djon
Well-known
... no, older lenses do NOT "have lower contrast and good resolution."
That's a bigger generalization than mine by far! Wow!
Many have POOR resolution, by the best standards of their era (early Minolta LTM teles, for example, and some Serenars, and some Nikkors and Leicas...such as the 1.5), and very low (not "lower") contrast, not to mention flare in lighting situations that would be easily digested by black Canons and current CVs.
If one LIKES lower resolution and low contrast prints, fine. But if one then sharpens the image and tweaks the contrast up in post-processing...
Aizan stated his view (he likes old lenses on old cameras for unspecified reasons), I stated mine (I like new lenses because they're generally sharp and resist flare). You (Joe) aren't so concerned with sharpness and you like "lower" contrast. OK, three views : Should we avoid expressing preferences? For that matter, should we avoid disagreeing? It's not a "classic case" of anything, it's just three people with three views.
That's a bigger generalization than mine by far! Wow!
Many have POOR resolution, by the best standards of their era (early Minolta LTM teles, for example, and some Serenars, and some Nikkors and Leicas...such as the 1.5), and very low (not "lower") contrast, not to mention flare in lighting situations that would be easily digested by black Canons and current CVs.
If one LIKES lower resolution and low contrast prints, fine. But if one then sharpens the image and tweaks the contrast up in post-processing...
Aizan stated his view (he likes old lenses on old cameras for unspecified reasons), I stated mine (I like new lenses because they're generally sharp and resist flare). You (Joe) aren't so concerned with sharpness and you like "lower" contrast. OK, three views : Should we avoid expressing preferences? For that matter, should we avoid disagreeing? It's not a "classic case" of anything, it's just three people with three views.
Last edited: