Lotusm50 Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
roschko wrote:
I talked to a guy today about MF Lenses on DSLR´s.
He told me that the 35mm lenses are better in resolution and in build quality than MF lenses.
Who was this guy? First, while it is easier/cheaper to make a higher performing 35mm lens and perhaps on average they are better, it is not universally true. The best MF lenses can certainly match 35mm SLR lenses. Second, I don't know what he's looking at or what he's smoking, but most 35mm lenses are made like crap. I would say that in general, MF lenses are clearly better built. From what I've seen, Hassy, Contax, Rollei, Pentax, Fuji and Mamiya MF lens are better made than ANY Canon lens I've seen.
roschko wrote:
So that would mean that MF on 35mm makes only sense for T/S
And for "normal" photography it´s better to use a Contax or Leica
For "normal" photography, many people on list list would say, Yes. It's better to use Contax (or current Zeiss), or Leica lenses. People on the Canon or Nikon forums might disagree. I would say that generally speaking, even if performance is identical, that MF make the most sense for T/S. The lenses are heavier and bigger. Why carry that around if you don't have to? However, some MF have rendering characteristics that some people like and will choose to use them. In addition, if you have a MF lens and don't have a 35mm lens in the same focal length, then, practically speaking, it might make sense to just use the MF lens. You might actually get more uniform performance across the 35mm sensor with a MF lens becuase you are only using center of the lens' image circle.
Finally, I would say that if you are using them on 35mm format cameras, seek out the best MF lenses.
I hope this helps.
|