I see discussions going on about this lens and that lens (some of which have a price tag that's more than my house payment) and I wonder if I am just hopelessly out of touch when it comes to this stuff. I have an EPL-1 and some Hexanon lenses and the stray Super Takumar and OM lens tucked away somewhere. I have no complaints with my gear. The quality of my images (or lack thereof is) is definitely not a gear issue. My lenses are much more capable than I will ever be.

That said, I often look at the Nokton's, Summicron's and wonder if what I am seeing is a case of diminishing returns. Years ago I worked in HiFi and we used to have a saying that at $500 (for a simple system) you could hear a difference over a basic rack system and that difference climbed pretty steadily until you got to about $1500. After that point the increase in sound quality was still there but much MUCH smaller. Once you learn to hear what good audio sounds like (and appreciate it) forever after you find your tolerance for bad audio to be pretty small. I assume once you've used a Summicron or similar the thought of using a Super Takumar or Hexanon is pretty comical.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to step up to something like a Summicron but right now I doubt I'd be able to tell the difference between it and my Hexanon 40/1.8.

Kevin the Lesser

__________________
E-PM1 - E-P1 and some lenses

And if you can tell the difference, which is better (in mulitple practical applications)?

__________________
Joep

PS: Try to catch a laugh every day

That's a good point. I have a British amplifier because I love the sound and am willing to pay more for that sound. Then again HiFi costs less than good glass apparently because some of the better lenses still catches me by surprise when I see the price.

Like I said, I doubt I'd be able to tell the difference, although I suspect that like HiFi I could learn to see the difference and once I did there would be no turning back.

__________________
E-PM1 - E-P1 and some lenses

You'll definitely be able to tell the difference. I went through that same train of thought, and was happy enough with the lenses I was using. One day I stumbled upon using enlarging lenses for macro work, and the sharpness/color of the inexpensive lens I grabbed off eBay was immediately apparent. I couldn't believe how much more the images popped. I suspect I'd run into the same experience with regular lenses, but unfortunately I can't afford those just yet =).

__________________
-Dragos
Panasonic GH1 + various lenses

It seems to me that for those who have the legacy glass it's a fun thing to do and worth a try given the lack of a lot of native lenses for micro 4/3 at this point. There are also those that are looking to transition to something like an M9 so they start out with micro 4/3 and buy a good lens like a Summicron 35 until they move up to the highest level in small camera full sensor sytems. That's my plan.

"Small increase in sound quality" is a pretty vague term. There are subtle differences that you may or may not appreciate, and they vary from system to system (lens to lens). For most people (including me) they're not worth the price jump.
BTW I've heard a lot of good things about both Super Takumars and Hexanons

__________________
- Roman -
Olympus E-P1 + Panny 20/1.7, Zuiko M.9-18 & 14-150, Canon FD 50/3.5 Macro & 135/2.8, Konica 57/1.4 & 40/1.8, Nikkor 28/2.8 AIs, Pentax 300/6.3
Canon 40d + 100/2, 55-250IS, Sigma 50/1.4, Tamron 17-50/2.8
~ photo gallery ~

Yeah I suppose that was pretty vague. In the case of an amplifier for instance. The better the amp (assuming the same speakers) you'll be able to hear where the different instruments are sitting. Better amps typically have more headroom and cleaner power meaning they can play at louder volumes with less distortion. Also, some amps have a warmer sound (which I like). I think they sound more musical (or more like live music). The difference between a $500 amp and a $1500 amp is usually pretty significant meaning you can hear it without much effort. The difference in sound between a $1500 amp and a $5000 amp IMHO is quite a bit smaller and in my case I find that the difference in quality doesn't warrant the price difference. I guess if I had the money to spend I would feel differently. I am assuming that the same holds true for lenses. Maybe I could appreciate the difference between my 40/1.8 Hexanon or a 50/1.4 Super Takumar and a 40 Summicron (no argument that the Summicron is a superior lens) but I don't think I am at the point where I'd pay the money for that Summicron.

As to the previous poster's idea that a good many folk might be using these m43 cameras as a stepping stone to something like a Leica. That may be. It wasn't something that had occurred to me. I am quite impressed by the quality of the EPL1 (even if that brands me as a dilettante) and so far haven't any aspirations to marry into the house of Oskar.

__________________
E-PM1 - E-P1 and some lenses

I'm not sure, but I believe the better lenses show improvements in color and contrast mainly.

I know cheap lenses suffer in contrast, particularly.

I did try a couple of Noktons I think it was through lensrental.com. I guess I tried the wrong lenses, because I found them very soft wide open -- too soft to justify the price for me, and no sharper than my cheap legacy glass.

Perhaps a Summicron would have been better? Or perhaps I just tried the wrong Nokton (from the little I've read, while the lenses are all "expensive" (compared to Rokkors and SuperTaks), there is still significant model variation, with some being an excellent fit for m43, and others not so much. Or, perhaps I was using the lens wrong. Maybe they shin stopped down, but at the time, I was looking for portrait lenses for my m43 (ended up with an OM 50mm 2.0 macro for now for portraits. Sharp enough wide open that I don't have to stop down).

Too, I think I read that newer lenses might have back element coatings to help with ghosting/bleeding issues with digital sensors, which older lenses might not have. So, it might be the year of the lens, too. Not sure if that's true, but that's what I've read on forums like DPR ("I don't believe anything until I read it on DPR" lol).

__________________
EPM1 (gone but not forgotten: EP1)
Lenses: P14/PL25/PL45, 40-150; FD50, OM100, Fujian 35/1.7

Respectfully disagree here although I haven't really used expensive ones.
Color and contrast may be the differences, sure, but also bokeh (don't underestimate it), flare resistance, CA (not sure how much old lenses differ), sharpness at wide apertures, corner sharpness. I'm talking in general of course, since I'm not familiar with Leicas in particular.

__________________
- Roman -
Olympus E-P1 + Panny 20/1.7, Zuiko M.9-18 & 14-150, Canon FD 50/3.5 Macro & 135/2.8, Konica 57/1.4 & 40/1.8, Nikkor 28/2.8 AIs, Pentax 300/6.3
Canon 40d + 100/2, 55-250IS, Sigma 50/1.4, Tamron 17-50/2.8
~ photo gallery ~

> I assume once you've used a Summicron or similar the thought of using a Super
> Takumar or Hexanon is pretty comical.

No, it just does not work like that. You get addicted to lenses after a while. I have several Summicrons, prefer the look of the collapsible Summicron. Summarits, Elmars, Jupiter-3's (four of them), J-8, Nikkors, Takumars, Sonnars, Canon FL, FD, and Canon Leica thread mount, Simlar, and those are the lenses that I can use on the EP2. The Hexanons will have to wait for me to get an adapter. I use the 57/1.4, 28/1.8, and 135/3.5 on a Konica FT-1.