derek_stanton2

<p>It's a CANON 28mm.</p>

<p>I had an R8 and R7, with the (newest) 28/2.8, 35/2, 50/2 and 80/1.4, all while i also used Canon EOS (EOS3 and 5D>5DMkII). The only R lens i found better than the equivalent Canon was the 28 Elmarit. IMO, you lose nothing by shooting Canon lenses, and you gain AF, lower weight, and more predictable results. Manually focusing with a dSLR's screen is no picnic. As well, i would get oddly out of focus shots for no reason when using MF lenses via adapter - not always, but almost once per five shots.<br>

Canon offers so many lenses, and virtually all of the primes have excellent bokeh. There really is no 'magic' in the R- glass. Believe me- i get it. I wanted very much to believe the mystique could translate to digital. But, with the R-, it's just not there - with digital or film. The Canon glass is just that good. The exception MAY be with the 50mm R-Summilux E60 ROM, which i never had the opportunity to try. But, whatever its advantages, they're probably only valid from f1.4-2.8. And, the Canon advantages (AF, full electronic interface, cost) are more important to me. Besides, there are three 'normal' Canon 50s - you choose which properties or imaging characteristics you want.<br>

And, the AF thing is a significant factor unless you're shooting stopped down, and with stationary objects. If you shoot people, the whole stop-down-metering thing is a pain. And, maybe more importantly, at least in my case, AF gives me better critical focus than manual focus. So, even if the wonderful R-50 Summilux is 5% 'better' in some way, you give that back just in the focusing process. And, if you're shooting landscapes or product, you're stopped down far enough that all the lenses are equalized in quality. </p>

<p>All my life, i've only heard one person pronounce it as Nick'-Kon, and she was a newbie to the whole matter of photography. Turns out, she may have been right.</p>

<p>But, in the Nikon commercials (in the US), it's pronounced Ny'-kon, as i've been saying it. The lenses, though, were called Nick'-korz. Go figure.</p>

<p>I started with an EOS 1v, but later switched to the EOS3, which i have now. The 1 is better-built, but having only the EOS3 over the past ten+ years, i do not ever feel that it is lacking in that respect. In fact, with the motor drive/booster thing, it feels as solid as anything i could ever want. </p>

<p>The EOS 3 is not quiet, as pointed out above. But, what i don't like about the 1v is how focus points are determined. I just never liked cycling through the various points in a circle by rotating that dial. I still don't get that system, and i'm constantly thinking i just didn't have the camera set up correctly. That can't be how it's supposed to work, right? I now also have a Nikon F100, and it has a simple control pad for direct selection of focus points. Common sense, as with the current EOS system. So, for that reason alone, i prefer the EOS 3 and the ECF, which works quite well. <br>

Being able to compose first and have the camera respond to what you want to shoot is a beautiful thing. </p>

<p>I used to have the 85L. It's a fantastic lens, for sure. But, at this point, i'm planning to replace it with the 85/1.8. Two reasons: the 1.8 lens is something i'm more likely to have with me (the L is just so huge, heavy, and costly); and the 1.8 is capable of great results. I know how wonderful the 1.2L is, but i also love the rendering from the 1.8. It has a very Sonnar-like bokeh. And either lens is sharp enough. So, if it were me, i'd go with the 135+85/1.8 setup. I'm sure, though, that if you haven't had the 1.2L, it's got some sort of mystique in your mind, and you're not likely to get over it without the experience of it. I'm convinced, though, that if you don't need to blast away at the widest possible apertures, you already have an enviable kit that can do anything anyone should need to do. And, you already have the background-melting 135L if you need it. </p>

<p>"Ruslan, the Sigma 50/1.4 is reportedly sharper than the EF 50/1.4 wide open, as is the EF 50/1.2 L at around f/2, but from f/2.8 on, there's no better 50mm lens on the market with respect to image quality."</p>

<p>My experience is different. I have had an excellent sample of the Canon 50/1.4, for many years. When the Sigma first came out, i tried three copies but couldn't find one that was suitably sharp and reliable in focus. That was when the 5D v1 was current. Later, when the v2 was out, i tried the Sigma again, and found it worked fairly well, but only with the 5DMk2's AF micro-adjustment. </p>

