|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
02-22-2011, 08:25 PM
|
| |
I saw it very well in cheap old Sigma UC zooms. Even on my first dSLR, Sigma SD9, I could see a blurry mush after zooming in. Once I bought the excellent Sigma 70-200/2.8, the mush disappeared to be replaced by actual detail.
But even premium lenses vary in microcontrast, sharpness, transition from focus to out of focus, especially wide open, in the frame borders and at their extreme focal lenths (or one of them).
You may not see it, but it does give a different feel to the images.
Of course most people wouldn't really notice the difference between an image taken by a $4000 Leica Summilux-R 50mm E60 and our humble $100 Asahi Super-Takumar 50/1.4, instead concentrating on the image itself. But the differences are there. Whether they are worth the price difference is another matter.
I posted two images of a rose one taken by a Leica 35/1.4 and another by Vivitar macro 105/2.5. You can't really compare these lenses, they do different things and are both capable of producing nice images. But the pixie dust of Leica (the micro-contrast, the transition to OOF, colour rendition and sharpness across the frame at all apertures are hard to beat and in the hands of a real pro (not me!) these things can make a real difference.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/128552-leica-z...xperience.html |
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
02-22-2011, 06:40 AM
|
| |
I take it to mean that when you zoom to 100% (just as you begin to see the actual pixels) you still get new detail instead of a blurry mash. But this is not precise of course.
|
