fotografur wrote:
I don't understand your question? There's only one photo example 🤷♂️
Sorry, I thought about images in general shot with adapted lenses similar to the one you posted.
For some reason they very often look like that, which will of course not show all the expected flaws of the lens. Almost any lens is sharp enough in the middle of the frame, and if you are close enough, background blur will mask a curved field of view.
Which means; those examples tell very little about the performance of the lens.
Edit: I'm not saying the Minolta isn't worth using, but I also don't think that most people lusting after the GF 55 will be satisfied with the Minolta. I definitely would not.
Makten wrote:
Sorry, I thought about images in general shot with adapted lenses similar to the one you posted.
For some reason they very often look like that, which will of course not show all the expected flaws of the lens. Almost any lens is sharp enough in the middle of the frame, and if you are close enough, background blur will mask a curved field of view.
Which means; those examples tell very little about the performance of the lens.
Edit: I'm not saying the Minolta isn't worth using, but I also don't think that most people lusting after the GF 55 will be satisfied with the Minolta. I definitely would not. ...Show more →
I see. Yeah you'd be crazy to think a 50 year old lens for $50 would give you the performance of a modern $2500 one 🤓
leonasj wrote:
because vintage lenses only sharp in centre
I'd describe it the other way around: Some photographers (mainly beginners, I suppose) are composing all their images with the subject in the exact center of the image, and therefore they don't know that their adapted lenses are performing like crap outside the center. Which can fool other people into thinking that the claims about "perfect" adapted lenses are true, while they are definitely not.
Makten wrote:
I'd describe it the other way around: Some photographers (mainly beginners, I suppose) are composing all their images with the subject in the exact center of the image, and therefore they don't know that their adapted lenses are performing like crap outside the center. Which can fool other people into thinking that the claims about "perfect" adapted lenses are true, while they are definitely not.
Some photographers (not beginners) maybe don't care about the corners
if they're only using the lens like in the image provided. Or maybe they know the shortfall of the lens and are using it as such 🤷♂️
Photographers that care about the corners (landscape etc.) will spend the money and get the absolute best lens for the job.
fotografur wrote:
Some photographers (not beginners) maybe don't care about the corners
if they're only using the lens like in the image provided. Or maybe they know the shortfall of the lens and are using it as such 🤷♂️
Photographers that care about the corners (landscape etc.) will spend the money and get the absolute best lens for the job.
I'm not talking about corners. It could be a portrait with the models face off center, for example. Or any image where the subject isn't in the center of the image.
Anyway, my point is that it's really not possible to see if a lens performs well in general on GFX by looking at examples shot at fairly short distance with a central subject.
This is going to be a popular lens, being the only "normal" focal length wide aperture lens they make. I really want one, but will wait and see what the reviews are like.