<p>Still, the Sigma was never sharp-ER than the Canon. It was close enough, though, and the bokeh was better, so i kept it. For awhile. But, i found later that the AF wasn't consistently accurate. I sold it and tried the Canon 50L. Again, the 50L wasn't as sharp as my copy of the 50/1.4, but the focus was a bit more consistent than the Sigma and the bokeh was better than the Canon 50/1.4, so i kept it. I only sold the 50L for financial reasons.</p>

<p>Still, i never sold the Canon 50/1.4. It really is an excellent lens. Bokeh is already better than most other 50s, and sharpness (if you have a good copy) is top-notch. I once had a Leica-R 50mm Summicron, and the Canon 50/1.4 was equal to it when both lenses were at F2. The Leica was wide open, and the Canon stopped down a bit, but the Leica only goes to f2, so you could think of it as having Summicron-level performance PLUS an extra stop. My Canon 50/1.4 is good at 1.4, so long as there aren't too many bright/white areas in the frame, which cause a sort of halation effect (if you're pixel peeping). Still, it's useful. You should expect a bit of softness wide open. </p>

<p>Build quality: The Sigma and 50L are bulls. Construction can give you a bit of confidence, but you pay for it in weight. The Canon is just 'okay' - neither cheap nor tank-like. It just sits there and works. Put the hood on it if you want it to look a bit more 'pro.' </p>

<p>I don't remember comparing AF speed, but i'm pretty sure the Canon 1.4 is fastest and the Sigma and 50L are probably a wash. But, i don't shoot sequences, and never use tracking AF, so my opinion's probably moot for those purposes. </p>

<p>So, which lens? You can't lose with any of them. Remember that pros, shooting fashion with huge budgets and critical art directors have been shooting the Canon 50/1.4 for years. The 50L and Sigma are relatively new offerings. It's certainly good enough for anyone. That said, the Sigma and 50L do have a measure of better bokeh, and if you use that characteristic, there are benefits. See the flickr portfolio of Markus Schwarze.<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wefwef/<br>

He's been doing street portraits with the Sigma first, and now the 50L. If that's your thing, get one of those lenses. If you shoot mainly at smaller apertures, the old Canon is probably the best all-rounder. </p>

<p>That, in large part, is why i sold my R7. <br>

I actually returned mine to KEH for inspection/repair, because i thought it was a problem. They improved it, but only by such an insignificant, barely perceptible degree that i just couldn't live with it. It felt 'sluggish' — but i was told it was "normal" and "within spec" for that camera. More than just "shutter lag," you could really feel the thing, conspicuously, tripping the mirror and going through the whole process. It just felt not very responsive, like no other camera i'd experienced. I don't remember that feeling with the R5 i tried in the store, the camera that led me to the R7. And i didn't have that feeling with the R8 i owned for a while, before the R7.<br>

Thanks for this thread. I thought i was crazy. [Crazier.]</p>

<p>The T2 is better-built, but there's nothing wrong with the Klasse W in the P&S class. I can't recall noise levels, but i didn't find either objectionable. They're about what you'd expect. If either is a problem, the other would also be a problem in the same situation. </p>

<p>But, if you love the GRD so much, why not consider the Ricoh GR1/GR1s? I believe it's 28mm, and the design is similar to the GRD. Its lens has an excellent reputation. If you want wider, there was also a GR21 with a 21mm lens....<br>

http://www.gdargaud.net/Photo/RicohGR.html</p>

<p>I may be misunderstanding this, but i think there has been discussion about lenses wider than 35mm having a "smearing" effect with the sensor. Check the dpreview.com Sony NEX forum — i think it's an issue with non-NEX lenses.</p>

<p>1. Never take gear advice from a person who isn't a better photographer than you are. Seems you spoke to the guy and took for granted that he knew what he was talking about simply because he derives income from photography. But, this guy is no superstar. </p>

<p>2. Referring back to #1, why are you HERE, requesting the same kind of commentary, from people who may not know any more than you do? And, wouldn't any qualified response have to take into consideration the kind of work you do now, as well as in what you may be interested in the future?</p>

<p>I think if you give today's students a camera that they see as being 'old' or antiquish, you're not likely to have them take care of the camera. Keeping them working longer may just require an adjustment of attitude. Is there any way to, if the kid can't provide his own camera, require a 'security deposit' for the use of it? $100 or so, kept until the camera is returned in working order might get them respect/protect them a bit — at least to not toss them around. Things that are 'free' AND old probably don't hold any value to them.</p>

