Bifurcator wrote:
And you needed a new thread to say that? Well, let\'s give it some girth at least:
There are three lenses posted here:
One of them is the Zeiss 21/2.8 which EVERYONE says is the best WA lens on the planet - peroid. $1,800 new
One of them is the Nikkor AF-S DX 18-70/3.5G IF ED which people who shoot APS-C Nikons say is OK-ish. $200 new
And one of them is the Pentax 18-55/3.5 SMC AL (ver 1) which only a few Pentax users know is awesome. $100 new
All set to 21mm at f/4.5 to make it as fair as possible and all with no preferential processing at all - basically SOOC conversions - saved as JPegs from ACR without ever entering PS. All using a tripod and taken within a 2min. time span!
Tell me which one is which - if you can... Muahahahaaa.
SET ONE
709: Zeiss
710: Pentax
711: Nikon
Absolutely sure about 711 (Nikon).
Now I\'d agree that the difference in 709 / 710 is not huge at all, and I may be wrong.
It should be noted though that you are shooting on MFT, and \"the best WA lens on the planet\" is cropped to its center. It\'s not a WA anymore!
Apr 17, 2012 at 06:18 PM
Previous versions of jotdeh's message #10552979 « Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ... »
