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
|
|||
|
|||
Lens speed: Not always the best choice
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:20:27 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote:
People buy fast lenses for 2 reasons: -The want the speed to capture action. -They want the shallow DOF afforded by such lenses. For for the first reason, speed is not always the best choice. Shooting at a higher ISO sometimes works out better than using a lens wide open and once you determine that it does for a specific lens, then there is generally no reason to shoot a specific subject at the wider aperture. The benefits are better image quality (fewer image aberrations), possibly more accurate focus and the potential to use a much cheaper lens. The downside is noise and giving up shallow DOF. Here is an example of a shot at 800 ISO with a lens wide open and 1600 ISO with the lens stopped down. Shutter speeds were the same, so you aren't giving that up. The trick is to determine which lenses fall into this category. http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/imag...08342/original I thought all lenses worked better if stopped down... Maybe a high quality lens at f2 could beat a crap lens at f8... but the quality lens at f8 would be even better. What camera did you use for those shots? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|GG| Lens speed: Not always the best choice
Rich wrote:
On Jul 10, 10:16 pm, wrote: On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:20:27 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote: People buy fast lenses for 2 reasons: -The want the speed to capture action. -They want the shallow DOF afforded by such lenses. For for the first reason, speed is not always the best choice. Shooting at a higher ISO sometimes works out better than using a lens wide open and once you determine that it does for a specific lens, then there is generally no reason to shoot a specific subject at the wider aperture. The benefits are better image quality (fewer image aberrations), possibly more accurate focus and the potential to use a much cheaper lens. The downside is noise and giving up shallow DOF. Here is an example of a shot at 800 ISO with a lens wide open and 1600 ISO with the lens stopped down. Shutter speeds were the same, so you aren't giving that up. The trick is to determine which lenses fall into this category. http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/imag...08342/original I thought all lenses worked better if stopped down... Maybe a high quality lens at f2 could beat a crap lens at f8... but the quality lens at f8 would be even better. A lens has to be pretty awful not to work well centrally at f8.0. But some lenses are amazing wide open. Nikon's 14-24mm f2.8. Check out the output from an Olympus 35-100mm f2.0, it's pretty amazing. What camera did you use for those shots? Panasonic G1. What's the f/2 lens? -- Paul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Lens speed: Not always the best choice
On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 12:23:51 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote: wrote: On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:20:27 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote: People buy fast lenses for 2 reasons: -The want the speed to capture action. -They want the shallow DOF afforded by such lenses. For for the first reason, speed is not always the best choice. Shooting at a higher ISO sometimes works out better than using a lens wide open and once you determine that it does for a specific lens, then there is generally no reason to shoot a specific subject at the wider aperture. The benefits are better image quality (fewer image aberrations), possibly more accurate focus and the potential to use a much cheaper lens. The downside is noise and giving up shallow DOF. Here is an example of a shot at 800 ISO with a lens wide open and 1600 ISO with the lens stopped down. Shutter speeds were the same, so you aren't giving that up. The trick is to determine which lenses fall into this category. http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/imag...08342/original I thought all lenses worked better if stopped down. Generally _most_ lenses are sharpset stopped down 2 - 3 stops from wide open. Most diffract to a softer image beyond f/11, noticeably so beyond f/16 or so - though in most common print sizes this not usually noticeable. Likewise, the softer wide open shots only show as soft at 8x12" or so (for a 35mm cropped sensor camera) This is only true for all poorly figured DSLR glass. The same cannot be said for true diffraction-limited glass (the most precise lens polishing that money can buy), as is found in nearly all higher-quality P&S cameras. Simple test: If you open up your aperture wider at any point and the image gets worse, that is NOT diffraction-limited optics. Meaning, it's just poorly figured glass. DSLR buyers are so easily fooled. They still live by that oft-disproved saying "you get what you pay for". The lens and camera makers more than happy to take advantage of their naïveté and ignorance. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Lens speed: Not always the best choice