<p>I would contact Hasselblad. Here in the US, in New Jersey, Hasselblad offers a Check to Spec program, for $99, i think - which covers a body, a back, a lens, and possibly a prism. Maybe they have an affiliate program or an authorized repairer in your country. Or, check the shipping costs - maybe it's worthwhile to send it to Hasselblad. </p>

<p>Otherwise, QG's advice may be sound. But, personally, i'd rather have a full checkup rather than hope that a few well-exposed frames Today are a predictor of continued functionality. An inspection or CLA, as well, is no guarantee either, but i think the Check to Spec program comes with a warranty, and i'd have more confidence after a qualified examination.</p>

<p>I had a Sigma 50/1.4 for Canon EOS. I liked it. Bokeh was fantastic. It was very similar in sharpness to my (good copy) Canon EF 50/1.4, which was also better than the 50L. The Sigma, however, gave me a small percentage of misfocused shots. I didn't own/use it enough to ever pinpoint the problem or even define it in predictable terms, but it made me a bit uneasy. I eventually sold it and bought a 50L. I don't recommend the Sigma on a digital body that doesn't have an AF micro-focus adjustment like on the Canon 5DMkII and other recent dSLRs.</p>

<p>I still had good feelings about the Sigma, primarily because its bokeh is so good. So, more recently, i bought one with Nikon mount to use on my Nikon F6. I was wary before purchasing it, because the Sigma (and also the 50L) didn't really work well unless i could dial in a focus adjustment on the 5D2. So, before i bought the Sigma for Nikon, i asked Sigma if using it on a film body would be an issue with regard to accurate/critical focus. They said, after checking with a 'technician' that it was only digital sensors that were an issue. Unfortunately, my film results were super, super soft. Very bad, in fact. So, i no longer have that lens. </p>

<p>If you're considering using one or the other on a Canon, although i've heard nothing other than that the Summilux is a nice lens, i personally would rather have a lens that is made for a Canon. AF and a coupled aperture are not worth giving up just to get a Summilux 'signature,' if you can even identify that in a R- lens. The 50L and EF50 are already good enough. And, the Sigma, if you have micro focus adjustment, may still be a good solution. I was working in close portrait distances at apertures from 1.4 to 4, but never went back to identify specific apertures, or to even re-verify focus points. If you were talking about the Summilux E60, i might be more enthusiastic about about you using it with an adapter, but in my experience with adapted lenses on a Canon, even if a lens is a superb performer, i always got better focus using AF than when trying to manually focus on a viewscreen designed for AF. And, that includes the 5D/5D2 optional screen designed for manual focus lenses.</p>

<p>If, though, you're considering using the Leica lens on a Leica body, i don't know what to tell you. I've owned an R7 and an R8. I liked those bodies, but didn't like them for certain reasons. I don't, though, feel i'm losing anything by not using Leica-R lenses. </p>

<p>"<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5609780">Ilya E</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, May 12, 2010; 08:09 p.m.<br>

</p>

 

<p >Derek,<br />I will have to disagree with you. I did own an M6 with Summicron-M 50mm and it is not even in the same category with Canon 1.4"</p>

<p >***</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Sorry, Ilya, but i suppose i don't know what we're discussing at this point. I have owned two different Leica M-Summicron 50mm lenses: the old Dual Range and a 'current' Summicron. But, comparing the M-mount line to the Canon EF in a discussion about which lens to buy for your Canon seems silly/moot. The M-50 Cron won't fit your lens, so you might consider keeping the comparisons to an appropriate 'league.' I did not assert that the M-50 Leica was no better than the Canon EF 50/1.4. In fact, i never compared the two. My comments were about the R-50 Summicron versus the Canon EF 50mm, and my personal tests back up what i tried to convey. Maybe you didn't have a 'good sample' with your Canon? There, apparently, is sample variation. I've read that some people aren't happy with their 50/1.4s until f2.8 or 4. Mine was excellent at f2, and usable in certain situations even at 1.4. Don't be fooled into thinking Leica doesn't have variation, as well. I had a NEW M-50mm Summilux-ASPH that performed worse than a 30+ year old Russian Jupiter-3, a $30 lens. That Summilux, probably the best 50mm lens of all 50mm lenses, was an absolute dog. Softer than a chocolate teapot. Leica eventually, after 6 months of wrangling, replaced it. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >So, back to actual SLR lenses..... If you compare both lenses WIDE OPEN, yes, the R-50 Summicron is a bit better than the Canon. But, the Summicron 'only' opens to f2. When both lenses are at f2 (the Canon is therefore stopped down a little), they are pretty much even—in fact, i thought my EF50/1.4 was a bit better, actually. But, with the Canon you also get a 'bonus' stop because the Leica doesn't do f1.4. If you want the best 50mm SLR lens, get the Leica R-50mm SUMMILUX with E60 filter size. But, again, you have to deal with stop down metering and trying to manually focus on a camera viewscreen designed for AF. Maybe your eyes are better than mine, but with an AF-purposed camera, at apertures larger than f2.8-4, i ALWAYS get better and more consistently accurate focus with an AF lens. And, that's with the EE-S viewscreen. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I still haven't read where you say what you want to shoot. Which, still, seems to be a pretty important bit of information when helping to assess your needs. You can, of course, try the manual focus, 'other' brand route. I've tried it. Leica, Contax, Nikon, Pentax... all adapted to my Canon 5D/5DMkII. I gave all that up. That was my experience. If you have a different experience, i hope you are eventually and ultimately satisfied by it, and i hope, as well, that you'll come back in a year and tell us where you stand. </p>

