On Thu, 11 Jul 2002 10:22:47 GMT, "Jeremy 1952"
>> There are real differences, but they are also slight. That slight
>> difference however can be important to those who see the difference.
>>
>
>You say that there are differences, but you do not state what those
>differences are. Not meaning to single out your particular response, but it
>is typical of what people say when asked why high-priced lenses are better.
>
>If you compared photos shot with a good quality OEM lens from Canon, Nikon,
>Pentax, Olympus versus the Carl Zeiss or Leitz product, WHOULD YOU ACTUALLY
>BE ABLE TO SEE A DIFFERENCE IN THE PHOTOGRAPH?
>
>What would that difference look like?
>
>Would the image be sharper? Would the colors "jump off the print," because
>they were so much more saturated?
>
>Using the example of a f/1.4 50mm normal lens, if I were to chuck my SMC
>Takumar ($75.00) for the $1,995.00 Leitz for the Leicaflex, what specific
>improvements would I get in my photographs (assuming that all other factors
>such as technique, film type, use of tripod and lens hood were all the
>same)??
>
>I would really like to know if there are any significant differences. I
>suspect that there are not. So, my question remains: Can one see a
>difference in the photo? What does one look for?
You ask interesting questions, and it is surprising that
this thread has not yet devolved into a "my brand is better
than yours" series of posts...;-) As an inveterate "tester"
of lenses (see: www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html for
part of it - short the Canons, Leitz, Minolta, etc. and
the many "el-cheapo" lenses that were left out, for various
reasons...;-), I think that there are subtle differences
among brands' best lenses, as there are somewhat less subtle
differences among lenses within most brands' offerings...
As for the $2000 Leitz 50mm f1.4 vs. the Zeiss, Nikkor,
older Pentax, etc., I suspect that by f4 or so, you could
not tell the difference in prints or slides shot with any of
them, unless one brand's version had a noticeable color cast
or peculiar contrast characteristic. At f2, you may be able
to spot differences, but they may not always favor the more
expensive...;-) Much of pricing is marketing, and a high
price does not guarantee high image quality in a particular
type of lens (and the reverse...), but it can reflect
manufacturing consistency, or manufacturing difficulty (if
unusual, as for the f1 50mms, which are both very expensive
and not very good optically - a bad combination...;-).
Personally, I chose the Nikkor line many years ago since it
was (generally) affordable, offered a very wide range of
lenses (including many unique to the line), most lenses in
the line (even the "cheap" ones) were at least very good
optically (with few "klunkers", unlike with most other
lines in which some important focal-lengths were not well
represented), manufacturing consistency was good, and Nikon
tried to make most of the lenses compatible with all bodies,
old and new (including AF bodies). Other manufacturers'
individual lenses could sometimes be better than a
particular Nikkor, but in general, Nikon offered a wider
range of lenses of a higher average quality, with less
"obsolescence" than other lines did. Times change, and I
now have more respect for the Canon line than I did, and
less for some of Nikon's recent cheap offerings, alas...
(but I still wonder why people liked the pre-aspheric
Leitz rfdr offerings, though - I was not impressed with
some of these...;-). Brand choice is probably at
least 9/10 the result of marketing for most people, and
once made, the choice is often defended quite irrationally
(I write on the video NGs a lot, and compare Mini-DV
camcorders, and often experience first-hand the ill effects
of "brand religion" when people disagree with my findings,
however well supported they are...;-), so I expect this
thread may soon be filled with "Zeiss is better" or similar
comments...;-)