will not be as tack sharp as desired.

That's the typical demand of some of my shoots. But then there's also architecture where a well corrected 24mm T/S lens saves hours of photoshop work correcting some stitched picture made with my usual 55 mm lens.

Then, having bought a Sony camera with 36 MP to satisfy my needs for resolving needed detail, I choose to use other MFR's lenses such as the Canon 20mm FD or the 18mm Distagon as the former is dirt cheap but stellar and the latter, (moderately priced decades ago), I already own.

It makes sense to me to use such as a brand new 15mm Zeiss lens to do the same job is out of my price range. Buying that, BTW, would be for the "rush" of owning such a gem, but no need for that these days!

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old November 23rd, 2014, 01:03 PM
Michael Nagel Michael Nagel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich/Germany
Posts: 2,289
Default

Before I start with my message on the actual subject. here is my personal view on text-based communication.

We have a message that forms in the head of someone - the intended message.
This message is coded in text and published in a forum - the formulated message.
Someone reads the message and derives a meaning from the written - the perceived message.

In an ideal world the perceived message is identical to the intended message, the transmission through the formulated message covers all aspects and does neither leave open questions, nor room for misinterpretation.

We do not have an ideal world.

In any case it is the perceived message that counts.

Just my perception of the above and similar discussions here:
When I read the posts here, sometimes I scratch my head (virtually of course) and ask myself 'Is it about the actual gain in performance or is there more to it?' This includes 'want to have' and 'look at my gear'.
I do no want to imply that this message was intended, but the way it is formulated leaves enough room for interpretation that it includes the 'want to have' and 'look at my gear' angle.
The author of the written message is probably often not aware of this and the level at which 'want to have' and 'look at my gear' is perceived is individual and also has cultural aspects.


Back to high-performance lenses.

I cannot speak for Kleinbild, but for APS-C there are a few lenses, not necessarily that expensive, that outresolve the 24Mpix sensor of my camera.
Shooting discipline is most important to achieve the best possible results. I saw way more issues created by the lack of shooting discipline (speaking for myself) than the lens resolution.

We are not at the point where we have affordable diffraction-limited lenses for everyone, but the lens resolution is getting better, right now sensors seem to have an edge, at least for the large majority of available lenses, especially when the sensors are larger.

So does this ideal lens you are looking for need a particular name on it? No - at least for me.
I think that we need to look at other manufacturers, not always the big names.
There are interesting optics that can do the job besides the hyped ones.
When the market concentrations continues as it does now, there will be (is already) few left of the former variety of equipment manufacturers on the market and concentration usually stifles innovation.

Is it this what we want?
Find the answer for yourself.

Best regards,
Michael
__________________
I do not call myself an artist, I just try to capture what I see.
If you need many words to describe what your picture means, it doesn't speak enough for itself.
my photos on flickr - here is the portion posted in OPF.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old November 23rd, 2014, 02:55 PM
Tom dinning Tom dinning is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 2,088
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Nagel View Post
Before I start with my message on the actual subject. here is my personal view on text-based communication.

We have a message that forms in the head of someone - the intended message.
This message is coded in text and published in a forum - the formulated message.
Someone reads the message and derives a meaning from the written - the perceived message.

In an ideal world the perceived message is identical to the intended message, the transmission through the formulated message covers all aspects and does neither leave open questions, nor room for misinterpretation.

We do not have an ideal world.

In any case it is the perceived message that counts.

Just my perception of the above and similar discussions here:
When I read the posts here, sometimes I scratch my head (virtually of course) and ask myself 'Is it about the actual gain in performance or is there more to it?' This includes 'want to have' and 'look at my gear'.
I do no want to imply that this message was intended, but the way it is formulated leaves enough room for interpretation that it includes the 'want to have' and 'look at my gear' angle.
The author of the written message is probably often not aware of this and the level at which 'want to have' and 'look at my gear' is perceived is individual and also has cultural aspects.


Back to high-performance lenses.

I cannot speak for Kleinbild, but for APS-C there are a few lenses, not necessarily that expensive, that outresolve the 24Mpix sensor of my camera.
Shooting discipline is most important to achieve the best possible results. I saw way more issues created by the lack of shooting discipline (speaking for myself) than the lens resolution.

We are not at the point where we have affordable diffraction-limited lenses for everyone, but the lens resolution is getting better, right now sensors seem to have an edge, at least for the large majority of available lenses, especially when the sensors are larger.

