If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
fast glass?
everyone seems to want 'fast glass' - f/2.8, 1.7, 1.4, etc, but I'm left
wondering 'why' As most people know, lenses are not at their sharpest wide open - usually requiring f/7 - 9 (ish) before they attain their maximum potential. So why the fuss about 'fast' lenses?, and why pay the huge premiums to own them? Most of my own lenses are 2.8, with one at 1.7, and one at 1.4 - yet I invariably have to stop down in order to get a nicely sharp image, which sort of defeats the object of the 'fast glass', doesn't it? I mean, why pay three times the price for a 'fast' lens, when you only end up stopping it down? I've got a theory that it's the mania for bright lenses that's behind a lot of the 'focus fuss' that clogs up the various forums - perhaps people don't realise that you're just not going to get the same image quality out of wide open lens and are mistaking 'softness' for focus issues. Just a thought. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
fast glass?
In article , Danny
wrote: Just a thought. Just a thought. Read a basic book about photography. -- Charles |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
fast glass?
"Charles" wrote in message ... In article , Danny wrote: Just a thought. Just a thought. Read a basic book about photography. Why is their always a smart-arse on every Usenet group? - don't you have a ****ing job to go to? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
fast glass?
Danny wrote:
everyone seems to want 'fast glass' - f/2.8, 1.7, 1.4, etc, but I'm left wondering 'why' As most people know, lenses are not at their sharpest wide open - usually requiring f/7 - 9 (ish) before they attain their maximum potential. So why the fuss about 'fast' lenses?, and why pay the huge premiums to own them? Most of my own lenses are 2.8, with one at 1.7, and one at 1.4 - yet I invariably have to stop down in order to get a nicely sharp image, which sort of defeats the object of the 'fast glass', doesn't it? I mean, why pay three times the price for a 'fast' lens, when you only end up stopping it down? I've got a theory that it's the mania for bright lenses that's behind a lot of the 'focus fuss' that clogs up the various forums - perhaps people don't realise that you're just not going to get the same image quality out of wide open lens and are mistaking 'softness' for focus issues. Just a thought. Danny, I agree with you in the short focal length range. But even then there are situations where the aberrations wide open are acceptable in order to get the shot. For example, a low lit room with no flash. I generally image landscapes at about f/8 to f/11 for maximum depth of field and image sharpness, when I do small formats (35mm, DSLRs). But in the super telephoto range, the lenses are designed to deliver very high quality images without stopping down. Look at the 300 mm f/2.8, 400 mm f/2.8, 500 mm f/4 and 600 mm f/4 lenses. They have spectacular performance wide open, and you need it for action shots. Roger Example on my web site, see bid and bear galleries: http://www.clarkvision.com |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
fast glass?
Danny wrote:
"Charles" wrote in message ... In article , Danny wrote: Just a thought. Just a thought. Read a basic book about photography. Why is their always a smart-arse on every Usenet group? - don't you have a ****ing job to go to? That should have read *there* not /their/ _____ Slack - smart-arse #2 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
fast glass?
In article , Danny
wrote: Why is their always a smart-arse on every Usenet group? I meant what I said. Read some basic photography books and you will understand why we need fast glass. -- Charles |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
fast glass?
"Danny" wrote in message ... everyone seems to want 'fast glass' - f/2.8, 1.7, 1.4, etc, but I'm left wondering 'why' As most people know, lenses are not at their sharpest wide open - usually requiring f/7 - 9 (ish) before they attain their maximum potential. 1. There are cases when they are used in low light. 2. You can say: "My lens is better than your lens" perhaps people don't realise that you're just not going to get the same image quality out of wide open lens and are mistaking 'softness' for focus issues. Just a thought. Sure they do. Read #2 above I have a 1.8 lens on my OM-2. I can't think a single time that I really would have been better of with a 1.4. But I have used it wide open. -- Ed http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/ |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
fast glass?
Hmm---my very cheap Canon f/1.8 50mm does a nice job of available light
gathering in a gym--my much costlier 28-135 IS 3.5-5.6 needs flash, which I try to avoid for indoor sports! Paul B. sample: http://scienceteacher.biz/VBweb/IMG_0322.html |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
fast glass?
wrote in message ups.com... Hmm---my very cheap Canon f/1.8 50mm does a nice job of available light gathering in a gym--my much costlier 28-135 IS 3.5-5.6 needs flash, which I try to avoid for indoor sports! It must be my lenses! Sure, I can get low light shots (not that I take many) but my own fetish is for sharpness and I just can't bear to put up with a soft image, knowing that dialling down a bit and using flash (if allowed, of course) will produce a much better shot. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
fast glass?
Danny wrote: everyone seems to want 'fast glass' - f/2.8, 1.7, 1.4, etc, but I'm left wondering 'why' As most people know, lenses are not at their sharpest wide open - usually requiring f/7 - 9 (ish) before they attain their maximum potential. So why the fuss about 'fast' lenses?, and why pay the huge premiums to own them? Most of my own lenses are 2.8, with one at 1.7, and one at 1.4 - yet I invariably have to stop down in order to get a nicely sharp image, which sort of defeats the object of the 'fast glass', doesn't it? I mean, why pay three times the price for a 'fast' lens, when you only end up stopping it down? I've got a theory that it's the mania for bright lenses that's behind a lot of the 'focus fuss' that clogs up the various forums - perhaps people don't realise that you're just not going to get the same image quality out of wide open lens and are mistaking 'softness' for focus issues. Just a thought. Just think of the "Bragging Rights" that come with the purchase. Isn't that what life is all about? G Bob Williams |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Making Stained Glass at home, help | Frank in UK | Digital Photography | 1 | February 8th 05 12:58 PM |
Making Stained Glass at home, help | starlia | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | February 8th 05 12:58 PM |
Making Stained Glass at home, help | Frank in UK | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | February 8th 05 12:04 PM |
Heat absorbing glass or one-size-fits all glass carrier for 23CII negative popping problem | Phil Glaser | In The Darkroom | 2 | June 1st 04 01:47 PM |
Filter glass for Janpol enlarging lens? | Donald Qualls | In The Darkroom | 7 | May 29th 04 11:32 PM |