 

 

<p>I haven't seen the part where people ask what you need/want to shoot. </p>

<p>As pointed out above, you can't use M-mount lenses on the canon. The R-50mm Summicron is a nice lens, but it's not small or light like the M-50 Summicron, and: <br>

1. The only appreciable difference between it and the Canon 50/1.4 is with bokeh. And, that difference is just that - a difference. It's not better or worse than the Canon. What you do get with the Summicron is MUCH better feel. It's a solidly constructed lens. The Canon 1.4 is just an 'okay' consumer-grade lens. <br>

2. If you're not concerned with bokeh differences and are shooting it at smaller apertures, you're not going to see any difference because they perform at similar levels when stopped down. If you notice any difference in color or contrast, those variables are too easily adjusted in your RAW developer. <br>

3. You lose a LOT by not being able to both focus and control aperture without the clumsiness of stop-down metering>exposure. If you're dealing with people, it's a pain. If you're shooting landscapes and static stuff, again, chances are you're stopped down and you're dealing with the nuisances without much/any benefit.</p>

<p>The Zeiss ZE 50/1.4 may be sharp, but every example i've seen from it or the ZF version shows absolutely fugly out of focus rendering. Even when the owners say, "hey, look at this beautiful bokeh." They're just wrong. It's bad. Sadly. I wanted that lens before it was even announced. I've had Zeiss 50/1.4s for a Contax N1 (AF), and Contax RX and Arias (MF) and loved them. I have 80/2.8 Planars for Hasselblad and Rolleiflex, and the 45/2 Planar for Contax G2. But, whatever they're doing with the new SLR lenses is a travesty. </p>

<p>The Sigma 50/1.4 is a decent alternative. It's bigger/heavier than the Canon 50/1.4, but it does bokeh even better. And, the Canon is already very good in that regard. I wouldn't recommend the Sigma unless you have a body that has micro-focus adjustment. Same with the Canon 50/1.2L. They just don't focus accurately without that feature. Both the Canon L and Sigma feel much better than the Canon 50/1.4, but again, at the sacrifice of size/weight. </p>

<p>Which camera are you using? I'm assuming it's full-frame. Best option, if size/weight really is the concern, and you aren't shooting consistently for max DOF, is probably a new Canon 50/1.4. You didn't indicate any issues with the images from yours before it tanked. Is there a reason why you want something else? I'd only get the Summicron if you've searched for images (try flickr) and can easily identify a Summicron's 'signature.' I really only believe it's even possible to see that in images with a lot of bokeh. Also, try not to project too much of a lens' signature on the accompanying processing. Dudes that shoot Leica-R tend not to be complete hacks, and if they are, they still take their photography seriously. So, you might see a higher percentage of 'nice' R-50 Summicron pictures than Canon EF 50/1.4 pictures, but the reasons why may have little to do with the lens' characteristics. </p>

<p>Please explain something to me:<br>

You say wide open sharpness is disappointing. But, you point out that the center at 1.4 is already sharp. So, you're examining "corner performance" of a fast lens, wide open. But, what could you possibly photograph that would have the center of the object the exact same distance from the lens as the edge? Wouldn't you have to photograph rulers radiating out from the lens in order to see if the same distance is in focus at each angle? Photographing a flat test chart SHOULD show soft edges, just as it would if you focused on one small object, and then shifted the camera/recomposed. Am i not understanding this? [i'm sure this has been explained somewhere - forgive my ignorance and point me toward a link, please.]</p>

