Re: comparing performance of older MF lenses with
newer AF lenses.
Thanks, Bill for the construcive response. It would
appear that the discussion should be differentiated
into two distinct areas: comparison of primes and
comparison of zooms. Both should make fascinating
discussions.
I presume that zoom technology and performance has been
greatly enhanced by the advantages of computer-aided-
design so that GENERALLY the later zooms would show a
performance advantage over older ones with select
exceptions. And again, here we must identify our pre-
ferences based on strictly image improvement as opposed
to mechanical construction, feel, etc.
The area of prime lenses should pose a more difficult
area of inspection as CAD is not as important a factor
due to simpler groups and elements.
Aside from CAD, has there not been an improvement in the
glass itself, in the availability of higher quality products
to the mass markets, in manufacturing and assembly
improvements?
Is plastic really such an anethema to image results?
I suspect one engineering design consideration with respect
to the newer AF lenses is that they MUST be lighter to
reduce inertia and resistance for faster, more accurate
positioning, both features demanded by users. Yet these
same users resist the resultant 'feel' of the newer lenses.
And, obviously, in order to meet the demands of faster and
more accurate AF, the throw of the focus ring and its feel
will not compare with the needs for MF so that the AF lens
operated in the MF mode will not replicate the feel of a MF
dedicated lens.
Henry, from Down Under, provided the most direct response to
my original question: "You've got the lenses. Go shoot and
compare." Yup, that will answer my immediate questions about
my specific lenses but I'm intrigued by the more general
consideratons as well.
....patrick
