Originally posted by pathdoc I think the big question here is "Which task?"
Wise question Doc. I guess I was just setting out to start a conversation with some images. Maybe something that could be pointed to whenever the statement 'old glass is not usable on the 36mpx sensor' is trotted out. Something semi empirical. Maybe I would find out that the statement was true, maybe not.
I use the amigo's for their rendering, the special something that is housed in the 77 - referred to as pixie dust- which I see sometimes in my use. The transition to oof rendering of the 31, and the beautiful backgrounds it can create; and the illusive magic of the 43, especially with metals and things like fireplace, flames. etc. Now that I have the K-1 to use, I find that they look different to me in the VF (of course, because the apparent FOV has changed) and I wanted to do some work to gain usage with them, re-acquaint myself with them. So I admit bias and wanted to have something I could point they nay sayers to, (if it turns out they are usable)
Actually, the surprise for me was how well the 135 renders.
On the 43, the lowest number on the distance scale is 0.45mts, the 31 says 0.3, and the 77 says 0.7. (a coincidence of MFD and focal length I had not noticed before) So the 31 can focus at a closer distance, and the 77 has the advantage of magnification. It was not my primary purpose to find a shot at MFD, so perhaps I could have got in closer with the 43.
My thought about developing the pics was not just to elicit your approval Doc (as nice a pat on the back as that may be
) My thought was to bring out whatever nuances of detail may be contained in the file, to see if it is possible to satisfy the micro contrast and sharpness requirements some may have. Notwithstanding my poor artistic taste
---------- Post added 12th Jul 2016 at 00:52 ----------
Originally posted by D1N0 It depends. Lateral aberrations are more visible in landscape (tree branches against sky especially) Axial aberrations are visible in out of focus areas which you have more in close ups. It depends on the lens really. I have old lenses with very little axial or lateral aberration, but do flare like a madman so using a hood and avoiding direct sunlight is important. Generally that will be better corrected in modern glass. Older lenses are often a bit soft wide open, but that can actually result in nice photo's. I don't care for chromatic aberrations and sharpness issues much but I think softness due to field curvature and flare can really ad to the character of a lens. In landscape and architecture geometric distortion can become an issue. It's correctable in post but that will limit your field of view, so you have to take that in to account. Especially on full frame moustache shaped distortion will be harder to correct, but it is also possible to correct that with a custom lens profile.
So the thrust of the defence of older glass should be one of artistic merit, not technical perfection? (I'm nodding as I type this, so I must agree at some level.
) Of course technical perfection will advance with the years, but will the resultant images look better? I'm not s huge fan of the sigma art series images I've seen, for example. Probably far more technically perfect, but they just look ....errr... sterile? ultramodern? minimalist?
I selected the FA amigo's to begin this test with as they are purported to be some of the best lenses ever designed. I'm hoping we can provide some proof of that. I hope that others will chime in with images and information and a discussion can be had