Well dang it! One of us had a poor copy of one of those three lenses! ;D
Also in micro contrast, stopped down a little the C/Y Tessar 45, the C/Y 50/1.7 and the M42 Yashinon 55/1.8 kinda stomped it. The later is a $25 lens and usually come with a camera attached to it for that.
JonasY wrote:
But none of the dirt cheap 50 mm-ish lenses are made for sensors with super high pixel density.
This also doesn\'t seem to matter. This is a false assumption I hear from a great number of people. There seems to be no evidence in support of the theory but lots of evidence to the contrary. Glass is glass I guess. The best lenses of yesteryear for MF and FF render the same on µ4/3 cameras (meaning their center portions) as do the best native µ4/3 lenses. And often better or with a more unique rendering style.
Well dang it! One of us had a poor copy of one of those three lenses! ;D
Also in micro contrast, stopped down a little the C/Y Tessar 45, the C/Y 50/1.7 and the M42 Yashinon 55/1.8 kinda stomped it. The later is a $25 lens and usually come with a camera attached to it for that.
JonasY wrote:
But none of the dirt cheap 50 mm-ish lenses are made for sensors with super high pixel density.
This also doesn\'t seem to matter. This is a false assumption I hear from a great number of people. There seems to be no evidence in support of the theory but lots of evidence to the contrary. Glass is glass I guess. The best lenses of yesteryear for MF and FF render the same on µ4/3 cameras (meaning their center portions) as do the best native µ4/3 lenses.
Aug 11, 2012 at 04:03 PM
Previous versions of Bifurcator's message #10875017 « "Best" Mirrorless Camera with Viewfinder? »
