Jacob D wrote:
My fault for not being more specific as I was thinking about lenses in the wide~ish to normal range. Long tele's are not really my thing.
I'm not familiar with the 60/2.8 macro although I did see the flower shots posted and the color rendering is impressive to say the least. I didn't realize it's only an R mount (or is it?).
When there's a choice, such as the 50 lux, or cron, is there any reason to spend the $$$$ for M mount when there are quite a few R mount to be had for much less? I know they are a little larger, but the size difference is not substantial, is it? ...Show more →
the R designs are much older than current m asph designs and the performance shows this. the 60/2.8 is R only. macro doesn't really work on rangefinders.
Jacob D wrote:
This is looking really nice. How does the lens do at regular working distances, or out at infinity?
it is good but not great. i prefer my rokkor 28/2 for those circumstances (though it is larger and more unwieldily on the NEX).
Those are very nice apiel, particularly #1 in post one and then the Planar portrait. Gives a lot of inspiration to put the huge 35/1.4 on the tiny NEX body. But first I'll test another odd couple, the Samyang 14/2.8 which kind of resembles a similar unbalance
This is heartbreaking. I just bought a BNIB Minolta MC 50mm f/1.4 lens off ebay, as a backup to my working copy. When I say BNIB I mean this thing appears to have never been taken out of the box. It came with the original manual and warranty card. On inspection of the glass I found a large clover-shaped defect behind the front element. I have no idea what it is. It's either a metal filing or perhaps a crack in between elements. Has anyone seen anything like this before?
