J. Borger said:
Dougg,
Many thanks for the B&W samples ... these realy help!
FF Tom
Yes .. that Oporto gallery made me keep the the 35 cron ASPH for now..... i love the lower contrast she has in those pictures ...... with the R-D1 it is almost impossible to get low contrast like that .. unlesssss ... you shoot exclusively in certain weather conditions. And that is my main problem with the 35 cron asph (and i am afraid with the 28 cron asph??) it very often lets me down on sunny days. By blocking shadows and producing muddy files!
Leicalux,
Get the crap word out of your dictionary ........ for me lenssignature is THE MOST INPORTANT criterium when buying a lens.
For architecture or landscapes i sometimes prefer the latest lensdesigns..... for candids, street and portraits ....... older lenses.
In the 50 range i use my summitar and pre asph lux far more often than the 50 cron (latest).
For 35mm it is 80% pre-asph lux vs. 20% 35 cron asph
So now tell me i am an idiot 🙄
J.Borger, I will not be baited into a heated discussion of ridicule thankyou. Some of you believe anything you read and see and take things way too personally. Mainly related to wide angles, the signature becomes less apparent except for things like flare and distortion, and thinking you can judge contrast and sharpness on a computer screen is pretty much a joke. All those things can be, and are usually tweaked or manipulated in some way, the same way they as in the darkroom. Judging a lens's performance this way is not the 'most ideal' way to judge a lens.
The same goes for taking someone's opinion personally or as 100% fact or false. My opinions are based on my own experience. We all see things differently in real life, and this is magnified on NET. I do not come to this forum to join a club and think the way the world thinks, and I have he right to post my experiences just as much as the next person. So if I believe something is 'crap' I will say so...doesn't mean I am right, and I would never use this word as a direct attack on any person particualry. My point is that using words like 'clinical, leica-glow and too sharp/contrasty' are words that can be very misleading, and are IMHO, over-used in this kind of discussion, especially when expensive and hard to justify lenses such as the 28/2 asph lens are concerned.
There are always going to be cheaper alternatives out there, and the newer more expensive lenses are like modern better performing Ferraris than the older generation. Some honestly prefer the older versions for whatever reason, but saying the newer versions are too fast or don't have character, in this case, less polution/rattling noise in the engine, is 'crap'. Lens manufacturer's have always been striving towards higher resultion lenses which have higher contrast, better distortion and flare control and so on. So the 28/2 asph is just evolution and should not be put down as 'too clinical' It has it's place no more or less than older lenses, and it IS a better lens, but jdging based on what lens manufacturer's have 'always' tried to achieve.
You're right, most of this talk, including mine, is not 'crap' it's a joke - we should be out taking pictures with whatever we have and enjoying them, not wasting time here bitching about lenses.
Cheers and happy shooting!
