Fred, for me there is more goinging on between the diffent 50's than
resolution alone. For me (and this is just an opinion here) resolution is
just an indication of whether a lens is gonnna be a poor performer or not.
I.e. Just something to check isnt too bad. But the real qualities of a lens,
i.e
I agree Rob. I dont own the 1.2 but have found that A50/1.4 and A50/1.7 are
very different lenses in terms of image renditio as well as sharpness.
A50/1.7 is a fine, very sharp lens at most apetures but seems to lack the
3-D quality of the A50/1.4. For me it is almost as if the A50/1.7 is TOO
sharp
> I don't have many samples of each, but I have almost a dozen 50mm
> lenses in various places around the house, so I have been able to
> test (as much as I test anything) more than one sample of most
> emulations.
I did some (limited, of course) testing of a number of samples a few
years back:
h
On 10 Aug 2004 at 18:00, William Robb wrote:
> The A 50mm f/1.2 is pretty soft wide open (though much better than
> the Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 that I replaced with the Pentax lens), and is
> only ok until about f/8, at which point it is very good indeed.
I tested my Screw 55/1.8, A50/1.7, A50/1.4 and
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LX vs K2dmd vs Super Program (update)
> Well, when I actually TESTED my 50s I found that the M 50/2 is a
really
> good performer, plus it's cheap and very small. None of the above
can
> be said for A 50/1.2 from what I've h
5 matches
Mail list logo
