Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/05/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]It's a new version of that lens from the 2000s, but your point is a good one. It's not that an MM holds its own with a 36mp camera. It's that a $3600 outfit involving an OK lens is performing at the same level as a system including the best 50 ever, costing a total of $16,000, having no color capability and allowing no highlight recoverability. There is no comparison for size/weight, and for some purposes, it's better to use traditional contrast filters, but still... most people with the money to even consider a MM have some understanding of marginal utility. Dante On May 27, 2012, at 9:20 AM, "Frank Filippone" <red735i at earthlink.net> wrote: > The lens he tested the 50AA against is the old pancake 45mm lens, isn't it? > > Having said all that, the results for a 40+ year old $100 lens + $3500 body > compared to a new, SOTA $7000 lens + $9000 body is pretty upsetting. > > Nikon did pretty well... in fact, for the $12,000 difference in price, the > image results indicate the 50AA + M9m is way overpriced and outclassed on a > value for money equivalent. > > Frank Filippone > Red735i at earthlink.net > > > This I did not notice, I must say. I wonder why he didn't spring > ~$200 for a 50/1.8 G lens? It really seems a weird 'comparison' to me. > > Marty > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information