Praying They Don't Educate Themselves wrote:
Alan Browne Likewise, the softer wide open shots only show as soft at 8x12" or so (for a 35mm cropped sensor camera) This is only true for all poorly figured DSLR glass. The same cannot be said for true diffraction-limited glass (the most precise lens polishing that money can buy), as is found in nearly all higher-quality P&S cameras. LOL! Simple test: If somebody claims that a $400 camera has optics that are as good as those in a $2000 lens then they are a liar or a crackpot. -- Ray Fischer |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Lens speed: Not always the best choice
Themselves wrote:
...true diffraction-limited glass (the most precise lens polishing that money can buy), as is found in nearly all higher-quality P&S cameras. Specific examples... ? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Lens speed: Not always the best choice
On 11 Jul 2009 18:58:47 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Praying They Don't Educate Themselves wrote: Alan Browne Likewise, the softer wide open shots only show as soft at 8x12" or so (for a 35mm cropped sensor camera) This is only true for all poorly figured DSLR glass. The same cannot be said for true diffraction-limited glass (the most precise lens polishing that money can buy), as is found in nearly all higher-quality P&S cameras. LOL! Simple test: If somebody claims that a $400 camera has optics that are as good as those in a $2000 lens then they are a liar or a crackpot. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Lens speed: Not always the best choice
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ray Fischer wrote:
Praying They Don't Educate Themselves wrote: Alan Browne Likewise, the softer wide open shots only show as soft at 8x12" or so (for a 35mm cropped sensor camera) This is only true for all poorly figured DSLR glass. The same cannot be said for true diffraction-limited glass (the most precise lens polishing that money can buy), as is found in nearly all higher-quality P&S cameras. LOL! Simple test: If somebody claims that a $400 camera has optics that are as good as those in a $2000 lens then they are a liar or a crackpot. If the optical design playing field was level. Which it most certainly isn't in this case. Cost depends on the optical problems the lens has to solve. A DSLR lens has to deliver its intended quality while leaving enough room between sensor and rear lens element to accomodate the mirror. That adds a lot to the cost of lenses of shorter focal lengths. -- Chris Malcolm |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Lens speed: Not always the best choice
Troll REALLY Is This Dense wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote: Praying They Don't Educate Themselves wrote: Alan Browne Likewise, the softer wide open shots only show as soft at 8x12" or so (for a 35mm cropped sensor camera) This is only true for all poorly figured DSLR glass. The same cannot be said for true diffraction-limited glass (the most precise lens polishing that money can buy), as is found in nearly all higher-quality P&S cameras. LOL! Simple test: If somebody claims that a $400 camera has optics that are as good as those in a $2000 lens then they are a liar or a crackpot. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml Q.E.D. Your'e a liar AND a crackpot who didn't even notice that the web page you cite refutes your stupid claim. -- Ray Fischer |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Lens speed: Not always the best choice
Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ray Fischer wrote: Praying They Don't Educate Themselves wrote: Alan Browne Likewise, the softer wide open shots only show as soft at 8x12" or so (for a 35mm cropped sensor camera) This is only true for all poorly figured DSLR glass. The same cannot be said for true diffraction-limited glass (the most precise lens polishing that money can buy), as is found in nearly all higher-quality P&S cameras. LOL! Simple test: If somebody claims that a $400 camera has optics that are as good as those in a $2000 lens then they are a liar or a crackpot. If the optical design playing field was level. Which it most certainly isn't in this case. Cost depends on the optical problems the lens has to solve. A DSLR lens has to deliver its intended quality while leaving enough room between sensor and rear lens element to accomodate the mirror. And if you have a tiny sensor then you certainly can compromise the lens quality to match the sensor's abilities. -- Ray Fischer |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Lens speed: Not always the best choice | Gary Edstrom | Digital SLR Cameras | 1 | July 12th 09 11:33 PM |
Lens speed: Not always the best choice | David J Taylor[_11_] | Digital Photography | 1 | July 10th 09 08:46 PM |
How does choice of developer affect film speed? | [email protected] | In The Darkroom | 18 | February 26th 05 12:22 AM |
Shutter Speed help...choice of Cameras | Marty H | Digital Photography | 9 | September 22nd 04 02:47 AM |