Originally posted by jkomp316 Aside from coatings and auto-focus... Is there really much difference between new lenses and old? Many primes have kept the same optical formula for decades - only changing construction materials. Even some 30yr old zooms hold up by todays standards. (i'm subconsciously trying to convince myself into a purchasing spree
)
The coatings are a double problem with older zooms, with a larger number of coated surfaces.
A lot of the focal length ranges of older zooms are just wrong for me, more of an issue than how good or bad they are.
Wide angle. say less than 28mm, you might as well only look at new lenses. The old lenses that actually work well are in high demand and they cost about the same as new lenses. The only advantage is possible compatibility with a larger sensor.
In 2006 I got a Takumar 35/2 and a Pentax-M 35/2 really cheap, but never really liked them. Later I realized that both lenses were in high demand, and I could trade up to the FA 35/2 for very little extra cost. The FA is way better than those older lenses.
When the DA* 55/1.4 came out, it wasn't a whole lot different than the FA 50/1.4, which is the same optical formula as the A 50/1.4. This range is probably toughest for new designs, once coatings and AF are ruled out.
As someone else mentioned, lots of focal lengths are unavailable new, like a lot of telephoto primes. I'm price-sensitive (cheap) so I'm not going to get the 100mm macro, *200 and *300 just for something in this range.