fredmiranda.com
Login

  

  Previous versions of Steve Spencer's message #16696652 « 28-70 f/2? »

  

Steve Spencer
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
Re: 28-70 f/2?


RoamingScott wrote:
wind30 wrote:
ronno wrote:


macadphotos wrote:
Pehaps, just perhaps, our obsession with rendering is reflective of our pursuit for the less-than-perfect aesthetic, the desire to stand out in the world flooded with flawless photos, a desire to mimic the greats of the film era and a bit of nostalgia etc. Or maybe just people's way to justify not always getting the best and newest lenses all the time.

I'm of the camp that modern lenses are all quite well optimized; any tangible difference in "rendering" is probably not too impactful if we keep all other variables the same. Lenses that really had perceivable rendering differences to me are the nikkor DC lenses, and Fuji 56mm APD, but these feel more like the exception rather than the norm since they are purposefully designed for a particular rendering. A common discussion point is how some modern lenses are too "clinical", but I'm sure compared against the older manual lenses, most modern lenses are also too "clinical". While I won't go so far as to say that it is all just a placebo effect, we should definitely treat discussions on clinical rendering as a more subjective opinion that, at best, conveys that a lens is neutral; not good, not bad, just a characteristic that some people might value more than others.



Exactly. Go to the thrift store and get an eight dollar relic. Adapt it to your camera and there is your magic. Don’t expect it from a new $2000 -$3000 professional lens.

You can save yourself a lot of money and headaches this way. Especially the money.


The Nikon plena which I own after owning the Sony and Canon latest 135mm shows a pretty good rendering. The Sony 135mm has the worst rendering. At least it shows Nikon places strong consideration on how the bokeh look during lens design.



I've never understood the 135GM drum beaters. It's has horribly clinical rendering for the types of subjects this length is historically used for.


The 135 GM is wonderful for indoor sports photography, IMO. I have used it with very nice results for that purpose, but I have the Sony/Zeiss 135 f/1.8 ZA for its rendering when I want to shoot portraits. Horses for courses in my view.



Nov 29, 2024 at 07:01 PM





  Previous versions of Steve Spencer's message #16696652 « 28-70 f/2? »