Originally posted by Lowell Goudge There is nothing improper or imperfect about the old lenses. They behave the way they do because they were designed to do exactly what they do... does not mean the designers were stupid, or the designs flawed... does not mean they cannot perform... he makes the shot because he understands his equipment, not because his equipment is the latest and greatest... none of us to day would ever consider taking landscape photos with the equipment that Ansel Adams used...
I think you completely missed the point of my post, brother. The point was that the modern designs are NOT the be all and end all (case in point - the old 50mm 1.4's with tonnes of spherical aberrations thats look beautiful when used properly). I never said those designs were stupid or flawed - but you might draw such a conclusion if all you paid attention to was MTF charts and other lens tests.
Read DP's review of the FA 50mm 1.4 to see what I mean (the FA uses a very old lens design, so it is an appropriate comparison). They conclude that the lens is too soft compared to modern counterparts, making it a sub-par lens. I completely disagree with this sentiment, because the fact is that my A 50 1.7, which is much more corrected for sharpness, actually falls behind the 1.4 in circumstances when that softness is desirable.
One could go on and on about "corner softness", but if you want the 3d look, you WANT the corners to be soft. It's all about using the right tool for the right shot, and by overlooking many older lenses, you are overlooking all sorts of tools one cannot buy new today.
An old lens might be "imperfect" by lens-test standards, but they might be absolutely proper if the effect is used by a photographer. In fact, someone might WANT a really old lens like Mr. Adams used in order to get that vintage feel. Maybe he/she might not ever take a picture as captivating, but that tool would still be useful for the intended effect.
My point was that old lenses have a series of great qualities that you might not be able to find in many modern lenses, and should not be overlooked. Some other MF lenses might take pictures on par with newer tech, and others will take pictures unobtainable with a technically perfect lens.
One who understands his/her equipment will know exactly when each and every lens would be most useful. My point was that by overlooking the lenses of the yesteryear, one would actually be limiting themselves and miss out on all sorts of fantastic designs that are much less common today.
Besides, lots of old glass is an outright steal.
Last edited by paperbag846; 11-18-2010 at 08:46 AM.