<p>So, yes, if you stop down a bit, you're getting a bit more DOF, which should help to keep the edges a bit more in focus. Aren't some lenses designed for 'flat field' performance? But, aren't they more often 'normal' or macro lenses? A wide angle is going to show more distortion, inherently, no?</p>

<p>I don't really feel the need to defend this lens. I've had one for several years and it has always been the best of any lens i've owned for Canon, Leica, Nikon, Contax.... I'm just trying to understand how any lens of this specification could meet your 'requirements' in this respect. Just what would anyone want to shoot at f1.4 where they'd even want (not to mention expect) a lens to resolve the edges as crisply as the center?</p>

<p>35L.<br>

I've had it for years. I don't think i've ever used it. It tests well. I've seen wonderful pictures from it by other photographers. But, it's too big for a 'walkaround' lens, and i've never really been comfortable with wide angles. It's not 'that' wide, but i bought it to shoot in environments during travels when i wanted to get a bit of background included in 'people pictures.' But, i never want to actually carry this lens on the camera when i'm traveling. At least not in my typical destinations.</p>

<p>Sadly, i used to own the 35/2, which was the perfect size/weight for my purposes. But, i bought into the 35L's 'potential' - potential never realized.</p>

<p>I truly wish Canon would make some SMALL PRIME L lenses. A 35/2L. 50/1.4L. 28/2L. Compact, but built to high specification. They should feel SOLID. With the superior high-ISO sensors, we don't really need super fast glass anymore. If you want a 1.2 or 1.4 for the bokeh, you already have the choice. </p>

<p>I was recently looking into buying a rolleiflex, and there may be a few factors that determine what a buyer is willing to pay. </p>

<p>• "working meter" - many sellers will say that the meter is working, but will not go further to assure you that the meter has any manner of accuracy. Many Rolleiflex meters will 'respond to light' but are not accurate or useful, even with the self-administered calibration. And, repairers will usually say they can't do any more than adjust the little screw on the backside.</p>

<p>• Some sellers are not familiar enough with the item to be assured of its functionality. Some sellers claim they are selling for other parties, or for estates and such. They don't use the cameras and can't assure the condition, nor will they know if the camera has been CLAd.</p>

<p>• Condition/usage? I saw 'tip' somewhere online.... You should look at the 'ring' around the wind arm to see how much use the camera has seen. There will be paint loss and scrapes around that circular area if it has been used to put lots of film through it.</p>

<p>• Trustworthiness of Seller? Check the ratings. High number of transactions? Transactions with similar types of gear? Is the seller local? Out of the country?</p>

<p>• Randomness. </p>

<p>From his book, EISENSTAEDT'S GUIDE TO PHOTOGRAPHY:</p>

<p>"I photographed Marilyn Monroe many years ago on the little patio of her Hollywood house and in a very short time, using a 90mm lens on a rangefinder camera and no tripod. The important factor here, as usual when taking portraits, was to keep the conversation going so the facial expression never became static."</p>

<p>Here's a link to the set of images.<br>

http://www.immortalmarilyn.com/MarilynPhotographerAEisenstaedt.html</p>

<p>In an earlier portion of the book, Eisenstaedt lists and shows his typical gear:<br>

"A rangefinder camera (Leica) with 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 90mm lenses, a yellow filter, skylight filter, lens shade, and polarizing filter; and a single-lens reflex camera (Nikon) with 28mm, 55mm macro, 105mm, and 80-200 zoom lenses, a yellow filter, polarizing filter, and Luna Pro and Spectra light meters."</p>

<p>I would advise different lenses. With the 5DMkII, the 50mm 1.4 EF or Sigma 50/1.4. Perhaps the 24-70 2.8, and an 85mm prime. The f1.2 if you can afford it. If not, the 85/1.8 will do fine. </p>

<p>As for the idea of doing "extraordinary, edgy and eye catching look of super wide angle fashion studio shots," i'd like to see something along those lines that inspires you. I'm pretty certain you'll find, if you can even manage it, that the 'look' you'll get won't be particularly appealing or marketable. "Studio shots?" How large is your studio that you can shoot an extreme wide in it? It would have to be quite large, with a corner cyc wall, or you'll be shooting very close to the models which will distort features. If you're looking simply to lengthen legs and such, try a less wide (28mm?) lens and work with angles. And, tall, thin models. </p>