So does this ideal lens you are looking for need a particular name on it? No - at least for me.
I think that we need to look at other manufacturers, not always the big names.
There are interesting optics that can do the job besides the hyped ones.
When the market concentrations continues as it does now, there will be (is already) few left of the former variety of equipment manufacturers on the market and concentration usually stifles innovation.

Is it this what we want?
Find the answer for yourself.

Best regards,
Michael
Nicely put, Michael, as usual.
Our perceptions are heavily influenced by our philosophy which in turn is determined by our beliefs. Our experiences will will thus influence all of that.
My experiences are quite different to most here. That in itself is enough for me to question those things I don't understand or contradict my own beliefs. My experiences have also established a considerable amount of skepticism. I would like a $1 for the number of times a brand name has been used to make a point when it most likely wouldn't be relevant to the discussion.
Asher's point on the orchestration of photos is a point in case. The question I ask is " how would he photograph such a situation without the suggested gear"? I'm sure it could be done and with great success.
I am quite happy to admit I'm a gear lover. I also experience gear envy. I'm probably the only bloke here on OPF that does, apparently.
I must go. My Timex watch tells me it's time to take the Corolla to K-Mart get Christine her Xmas present. Does Leica make vacuum cleaners?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old November 23rd, 2014, 04:18 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is online now
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,942
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom dinning View Post
Asher's point on the orchestration of photos is a point in case. The question I ask is " how would he photograph such a situation without the suggested gear"? I'm sure it could be done and with great success.
Well Tom,

I used to stitch many overlapping adjacent shots using an 8MP or 12MP camera and a telephoto lens. That generally took about 4 hours in Photoshop to mask overlapping images and deal with movement of the folk in the orchestra.

Now I can do the same with one exposures at 50 mm with camera on a tripod. It's now a simpler procedure. Orchestras have unions and it's very complicated to get them to stay beyond performance time as it's not in their contracts. Ideally one would want to use lights. During the performance that's usually a problem. So, I tried arriving at the so-called "dress rehearsal" but a lot of the folk are still in blue jeans and patterned open shirts, not the formal clothes that are expected. So one has to work within the time, lighting and behavior limitations and the rhythm of life in an orchestra' live performance. So a camera like the Canon 5D Mark II or III with a great 50 mm lens or the Sony A7R with 36 MP and the stellar 55mm f1.8 lens makes a lot of practical sense. It's now feasible to get the entire orchestra in one shot and be able to correct for poorly lit areas.

So in my case, having particular sensors and lenses is important. The setup I use was one I could afford. It lacks fast focus, but I use MF anyway. I could have used a Nikon D800, or any of the names MF digital cameras with the Sony CMOS 50 MP sensor, but these are out of my price range at this time.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old November 23rd, 2014, 09:45 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is online now
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,942
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Nagel View Post

In any case it is the perceived message that counts.
...and that's where my remarks have gotten me into trouble. i've been accused of being insensitive, and even bigoted just in expressing an idea in my head, for example about Ebola virus or HIV public health policy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Nagel View Post
Just my perception of the above and similar discussions here:
When I read the posts here, sometimes I scratch my head (virtually of course) and ask myself 'Is it about the actual gain in performance or is there more to it?' This includes 'want to have' and 'look at my gear'.
Yes, there's always that underlying question lurking in the shadows.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Nagel View Post
Back to high-performance lenses.

I cannot speak for Kleinbild, but for APS-C there are a few lenses, not necessarily that expensive, that outresolve the 24Mpix sensor of my camera.
Which lenses come to mind?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Nagel View Post
Shooting discipline is most important to achieve the best possible results. I saw way more issues created by the lack of shooting discipline (speaking for myself) than the lens resolution.
I admit that fault, especially when I shoot without a tripod.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old November 24th, 2014, 09:56 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is online now
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,942
Default

Now back to the theme of the thread, I will mention Zeiss. If either the Zeiss Otis, (Canon mount) or Loxia, (Sony FE mount), would impressively outperform the Zeiss 55mm 1.8, I'd go for the higher echelon, yes with the Zeiss emblem. If I could afford another better lens, I'd try to get it too.

