Re: 50s vs. 90s lenses

[P3D Michael Kersenbrock <michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> All this talk about '90s vs '50s lenses reminds me of the debate of
> vinyl vs CD. Now I wonder if there are similarities here. Are the

Also a bit like "tube" vs. "solid state" audio amplifiers.  Solid
state amp's (until Carver's trick) didn't distort the audio in the
subtle desired way people were used to.

> Also it's not fare to compare a zoom lens to a fixed focal lens. Can
> the experts elaborate on comparing a good quality '90s fixed lens
> vs the '50s lens?

If one is trying to argue technology, then IMHO that'd be a more
fair way to argue.  But nobody (I think) is arguing that the 50's
optical technology was as good as the current technology.  It's a
three second arguement.  90's is better.

Arguments are more along the lines of comparing what people use now
for flattie photography with what people use now for stereo photography
and trying to judge "is the 50's cameras all that bad"?  The
answer seems to be "maybe not" -- and the reason is that people
are using much lower cost P&S Zooms for the most part.  Part of 
cost the cheap-zooming is to "be almost as bad as fixed f.l. 50's
lenses".  In a hand-wavy sort of way.  Kinda, more or less. Somewhat.


Mike K.


------------------------------