Upload & Sell: On
| p.3 #1 · Oly 24/2.8 vs. Canon 24L TS-E II |
Wayne, you beat me to the 'Hey Joe' reference, the disappearance of the images earlier threw off this old Jimi fan!
Pressing on regardless, in reference to our thread within a thread re bad copies, I came across a nice quote re manual focus lenses vs AF lenses and found, not for the first time, a serious reference by a serious individual to issues associated with the paltry lightweight mechanisms used to speed the lens elements on their way up and back down the lens seeking acceptable focus. Long sentence apology. I imagine from the date that the speaker refers to Contax Zeiss:
"These Zeiss lenses are superb as are the Leica R offerings. The manual focus is a plus as AF lenses have to be 'looser' in order to focus with any speed. Therefore they are subject to a tiny bit of de-centering not as present with MF lenses. De-centering is a prime factor in loss of sharpness."
If there is one lens type to avoid buying in the high Mp era, it is an old AF lens of unknown or suspect provenance. And we really should not be seeing alarming levels of bad copies in manual focus lenses, let alone ones that take such a large bite from the wallet. The makers know the lenses now have to be very well assembled and QA'd.
Oh, and do give us whatever feedback on the new 25/2 you feel happy to offer. So far it's a confused picture, and after seeing Roger's disturbing pictures (25/2 vs 21/2.8) recently posted here, I do wonder.
Yes, I wanted to try it myself and will post some pictures soon. I just got it today and took some test shots with it and my 24/1.4G
and so far the colors and microcontrast and lack of CA look great and of course look better to me than my 24/1.4G which I expected. Will do some testing shooting against the Stanford Memorial church alla Lloyd C. and compare with ZE 21, 24/1.4G.
25/2's build and smooth focus throw is standard Z* sweetness.