<p>For fashion, portraiture, weddings, i don't think you really need 200mm of lens. And, if you haven't shot in churches much yet, i'm betting you'll need SPEED. Faster apertures and higher ISOs than you're considering here. </p>

<p>If you can afford it, the Profoto is pretty much the 'industry standard' for fashion photographers. I believe there are/were two models: one for the Acute series packs and one for the Pro packs. I was told they are pretty much identical, except for the price (this was 10 years ago). The Acute was able to be adapted for use with Pro packs, which is what i did. The newer models may be different. I think they may have added modeling lights in the revised versions....</p>

<p>I think there's a ring available for the Hensel Porty system, if you need battery(pack) powered location shooting. </p>

<p>Both the Hensel and Profotos are available for rental at any pro rental house.</p>

<p>If you're just going to be 'experimenting,' the Alien Bees is certainly a more cost-effective solution. </p>

<p>Not only the 'tilt' effect, but also the focus, right? No distance scales....</p>

<p>Really, get the R8 and save a little. </p>

<p>KEH is great. I wouldn't buy anything used from Adorama unless you can pick it up in person. They treat their used goods like crap, aren't generous with ratings, and often mis-label items. For instance, the last time i went there for something, i was looking for a current version, R-28mm Elmarit. It was listed online, in Excellent condition. When i arrived, it turned out to be the older version, and their "excellent" looked like it had been found in someone's basement. Dusty, dirty, grimy, scratched. They don't bother, even, to wipe the stuff off when they acquire it. [Adorama is fine for new stuff.] B&H is good, but no one rates as favorably (for the consumer) as KEH. You can also get good deals on ebay, but make sure you see enough (large, detailed) images, and buy from a highly rated seller.</p>

<p>1. Don't buy the 50L unless you have AF micro adjustment. On the 5DMk2, it's a nice lens. On the 5D, it's unlikely you'll be able to get it to work well, even if you send body+lens to Canon for calibration.</p>

<p>2. I personally have not seen anything from the Zeiss ZF/ZE 50/1.4 that impresses me. Bokeh is not nice, which is odd, since the Contax Zeiss 50/1.4 is so good. If you don't need f1.4, the Zeiss 50/2 might be the ticket, but then you also have to deal with manually focusing on the 5D's AF viewfinder screen. Consider changing the screen, but it will still not snap in/out of focus as well as if you had a 'real' manual focus SLR.</p>

<p>3. The Sigma 50/1.4 is quite nice, but again, calibrating it with a body that doesn't have micro-adjustment may be problematic. The Sigma's bokeh is fantastic - maybe as good/better than the 50L. Definitely better than the Canon 50/1.4. But, it's a big lens, like the 50L, and if you're not in need of 1.4, the size may be a waste and a hindrance.</p>

<p>4. Canon 50/1.4EF. A really great all-around lens. There's nothing bad to be said about it, except that you get halation effects on white areas in the image at 1.4. But, you can effectively shoot portraits, etc. at 1.4 and never notice it. There may be sample variation, so test/compare 2 or 3 copies. I have an old one, and it's really quite good. </p>

<p>5. Never tried the Macro 50/2.5, but i would imagine it would be, technically, very sharp. If you really won't be shooting below f2.5, maybe that's your best bet. But, i think the EF 50/1.4 is going to be sharp enough for any practical use, especially if you use it at the same apertures that the macro lens is capable of. </p>

<p>Not sure what you mean by "fine art." Is 'ultimate sharpness' really a component of your fine art work? If not, maybe you could consider a lens that imparts character rather than sharpness. You could experiment with old Pentax Takumars, or Soviet M42 lenses, for example, via adapters. I always got inconsistent focus accuracy with adapted lenses (even with the focus confirmation chips), but if focus speed isn't a concern, you can shoot multiple frames and choose the one that nails it. You do have to work with kludgy stop-down metering, and all that rigamarole, but if you have the time, you could get a few cheap used/old lenses and maybe figure out which gives your images the 'signature' you like.</p>

<p>

 

 

<p>"I don't think there are many brands where you get free replacement parts for a 45 year old second hand camera!"</p>

<p>I guess that balances against the unfortunate truth that they don't support a five year old camera (bought new). Or, that it took five months (and a lot of BS) to fix/replace a new M-50mm Summilux-ASPH. </p>

 

 

</p>