Originally posted by rparmar Ash, Jsherman and others know what I know, which is that a very few lenses have a special something oft times called "pixie dust". However, this special something can be specified quite plainly, as it was a design goal when the FA Limiteds were built. Since it is an intended property and quantifiable, it cannot be said to be "pixie dust" a phrase which, if it has any application at all, cannot be defined.
Thus I would have to say that no lenses have "pixie dust" though some certainly have a special rendering some might label that way.
This rendering is not seen in every shot, since one can shoot rubbish with any lens. But it is seen in the good shots, those with decent lighting, subject etc. It makes them more-than-good -- special in other words.
Any who deny this -- and many do -- simply cannot see the special rendering. Their loss.
See, this ^^^^^^ is the kind of post that makes me go all coldly rational and pedantic, just as I'd started to come to some peace with the notion of "pixie dust" that jsherman fielded. That last bit is *way* too "Emperor's New Clothes" for me to swallow without debate. If it was a design goal, and can be specified quite plainly, I'd *love* to see the specifications - that would end this whole debate *immediately*, right?
Frankly, I suspect that I could give jsherman a lens made from a coke bottle and the images he produced would be lovely, and I'd wager that most of the people in this forum would mark those images as "dusted". I also suspect that if jsherman liked a "non-dusted" lens as much as he did a "dusted" lens, nobody but him would be able to tell the difference; the few samples here seem to validate that, as I don't recall anyone looking at the images posted and saying "Oh, yeah, that's the FA77. Can't miss that bokeh." If you look through the "idenitfy the lens" thread, you see the same thing. Lots of guesses and forensic analysis ( "You've got x, y, and z in your sig, I'm guessing x" answer:"Wrong, 'tis y"), but not much "Oh, wow, I'd know that lens anywhere!".
Finally, there's another possibility. Perhaps some *see* this "special rendering" you speak of, but don't *prefer* it to "regular rendering"? I can see that there is a difference in the way OOF stuff is rendered. There is smooth, there is busy, there is angular, nervous, jaggy, you name it. But they're *different*, not
magic, and a single lens may go through three or four of those depending on distance between subject and backround, f-stop, and the shape of the background object.
In short, I'm not buying The Emperor's New Clothes, and until someone can identify with very high frequency which lens was used to create a "dusty" image, I'm going to continue to insist that he's naked.
Of course, maybe I'm just pissed off because there's no FA55-60 LTD. *sigh*
Last edited by jstevewhite; 05-29-2011 at 09:43 PM.