[Serkevan]

It's impossible to know why some lenses perform the way they do but it seems like the sony XA elments or some other manufacturing improvement does pay off. New Sony 35/1.4 vs DFA*85 traditionally 35mm would be more difficult than 85.

Manufacturing (or throwing more computers at the design to make it that bit more optimal I guess?) certainly has to be a big help here! The Sony 35/1.4 isn't even *that* expensive, considering the performance. I was talking specifically about UWA zooms because it's where the trend is easier to see.

The 35 doesn't particularly vignette nor distort so it's hard to find an obvious compromise

The obvious compromise IMHO is the rendering - the backgrounds look fairly nervous and (and this is entirely subjective) the OOF transition is... I don't know, distracting? If that makes sense. I don't really like the images, at least not the ones I've seen on DPR.

[Benz3ne]

Another nice example of a wide-angle prime that performs well, is small and fast is the Sony 20mm f/1.8. Looks to be an excellent piece of glass and one I'm sorely tempted to procure at some point for more landscape-focussed stuff*.

*though, truthfully, I'm torn between that and the Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8...

[Serkevan]

Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8...[/i]

That lens is probably the only one that makes me actually feel jealous of Sony users

[Benz3ne]

That lens is probably the only one that makes me actually feel jealous of Sony users

And yet!
You get Sony users complaining that it's 1mm longer at the wide-end and 7mm shorter at the long-end than the 16-35mm (which comes in f/4 guise for £500 more or f/2.8 guise for £1500 more )
The 20/1.8 looks a peach, though. I guess having that zoom and effective f/2.8 throughout would remove any need for an equivalent 28mm while providing the benefits of an UWA.

[angerdan]

So what's the definition of a modern lens? Being in production/available new? Having still the latest currently available technology (coating, AF)?

And how to separate between legacy and vintage lenses?
Is legacy a youngtimer like with cars? Like an already electronic lens with AF?
And a vintage lens an lens without AF and maybe just electronic aperture transmission or even without pins?

How about this definitions?

• Vintage..= Manual focus lenses out of production since AF era (Oldtimer)
  K, M, A lenses
• Film Era.= Lenses which had been developed during AF era but before the first compatible DSLR camera was available. Should have an aperture ring.
  K, M, A, F, FA lenses
• Legacy...= AF or at least MF lenses with electronical contacts. Out of production, only available used. Should have an aperture ring. (Youngtimer)
  F, FA, D FA lenses (discontinued DA lenses too?)
• Current..= everything available new (booth AF and MF, first party and third party manufacturers)
  D FA, DA
• Modern..= offers at least two advanced technologies (★, new optical formula, newest lens coating, recent AF motor technology, electronical aperture control, weather sealing)
  D FA, DA

[psoo]

I did an album as I learned
Lowell Goudge's Album: Learning the DA 560/5.6 - PentaxForums.com

Hi Lowell, I just went through your photo album and was impressed by the sharpness of the pictures. One thing I noticed was that you don't hesitate to up the ISO to get a faster shutter speed. I tend to use a very low ISO, about 100 on sunny days. in the belief that it will give me higher resolution. However, the speeds I get are often in the range of 1/100 - 1/200 sec. and I notice that on blowing up some of my shots I see some softness creeping in. In your photos the speeds are often about 1/600 sec. My apertures are similar to yours. I think I'll start to use much higher ISO's to get faster speeds to see if I can get sharper pics.

[Lowell Goudge]

Hi Lowell, I just went through your photo album and was impressed by the sharpness of the pictures. One thing I noticed was that you don't hesitate to up the ISO to get a faster shutter speed. I tend to use a very low ISO, about 100 on sunny days. in the belief that it will give me higher resolution. However, the speeds I get are often in the range of 1/100 - 1/200 sec. and I notice that on blowing up some of my shots I see some softness creeping in. In your photos the speeds are often about 1/600 sec. My apertures are similar to yours. I think I'll start to use much higher ISO's to get faster speeds to see if I can get sharper pics.

Ever since the K6 I have shot Tav mode with long teles with the lens stopped down between f8 and F11 but always with shutter speed in the 1/focal length or better range.

For me I have always prescribed that I prefer a little grain but sharp otherwise to no grain and blur.

When I shoot with my sigma 70-200/2.8 and 2x TC I am always between 1/400 and 1/640 and with the DA 560 between 1/640 and 1/1000

Here’s an example from my K5 with the sigma 70-200/2.8 plus 2x converter iso 6400 jpeg right out of the camera

---

Last edited by Lowell Goudge; 07-16-2021 at 04:18 PM.

[Dartmoor Dave]

How about this definitions?

