Re: Which Phase-Fresnel telephoto primes would you buy?
It's possible to make larger-aperture PF lenses but the benefits from the use of PF would be less than they are in 300/4 or 500/5,6, and the people who buy faster lenses are typically demanding on bokeh. PF is convenient and fun to shoot withbut aesthetically the images often have some issues (out-of-focus areas in front of the subject tend to double-line and the transition is a bit abrupt). Nikon also say that the PF lenses are not quite as rugged as conventional lenses can be.
I've been printing my nature portfolio and I find my PF images to be a bit harsh overall, whereas refractive lenses produce more pleasing results to my eye. I suppose a part of it may be exposure: how do the images relate to previously seen images. Still, it's enough that I'm considering whether I should replace my PF's with conventional lenses.
Aug 03, 2020 at 02:08 PM
Previous versions of ilkka_nissila's message #15304512 « Which Phase-Fresnel telephoto primes would you buy? »
