Posted: Sun Aug 11, 2013 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
vilva wrote:
LucisPictor wrote: |
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I was thinking about buying that lens as well, but to be honest, it's too expensive for my taste. |
Yes, it is somewhat expensive except when compared to most other modern, really pro lenses. I hesitated a bit but finally decided to get one to be on the safe side considering all the recent talk about possible Nikon policy changes.
LucisPictor wrote: |
Do you know the 1.8/18.5? That is also an amazingly good lens. If you don't have it, go and get it. And it's dead cheap compared to the 32. |
I've got one. It is a good lens but a little bit too wide for my typical shooting except for "natural" perspective landscape shots, it is 1 stop slower than the 32 and rather hopeless to manually focus when the AF just doesn't get it.
The 32 is technically at a perhaps two steps higher level, seriously good, good enough to make V1 my main camera when no gimmicks like soft-focus are required. It is not perfect, no lens is, and better systems with better lenses do not make sense in my use at my age.
A few more example AF shots at f/1.2, all in-camera JPEGS, just slight PP sharpening at full res to compensate for my lowered in-camera sharpening:
A 100% crop:
]
Veijo _________________ Mainly Schneider-Kreuznach Radionar (1938), VPK Meniscus Achromat (1915), TTH Cooke Anastigmat (1917), TTH Cooke Aviar (1937), Goerz Dopp-Anastigmat III Dagor (1912), Voigländer Heliar (1928) or Aldis Uno Series III (1903 design) mounted on EOS 5D or EOS 350D |