TY everyone for input--plz keep it coming. Put in an offer on a 28/2 tonite. GUlp.
@ jeff & frezeiss
I may be wrong---plz don\'t anyone hestitate to tell me I\'m crazy with any of my conclusions.
What I\'m getting: the 28/2 is superb on multiple levels. Sharp--a given. Yes the zeiss 25 might/is sharper (though I\'m not sure if that\'s so on the nex), but the lecia is so much faster and has more natural rendering OOF.
Why the zm21 instead of the 25? A 2.8 21 is pretty dangerous-- I love the EFL---it\'s close to the 18---but again it can go indoors. Any links to denoir and others findings greatly apreciated. I may just be projecting greatness onto the 21--Rock Huffwell loves it--oh no!
And I am leaving space for the sony 24 if needed--though the increments are getting pretty tiny.
@hooligan I\'ve been a great defender of the cv 35/1.4 MC My copy is quite good--but it will go on the block for sure. It\'s well worth the money. It has the tiny footprint going for it too. But it draws too modern for my taste and is not quite there technically in the deep corners. OOF is \"OK\". You pay another 350USD and you have something totally different. Now others may not care for the way the 35/1.2 paints--but as you all know by now, I am just crazy about it in low light.
Like the Canon LTM 50/1.2 or the Nikkor 5cm/1.4 it is an utterly unique lens--and better yet its easy to use
by comparison here is the 35/1.4
not a perfect shot of course, but you just would never mistake it for the 1.2
it\'s heavy, but that\'s not such a huge issue indoors---my prefered indoor 85 is 700 grams!
Canon LTM 85/1.5
and I\'ll also sell my 50/1.1 in favor of the old canon 50/1.2:
TY everyone for input--plz keep it coming. Put in an offer on a 28/2 tonite. GUlp.
@ jeff & frezeiss
I may be wrong---plz don\'t anyone hestitate to tell me I\'m crazy with any of my conclusions.
What I\'m getting: the 28/2 is superb on multiple levels. Sharp--a given. Yes the zeiss 25 might/is sharper (though I\'m not sure if that\'s so on the nex), but the lecia is so much faster and has more natural rendering OOF.
Why the zm21 instead of the 25? A 2.8 21 is pretty dangerous-- I love the EFL---it\'s close to the 18---but again it can go indoors. Any links to denoir and others findings greatly apreciated. I may just be projecting greatness onto the 21--Rock Huffwell loves it--oh no!
And I am leaving space for the sony 24 if needed--though the increments are getting pretty tiny.
@hooligan I\'ve been a great defender of the cv 35/1.4 MC My copy is quite good--but it will go on the block for sure. It\'s well worth the money. It has the tiny footprint going for it too. But it draws too modern for my taste and is not quite there technically in the deep corners. OOF is \"OK\". You pay another 350USD and you have something totally different. Now others may not care for the way the 35/1.2 paints--but as you all know by now, I am just crazy about it in low light.
Like the Canon LTM 50/1.2 or the Nikkor 5cm/1.4 it is an utterly unique lens--and better yet its easy to use
by comparison here is the 35/1.4
not a perfect shot of course, but you just would never mistake it for the 1.2
it\'s heavy, but that\'s not such a huge issue indoors---my prefered indoor 85 is 700 grams!
Canon LTM 85/1.5
Nov 27, 2011 at 02:29 AM
Previous versions of uhoh7's message #10118111 « very best wides for nex 5n...... »