• Vintage..= Manual focus lenses out of production since AF era (Oldtimer)
  K, M, A lenses
• Film Era.= Lenses which had been developed during AF era but before the first compatible DSLR camera was available. Should have an aperture ring.
  K, M, A, F, FA lenses
• Legacy...= AF or at least MF lenses with electronical contacts. Out of production, only available used. Should have an aperture ring. (Youngtimer)
  F, FA, D FA lenses (discontinued DA lenses too?)
• Current..= everything available new (booth AF and MF, first party and third party manufacturers)
  D FA, DA
• Modern..= offers at least two advanced technologies (★, new optical formula, newest lens coating, recent AF motor technology, electronical aperture control, weather sealing)
  D FA, DA

Those are good definitions, but you've missed a category:

Golden Age = Takumars.

[psoo]

Ever since the K6 I have shot Tav mode with long teles with the lens stopped down between f8 and F11 but always with shutter speed in the 1/focal length or better range.

For me I have always prescribed that I prefer a little grain but sharp otherwise to no grain and blur.

When I shoot with my sigma 70-200/2.8 and 2x TC I am always between 1/400 and 1/640 and with the DA 560 between 1/640 and 1/1000

Here’s an example from my K5 with the sigma 70-200/2.8 plus 2x converter iso 6400 jpeg right out of the camera

NIce sharp photo. I'm sure the high shutter speed made a positive contribution. I can see a little graininess but that doesn't have a negative effect. In fact it make the shot more interesting.

[Lowell Goudge]

NIce sharp photo. I'm sure the high shutter speed made a positive contribution. I can see a little graininess but that doesn't have a negative effect. In fact it make the shot more interesting.

That’s the point, considering ISO6400 I gladly accept a little grain for an otherwise sharp image.

Even in the early days of DSLRs I would push my *istD to 1600 and 3200 for shots of my daughters high school musical performances.

A shot with grain is always better than either no shot or a blurry shot. I find too many people insist upon a perfect shot, but especially when doing wild life, or night shots, you have to consider the available light. The tree swallow was shot just after dawn, in what people call the golden hour.

[awscreo]

I guess for one - access to UWA focal ranges.

[Wheatfield]

Almost all lenses are good stopped down to f8 or so. If that's all you do, any lens that is above Coke bottle quality will do. What more modern lenses offer, among other things, is better performance at wide apertures.
If this is important, then older lenses may not quite cut it.
I fully expect some 24mp or greater images that have been downsized to a megapixel get displayed in response to this, and if all a person does is downsize images for Instagram, they are probably doing an overkill by using a camera in the first place when a cellphone would do just fine for their needs.

I also have at least one lens, the A100/2.8 macro comes to mind, that has such bad reflections off the rear element that it is practically unusable on digital, even though it is a fine lens in most other regards.

If people want to live in the past and use old glass, that's fine if it's good enough for what they do. Some would rather get the benefits of modern lens designs and modern lens coatings, as these improvements are actually beneficial to their photography.

[lesmore49]

I prefer modern lenses. I like the auto focus. I'm no spring chicken and although my eyes are pretty good (bifocals) I do like auto focus as opposed to manual focus. From age 16 to early 30's, I drove nothing but manual transmissions...personal vehicles, commercial trucks, farm trucks, motorcycles.

But when I was 32 I got my first automatic transmission and with most of my driving being bumper to bumper in city traffic, I preferred that to clutch in, clutch out, upshift, downshift.

I like AF for the same reason and usually have the camera set on aperture, with occasional jaunts down memory lane settings on manual, while using my Sekonic Studio Master light meter.

Same with shifting a standard transmission , If I had a manual transmission , vintage car...like a '60's Volvo PV 544s (had one way back)...I would take it out for an occasional drive... too.

[psoo]

I prefer modern lenses. I like the auto focus. I'm no spring chicken and although my eyes are pretty good (bifocals) I do like auto focus as opposed to manual focus. From age 16 to early 30's, I drove nothing but manual transmissions...personal vehicles, commercial trucks, farm trucks, motorcycles.

But when I was 32 I got my first automatic transmission and with most of my driving being bumper to bumper in city traffic, I preferred that to clutch in, clutch out, upshift, downshift.

I like AF for the same reason and usually have the camera set on aperture, with occasional jaunts down memory lane settings on manual, while using my Sekonic Studio Master light meter.

Same with shifting a standard transmission , If I had a manual transmission , vintage car...like a '60's Volvo PV 544s (had one way back)...I would take it out for an occasional drive... too.

I'm with you Lesmore. I prefer the auto-focus on my lenses since it is quicker for me to focus compared with manual. However, as I said in my original comment, a modern auto-focus lens may be many times more expensive than a vintage manual one which may be optically as good. If one is willing to go manual and buy a vintage lens, he or she could save a ton of money.

[RICHARD L.]

This year, I "rediscovered" my Pentax 67 lenses on my 645Z. They are manual focus only but not so difficult to focus correctly, except the P67 500 mm f/5.6. Finding critical focus is more difficult with a long tele lens, but quite easy with moderate length f/2.8 or f/4 lenses. Plus medium-format is best used supported by a tripod, so you can take your time composing before exposing.

Regards