5 ms·

I have a highly regarded, but old 50/1.4. I also have a cheaper 50-300/3.5-4. Big surprise - the 50-300 zoom looks MUCH better than the 50/1.4 at 50 mm. I'm ta

by 323 4y ago

I have a highly regarded, but old 50/1.4. I also have a cheaper 50-300/3.5-4. Big surprise - the 50-300 zoom looks MUCH better than the 50/1.4 at 50 mm. I'm talking about the colors, they are just better and more natural (less aberrations probably). Of course, if you have enough light since it's slower. I investigated this, and it turns out modern lenses have much better coatings and other optimizations. Conclusion: lens age matters too, if it's an old design investigate.

writeslowly 4y ago
As someone who got into photography relatively recently, if you’ve only used modern lenses, old (or extremely cheap) lenses can be really interesting to use as well. My 1970s Olympus 50mm f.14 or low budget Chinese f1.2 give me interesting colors and lens flares that I’ve never seen with modern lens designs.
sanitycheck 4y ago
I completely believe you, at f8. I'm not sure I do if both are at f3.5. And of course the zoom can't do f2.8, f2 & f1.4 which are three good reasons to use the prime. (This is without getting into "character", because it's so subjective.)
skhr0680 4y ago
The Takumar 55mm SLR lens is really interesting to me because over 4+ versions of the lens it kept the same optical design but got dramatically improved coatings every few versions. The single-coated version actually has quite good and natural color rendition in the right light, unfortunately the internal reflections are really noticeable with strong sunlight in the frame. I still consider the version with Zeiss coatings good enough for studio work. Another interesting thing is that the f/1.8 and f/2 versions are both the f/1.8 lens, but the f/2 version has the iris calibrated to be wide open at f/2. Some people prefer the f/2 version because it has less vintage glow wide open while keeping circular bokeh balls.

5 ms·

I have a highly regarded, but old 50/1.4. I also have a cheaper 50-300/3.5-4. Big surprise - the 50-300 zoom looks MUCH better than the 50/1.4 at 50 mm. I'm ta

by 323 4y ago

writeslowly 4y ago
As someone who got into photography relatively recently, if you’ve only used modern lenses, old (or extremely cheap) lenses can be really interesting to use as well. My 1970s Olympus 50mm f.14 or low budget Chinese f1.2 give me interesting colors and lens flares that I’ve never seen with modern lens designs.
sanitycheck 4y ago
I completely believe you, at f8. I'm not sure I do if both are at f3.5. And of course the zoom can't do f2.8, f2 & f1.4 which are three good reasons to use the prime. (This is without getting into "character", because it's so subjective.)
skhr0680 4y ago
The Takumar 55mm SLR lens is really interesting to me because over 4+ versions of the lens it kept the same optical design but got dramatically improved coatings every few versions. The single-coated version actually has quite good and natural color rendition in the right light, unfortunately the internal reflections are really noticeable with strong sunlight in the frame. I still consider the version with Zeiss coatings good enough for studio work. Another interesting thing is that the f/1.8 and f/2 versions are both the f/1.8 lens, but the f/2 version has the iris calibrated to be wide open at f/2. Some people prefer the f/2 version because it has less vintage glow wide open while keeping circular bokeh balls.