[richard64]

In terms of good "glass" vs bad "glass", i use a pentax-m 50mm 1.4 almost all the time, and the results couldnt be better.

Now here you prove your point. I have that lens and it is not my favourite. I just cannot get a good picture out of it. It is not the lens, it is me, I have to learn how to use it and get the best out of it. The best pictures I have taken (and hence my favourite lenses) are with my CZJ 35/2.4, CZJ 135/3.5 and A70-210/4. (Note: all of them manual focus, and two of them stop down metering.)

Yes it lacks hugely on the wide end, but someones put a magic spell on it or something. Everything just looks amazing.

Hmm, now tell me, how do you (and it is you) put that spell on it? I think that perhaps I am putting too much emphasis on it being f/1.4.

Richard

[richard64]

There's something about the angles of incidence and the micro lens array on the sensor. Different sensors may help lock a particular lens in.

Nesster, that's a good point.

Richard

[Jimfear]

This is what I'd call a bad lens:

Oh the irony...

[creampuff]

frank, looking at the 2 images, I think that's more a case of a bad owner...

Of course there are bad lenses that are no better than lemons. I've had lenses that were soft, had poor resolution and poor contrast, not to mention pretty bad optical aberrations. But hey, any lens is better than no lens.

[jsherman999]

That's right, your Panasonic would be the same at 8 X 10. ...

...
As far as lenses are concerned you have proven with some of your own photos taken with the lowly m series and old Tak lenses that modern technology does not add anything to quality. ...


Regards,

Ken, I'm probably missing your point, because it sounds like you're saying:

1) The sensor doesn't matter - the same lens will provide indistinguishable images
up to 8x10 on any sensor out there, P&S CCD sensors included.

2) The concept of a lens 'out-resolving a sensor' is a myth.


Tell me this isn't what you're saying


.

[Isaac314]

Now here you prove your point. I have that lens and it is not my favourite. I just cannot get a good picture out of it. It is not the lens, it is me, I have to learn how to use it and get the best out of it. The best pictures I have taken (and hence my favourite lenses) are with my CZJ 35/2.4, CZJ 135/3.5 and A70-210/4. (Note: all of them manual focus, and two of them stop down metering.)



Hmm, now tell me, how do you (and it is you) put that spell on it? I think that perhaps I am putting too much emphasis on it being f/1.4.

Richard

I think there is a learning curve, especially if you are using manual focus, and with such a limited field of view there are definitely limitations. I find when im using it that you have to look for the small things, way things come together and the way light touches things. And bokeh!

I new it was a huge mistake bringing my opinion to a camera forum, even if pentax users seem to have a much greater appreciation of old lenses. But many of you seem to be on the verge of pixel-peepers.

I just feel that the image is about overall composition and mood. What you feel when you look at it, not what you see when you zoom in too far. Barrel distortion hardly effects the end image does it?

Neither does vignetting in most situations.

I've never understood the whole "oh, go and take a picture of a black and white grid, that will help". Because it is nothing like real world shooting. Half the time a bit of vignetting really looks quite nice!

[beaumont]

I new it was a huge mistake bringing my opinion to a camera forum, even if pentax users seem to have a much greater appreciation of old lenses.

I for one don't have a problem with opinions as the most sensible answer is usually found somewhere between two opposing opinions. What I do have a problem with are "judgemental" comments (ie "wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong"..."most of you are just to ignorant to accept that"..."If you are a real man").
Having said that, I think we pretty much have the same opinion regardless...

[Isaac314]

I for one don't have a problem with opinions as the most sensible answer is usually found somewhere between two opposing opinions. What I do have a problem with are "judgemental" comments (ie "wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong"..."most of you are just to ignorant to accept that"..."If you are a real man").
Having said that, I think we pretty much have the same opinion regardless...

True, i kind of shot myself in the foot there...

the problem is not many things in this world annoy me, but photographers being picky over their equipment (without much reason) really bugs me.

One of the things that attracted me to pentax was that there was much less pixel peepers. I find on nikon forums there are more people with too much money (and a thing for gadgets) than people who can actually take a picture. But there i go being "judgemental" again.

[jsherman999]

I just feel that the image is about overall composition and mood. What you feel when you look at it, not what you see when you zoom in too far. Barrel distortion hardly effects the end image does it?

Neither does vignetting in most situations.

Hear, hear.

