Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
I obviously do not have an eye for this defect (that I think is known as purple fringing) as I do not see it. I do see that the pics are not as sharp as I would like but this lens only cost me $24 including shipping.A lot of C.A. but overall pretty good I'd say.
The Canon FD 135/2 is pretty decent with my GH1. It's not one of my most used lenses, but it's not bad.I've not come across a 135mm vintage lens that will work well on the m4/3 system (I'm sure there are some, I just haven't found them).
Have you used a Leica Tele-Elmar 135mm f4? I got one a couple of days ago and it's excellent; it certainly lives up to the quality that has been written in many reviews. This is a shot that I took a today, using a Leica extension ring, handheld (the red cactus flower is about 10mm across). It's nothing special, I was just testing things:I've not come across a 135mm vintage lens that will work well on the m4/3 system (I'm sure there are some, I just haven't found them). Those Sears lenses might be cheap but I find them close to being unusable (for my taste, of course). The images are very soft and CA is pretty obvious (even on the unprocessed shot of the white flower). Many people like the soft effect that some lenses produce. I do like softness but I want to be able to choose which image I wish to look soft. I also find that with the G1 not having IS, using MF lenses with FL greater than 90mm requires a tripod or a whole lot of light so you can keep that shutter speed at least 1/FL (x2).