Jman13 wrote: Bifurcator wrote:
The panny 7-14 isn\'t that good! Do some actual stress testing of it. It smears light points around the outer areas of the frame quite badly. It fringes out sometimes too. It\'s a fun cool lens but not really that great.
I\'ve been using the lens for close to two years, so I\'ve done plenty of stress testing with the lens. It\'s an outstanding lens. Name ONE 7mm lens that you can adapt that\'s better than it. Oh...wait, there aren\'t any. Also, I\'ve found that the 7-14 is better than the Canon 17-40L, which while not the best ultra wide on earth, is still a very good lens. Is it going to beat the Zeiss 21 on full frame? Of course not, but it\'s far wider and cheaper.
I dunno the Panasonic 20mm, and the Leica 25mm - so no comment. However I guess the near perfect (on µ4/3) Yashica ML 21 (for $150 to $250) will match or beat them. And look cooler doing it too!
Umm...kay. So you haven\'t used these lenses but you\'re sure an adapted ultra-wide will beat them. It\'s also nearly three stops slower. The Leica 25/1.4 is the best overall normal lens I\'ve ever used, and I\'ve owned a LOT.
The Olympus 45mm gets it\'s ass kicked by a lot of other 45 and 50mm lenses.
Really? Name them. I haven\'t seen ONE that beats it.
Now, like I said, I didn\'t have the Zeiss Planars, which might give it a run for its money, but I\'m doubting they\'d destroy it. I also didn\'t test the Leica summilux or summicron, but they are WAY more expensive too.
I dunno the Leica 45mm macro or Olympus 75mm either but on the later I guess the FD 85/1.2 will blow it away - and a half!
I\'d highly doubt it. The Oly 75 smashes the Nikon 85/1.4. It\'s also (from samples) much sharper wide open than the Rokinon 85/1.4, which is just as sharp as the Canon L. As good? Maybe...blow it away? Highly doubtful, except in maximum aperture.
Also for actual macros the Leica 45mm ?? Really? Are you sure? Does it do 1:1 ? Is it perfect at f/2.8? Is it less than $200? (What, no distance scale on a macro lens?)
Yes, it is 1:1. I agree that this is the area where you are likely to find much cheaper lenses that are similar in image quality to the 45 macro (I have the Oly 50mm f/3.5 that is just as good stopped down and quite close at f/3.5, and was $100). But AF + IS is hard to emulate, and yes, I use AF a lot on my macro, but I can see this as one area where it might make sense.
Sounds like you\'re up for a \"challenge\". Like I said \"I guess...\" and you interpret that as me saying \"I\'m sure....\"
I have tested the Oly 45 against others - including the FD 50/1.4 and it get\'s it\'s ass handed to it in LPP charts from that one for one and in micro-contrast from several others. Dude, there are sooooooo many awesome 45/50/55/58mm lenses out there for under $100 it\'s just crazy! It would be a miracle if the one you like or the one I liked honestly happened to be \"the best\" or had the rendering style that appealed to most everyone. You certainly have to give me that there are matches for it out there which can be found for under $100. Also on the 85/1,2... Well, the 1.2 aperture is part of it. We can\'t discount that just because the Oly 75 doesn\'t do 1.2.
Anyway this whole off-shoot is only about just one of the seven reasons I gave for why people might want to adapt legacy glass. When you combine them and even consider some things I may have left out adapting makes really really good sense for very many people. And everyone\'s millage will vary.
Aug 11, 2012 at 02:57 PM
Previous versions of Bifurcator's message #10874887 « "Best" Mirrorless Camera with Viewfinder? »
