50 cron vs 50 lux asph - sharpness only

[wizard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Am 20.10.2021 um 12:36 schrieb jonoslack:

Older lenses sometimes actually 'appear' to be sharper as aberrations add a kind of 'crunchiness' to high contrast edges which is missing on modern lenses, ...

So that saves some post processing time then, as sharpening may no longer be needed 😉.

[jonoslack]

11 minutes ago, wizard said:

So that saves some post processing time then, as sharpening may no longer be needed 😉.

Absolutely 😀

[jonoslack]

On 10/20/2021 at 11:45 AM, pgk said:

Not a bad sweeping statement as they go😁. Some do and some don't in my experience. I would say that most practical gains have been in terms of full aperture performance recently.

 

Well, I did say 'often' not always 😀

On 10/20/2021 at 11:45 AM, pgk said:

The idea that older lenses aren't up to current standards is an internet myth driven by the need to sell new lenses, I assume, and the desire by buyers to have 'the best', whether relevant or not. 

Even though I actually didn't say so I absolutely think that "older lenses aren't up to current standards" it's not an internet myth, it's a result of computer advances and the ability to manufacture to much tighter tolerances with much more advanced glass. Of course, if you like old lenses then you might (as many people do) think that this is a bad thing.

I wasn't for a second implying that old lenses aren't entirely worthwhile, and I quite understand that many people prefer the 'look' given by older lenses, often considering modern lenses to be lifeless in comparison. But @wizard said that "it's hard to see any meaningful difference between f4 and f8" and I was responding to that remark by saying that I thought there was a difference, whether it's meaningful or  even detrimental is up to you.

 

On 10/20/2021 at 11:45 AM, pgk said:

Today there are some extraordinarily good lenses available, from many makers. But just because a 'last or older generation' lens is used for a particular photograph, this  shouldn't demean the image in any way. The truth is that 99.999999% of the image's appeal is in subject, lighting and composition, and provided the lens used was viable for the photograph, then adding a nuance of optical precision is neither here nor there.

✅

Well, I completely agree with all of this - entirely.

"If an image is interesting then nobody cares if it's technically good, and if it isn't interesting nobody cares about it at all"

All the best

Jono

 

[pgk]

2 hours ago, jonoslack said:

Even though I actually didn't say so I absolutely think that "older lenses aren't up to current standards" it's not an internet myth, it's a result of computer advances and the ability to manufacture to much tighter tolerances with much more advanced glass.

The gains are at the wider open apertures. I had the 50mm Summliux-M and now have the aspheric version which I bought because of its improved wide open performance. Stopped down I struggle to differentiate the two lenses. Which is my point. Older lenses can be just as good as current lenses, especially when used stopped down. If you are shooting at fast apertures modern lenses are probably 'better' otherwise they may offer little if any advantage.

[jonoslack]

Well, a minute ago you were saying that 

"The idea that older lenses aren't up to current standards is an internet myth driven by the need to sell new lenses" Now you seem to have changed your mind?

1 hour ago, pgk said:

The gains are at the wider open apertures. I had the 50mm Summliux-M and now have the aspheric version which I bought because of its improved wide open performance. Stopped down I struggle to differentiate the two lenses. Which is my point. Older lenses can be just as good as current lenses, especially when used stopped down. If you are shooting at fast apertures modern lenses are probably 'better' otherwise they may offer little if any advantage.

 

I explained what I thought the difference was and why I thought they were different (I never suggested that it mattered, although I personally like what I see as a gentler look of the modern APO lenses) -

you disagree, which is of course your prerogative, there isn't much more to say! 

All the best

Jono

Edited October 21, 2021 by jonoslack

[pgk]

51 minutes ago, jonoslack said:

Well, a minute ago you were saying that 

"The idea that older lenses aren't up to current standards is an internet myth driven by the need to sell new lenses" Now you seem to have changed your mind?

Not at all. I didn't say that they were as good as modern standards wide open but that they were often up to modern standards. For landscape photographers there are few benefits from modern lenses (although more availability of some focal lengths and other wider focal lengths are now becoming available). If you don't need a fast lens then I doubt that many/most will see any difference between older and newer lenses. One of my favourite landscapes was taken ~1980 using a well stopped down 28/3.5 Nikkor on KM. I can't see improving upon it with a modern lens.

[jonoslack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 minutes ago, pgk said:

Not at all. I didn't say that they were as good as modern standards wide open but that they were often up to modern standards. For landscape photographers there are few benefits from modern lenses (although more availability of some focal lengths and other wider focal lengths are now becoming available). If you don't need a fast lens then I doubt that many/most will see any difference between older and newer lenses. One of my favourite landscapes was taken ~1980 using a well stopped down 28/3.5 Nikkor on KM. I can't see improving upon it with a modern lens.

Well we do at least both agree that the possibility of improving on a good photograph taken with an old lens by using a modern lens is pretty unlikely!

 

[pgk]

46 minutes ago, jonoslack said:

Well we do at least both agree that the possibility of improving on a good photograph taken with an old lens by using a modern lens is pretty unlikely!

We most certainly do🙂.