One thing to note about cost of exotic lenses. They are actually pretty much like money in the bank and likely as not the increase in value of the lens will outpace inflation.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old December 22nd, 2014, 11:14 AM
Ben Rubinstein Ben Rubinstein is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Manchester UK
Posts: 1,540
Default

There is so much more than just sharpness for lenses or how much they resolve. Were that to be only way to compare a lens then perhaps the original question would make more sense. But it isn't. Each lens is a different paint brush. It is the rendition rather than the resolving power which brings interest to myriads of different lenses of a similar focal length and resolving power. A Leica and a Zeiss, practically any of a similar focal length, are going to draw a scene very differently. Contrast, colour, OOF elements, etc. Vastly different. Taking one of the most mundane of lens manufacturers, the difference between the 50mm 1.4 and 50mm 1.2L, the price jump could be called into question, the build is better but the 1.4 is sharper and does the build and 1/3 stop faster really justify such a huge difference in price when it isn't even sharper? But the question fails to account for the huge difference in rendering, bokeh and colour that makes the L such a different lens.
__________________
Ben Rubinstein
Website: http://www.timelessjewishart.com
Blog: http://thedustylenscap.com
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old December 22nd, 2014, 11:19 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is online now
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,942
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Rubinstein View Post
There is so much more than just sharpness for lenses or how much they resolve. Were that to be only way to compare a lens then perhaps the original question would make more sense. But it isn't. Each lens is a different paint brush. It is the rendition rather than the resolving power which brings interest to myriads of different lenses of a similar focal length and resolving power. A Leica and a Zeiss, practically any of a similar focal length, are going to draw a scene very differently. Contrast, colour, OOF elements, etc. Vastly different.
Ben,

You are quite right. We wouldn't classify people by height in cm and weight to choose someone to paint a picture. There's character to a lens made from the parameters you describe. It takes some experience to realize the potential of a given lens and know when to use it as opposed to another of the same focal length.

I'd love to have examples of where you find certain lens excel as paintbrushes for different conditions.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old December 23rd, 2014, 10:08 AM
Ben Rubinstein Ben Rubinstein is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Manchester UK
Posts: 1,540
Default

http://www.timelessjewishart.com/contemplation.html

Part 1 using a lensbaby stopped down to f22 to give the feel of an early century lens.

Part 2 using a 60 year old 50mm lens shot wide open for a dreamy contemplative look.

Lots of talk about why and how through the archives.
__________________
Ben Rubinstein
Website: http://www.timelessjewishart.com
Blog: http://thedustylenscap.com
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old January 26th, 2015, 02:31 PM
Michael Nagel Michael Nagel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich/Germany
Posts: 2,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
Which lenses come to mind?
Werent' there enough clues?

Best regards,
Michael
__________________
I do not call myself an artist, I just try to capture what I see.
If you need many words to describe what your picture means, it doesn't speak enough for itself.
my photos on flickr - here is the portion posted in OPF.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old January 26th, 2015, 08:20 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is online now
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,942
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Nagel View Post
Werent' there enough clues?

Welcome back Michael. I just got to meet that horse with the breathing nostrils! The Pentax limited lenses seem to be treasures. Amazing they are still being made.

I am happy with the Pentax, Pentacon, Canon FD & Eos as well as Zeiss, all old lenses, to keep me busy. mostly manual focus even with the Sony camera's own Zeiss!

The only thing I miss is a long lens but I sold my 300mm 2.8 L Canon and never replaced the monster. I do like the idea now of just renting long lenses when I need them. I love the 55mm 1.8 Zeiss for the Sony A7R. That is my studio lens and what I use for orchestras and full length portraits.

I think I can print 10ft high for commercial work with my present gear using almost any lens camera combo. However, for some artwork, more pixels might be helpful if they still have great dynamic range and low noise threshold. So far, lenses have not held anyone back significantly, but will Thompson reports that with the 7D Mark II some of his Canon lenses are not quite up to the task.

If his work is conformed, then the new, about to be released Nikon, Canon and Zeiss cameras with 50MP sensors might well then need better lenses.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mac G5 RAM and Leica R lenses Eric Hiss Buy and Sell Photo Equipment: Excess gear by participating members. Pictures please! 0 November 19th, 2007 04:59 PM
Michael Reichman's 2006 assessment of MF Digital Systems, where are we now? Asher Kelman Medium Format & Large Format Cameras 10 October 16th, 2007 07:43 PM
Pentax K10D - First Impressions Update Kyle Nagel All other DSLR's and Four Thirds, 4/3 23 February 8th, 2007 08:08 AM
F/S Leica R, Contax and Canon lenses + epson 4000 Eric Hiss Buy and Sell Photo Equipment: Excess gear by participating members. Pictures please! 2 December 12th, 2006 02:28 PM
Leica the only compact quality digital? snaggs Digital Rangefinder & Digicams and yes, even Cell Phones! 19 July 17th, 2006 12:38 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:41 AM.


Posting images or text grants license to OPF, yet of such remain with its creator. Still, all assembled discussion 2006-2017 Asher Kelman (all rights reserved) Posts with new theme or unusual image might be moved/copied to a new thread!