Originally posted by ll_coffee_lP I'm fairly certain the Voigtlander is a MF lens, is it not? I could likely buy a Tak 85mm f/1.8 or 1.9 for a couple of hundred dollars too (i.e. half of what FA77 costs), but that's like comparing a horse (MF) to a car (AF).
It's rather like comparing a manual gear to an automatic car. I prefer manual. I rarely use autofocus and especially on telephoto lenses because I think I can focus more accurately by hand -- wide angles are different animals when used on SLRs because focusing on the ground glass is a pain in the neck. Back to our topic, the Voigtländer 90/3.5 is also better optically than the manual focus Takumar lenses, either the 85/1.9 or the better 85/1.8.
Originally posted by ll_coffee_lP If the FA77 isn't your bag - that's cool. But, don't say that it's an inferior lens when it clearly isn't.
OK, I won't say it here because it seems to hurt the feelings of many. Let's reformulate the proposition: the 77/1.8 is not a bad lens (I haven't sold mine yet
) but it is excellent only at portrait. For landscape work, you need to stop down a good deal, otherwise corner sharpness becomes an issue, while longitudinal chromatic aberration turns tree branches into green or purple ghosts against the bright sky. It's even worse if you are shooting indoors concerts or performances, because purple fringes appear all around the stage lights and specular reflections. And, because of the limited available light, you don't even have the resource to stop down.
Cheers!
Abbazz