>>3481368>Lens design isn't amazingly changed since the 50s except for aspheric /apochromatic elementsYou mean the things that cause the differences you're bitching about? Also don't forget improvements in manufacturing and materials.
>The lens costs literally orders of magnitude more than the Canon and Yashica and every moron on the internet raves about it's sharpness even wide open. There were orders of magnitude more FD 50s produced than crons. Obviously they cost more, and nobody was talking about cost in the first place. People who rave about the cron's sharpness wide open have either never used one or are using the latest APO version. You have to be specific. There are at least five optically distinct versions of the 50mm cron.
>clearly the reason these lenses cost so much is mainly because they can be attached to leicaIf you're right, why would anyone pay more for a Leica lens when they could get a perfectly good Zeiss or Voigtlander M lens for a fraction of the cost? Leica is expensive, and modern Leica is expensive just for the sake of being expensive, but that doesn't mean the lenses aren't also good.
>I hear 3D pop attributed to Zeiss more than leica and it is definitely bullshit. I said it wasn't unique to Leica. Certain Zeiss lenses, especially some Planars and Tessars do it too. And your vague anecdote certainly carries more weight than the tens of thousands of people who've used these lenses and written extensively about them over the last 60 years. Everyone is surely convinced now.
>The leica glow...Is an unclear term, but is also attributed to more modern lenses and overlaps with the 3D effect.
>I really doubt that a lens with character is going to make a picture better 95% of the time.I didn't say it would. There's nothing wrong with the FD 50 or any other 50, but there are differences. Why not just use what you like? Or are you just salty because you can't afford Leica glass?
