Angmo wrote in post #18592276
Would a native lens perform comparatively better?? Maybe ByThom has some info.
This may be diving too deep. I’ve been Nikon for years and the higher pixel counts seems to make my older Nikon glass not perform as well.. not bad but.. I do fine tune. Newer just lenses seem a bit better. I’m no scientist.
That’s why MF glass is so expensive. Higher quality glass is needed for all that film/pixel real estate.
For my old Nikon DX D300 my fav portrait lens is the ancient 35-70 f2.8. Not sure how it would work on the D850.
Will be getting a D850 but with a new set of glass if the old ones fail to perform.
Native glass is better, but with the AF improvement in the newer bodies, the difference is pretty narrow for a lot of glass. It's so close that other considerations draw me to choose non native glass over the native alternative. In the case of the 24-70, I had the GMaster for a bit, but preferred the rendering of the Canon intended to sell, and sold the Sony instead.
Higher resolution bodies really do make you more critical of older lenses. I've always had an infatuation with the 50L from when I owned one in my canon days and was considering adding it back to my kit.... But shooting it next to modern glass, the 50L no longer holds its own... Even as a character lens. The 35LII is a really nice piece of glass though. Higher resolution bodies also call more attention to microfocus errors so there's that too.
For manual focus glass, the MF assists in mirrorless come in handy.