I for one hardly even notice barrel distortion or vignetting - they just don't matter to me for whatever reason. Even CA/PF doesn't really matter that much - I don't even read the barrel distortion or vignetting sections of photozone's lens tests, just skip right to MTF, even though I've noticed that the measured MTF doesn't always correspond to my perceived sharpness of a lens.

I also kinda like weird, not-so-creamy bokeh sometimes. I guess I'm way out of the norm here, so don't take my advice on lens quality!


.

[Marc Sabatella]

I for one hardly even notice barrel distortion or vignetting - they just don't matter to me for whatever reason. Even CA/PF doesn't really matter that much

I tend to agree. I notice sharpness first. I some cases, I notice color, but only if it consistently ends up being something I can't fix via adjust WB in PP. I notice contrast too, but that tends to be easier to actually *fix* (rather than "mask") via PP.

However, I will say, despite all the accolades the DA21 gets, I really was struck by the barrel distortion on the architectural shots I took with the one I borrowed for a little while a few weeks ago. It was noticeable when I lined up my shots from the day in focal length order, and it was *obvious* just from a page of thumbnails where the break between the DA21 and M28/2.8 was. I never notice that when doing a similar thing using the just the 18-55.

[stevebrot]

Hear, hear.

I for one hardly even notice barrel distortion or vignetting - they just don't matter to me for whatever reason. Even CA/PF doesn't really matter that much - I don't even read the barrel distortion or vignetting sections of photozone's lens tests, just skip right to MTF, even though I've noticed that the measured MTF doesn't always correspond to my perceived sharpness of a lens.

I also kinda like weird, not-so-creamy bokeh sometimes. I guess I'm way out of the norm here, so don't take my advice on lens quality!


.

I agree regarding the distortion unless, of course there are straight lines in the subject (e.g. architecture).

In regards to vignette...I tend to feel the same way except for landscape work. There is simply something wrong about an expanse of sky/sea/desert that is dark in the corners. (Unless, of course, you are aiming for that effect for perspective purposes.)

In regards to CA...over all sharpness is degraded when CA is present. However, as often noted, CA is fairly easy to correct in PP.

In regards to PF...I guess I am not much for electric blue/purple tree limbs or chrome unless I intended that effect. Again, a little at the corners (like my Zenitar 16) is not too objectionable and likely would not be noticed by the viewer unless the image was printed to mural size! On an inexpensive lens, I am pretty indulgent regarding PF. If the price were over $300, I would be disappointed with my purchase.

Steve

[J.Scott]

857 views and 41 well thought-out replies .... and the OP hasn't had the courtesy to make one reply. IMHO that is poor net-etiquette.

[stevebrot]

857 views and 41 well thought-out replies .... and the OP hasn't had the courtesy to make one reply. IMHO that is poor net-etiquette.

It is a lot to chew on...perhaps the OP is overwhelmed!

Steve

[beaumont]

True, i kind of shot myself in the foot there...

the problem is not many things in this world annoy me, but photographers being picky over their equipment (without much reason) really bugs me.

One of the things that attracted me to pentax was that there was much less pixel peepers. I find on nikon forums there are more people with too much money (and a thing for gadgets) than people who can actually take a picture. But there i go being "judgemental" again.

Understood. Also...couldn't agree with you more re the fast 50 being a great lens to work with. Some of my favorite shots are taken with an old manual 50 of my Fathers (a Pentax user from back in the 60's). Unfortunately my eyesight limits my ability to consistanly get focused shots. Again, limitation of the photographer...

[regken]

Ken, I'm probably missing your point, because it sounds like you're saying:

1) The sensor doesn't matter - the same lens will provide indistinguishable images
up to 8x10 on any sensor out there, P&S CCD sensors included.

2) The concept of a lens 'out-resolving a sensor' is a myth.


Tell me this isn't what you're saying


.

1) Any reasonably sized P & S sensor (1/1.8" or larger) or any CCD or CMOS APS-C, or 4/3 sensor with the same lens will look identical when shot at base ISO, processed through RAW, and printed at 8 X 10.

2) I haven't seen any lenses that a 10MP APS-C sensor can out resolve. There are most likely a lot of lenses that a 24MP or larger FF sensor will out resolve. There might even be a few that a 14MP APS-C senor can out resolve but I haven't found them. I'd give you 50 to 1 odds a 16-18MP FF senor will not be able to out resove any Pentax film lens ever made.