 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / January 2007Wide-angle lenses
One thing that crops up (so to speak) in the sensor size debate is the argument that there are no good wide angle lenses for smaller sensors. I am not convinced that this is true, but what lens do you think is missing? What wide angle lens is needed to round out the lineup? For me, it seems that Nikon still needs to produce a 10mm f/2.8 (or better) Nikkor. The 10.5mm fish eye is a good lens, but it is a fish eye. The Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 zoom is too slow. I really don't see a use for an 8mm lens. > One thing that crops up (so to speak) in the sensor size debate is the > argument that there are no good wide angle lenses for smaller sensors. I am [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I really don't see a use for an 8mm lens. I have and recently acquired the 11-18 Tamron SP- it suits my needs rather nicely. It's not a fish eye.  Signature"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920. Reality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 17:42:00 -0800, Greg \_\ wrote (in article <grey_egg-5695E9.20420014012007@news.isp.giganews.com>): >> One thing that crops up (so to speak) in the sensor size debate is the >> argument that there are no good wide angle lenses for smaller sensors. I am [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I have and recently acquired the 11-18 Tamron SP- it suits my needs > rather nicely. It's not a fish eye. Hmm. I was not aware of that lens. Still, I already have the 12-24 Nikkor. It seems wide enough for almost anything. The question is speed. > Hmm. I was not aware of that lens. Still, I already have the 12-24 Nikkor. > It > seems wide enough for almost anything. The question is speed. Isn't this behind the rush into image stabilisation.. slower lenses? Do you need quick lenses if you stabilise the image? I can't imagine doing much action stuff with a 10mm lens so IS would work (probably). >Isn't this behind the rush into image stabilisation.. >slower lenses? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I can't imagine doing much action stuff with a 10mm lens so IS would work >(probably). The wider the lens, the less important IS becomes, because lens shake translates into less image movement. Remember the general rule-of-thumb: you can hand-hold a (non-IS) lens down to about 1/focal-length. So a 300mm lens can be hand-held down to about 1/300, and a 10mm lens down to about 1/10. I'd be surprised if most people need significantly more light than that. -Joel >>Isn't this behind the rush into image stabilisation.. >>slower lenses? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > to about 1/300, and a 10mm lens down to about 1/10. I'd be surprised > if most people need significantly more light than that. The rule of thumb is changed by 50 per cent for APS size sensors, so a 10mm lens might normally be OK at 1/15th not 1/10th, 300mm really needs 1/500th not 1/300th. The thing with wides is that many people (like me) sometimes use extreme wides really stopped down, with foreground very close to the lens - for max depth of field. That can mean working at f16 or f22. Exposures may be 1/15th or 1/20th. In-body IS gives this type of exposure extra chances of being tripod-sharp. It's useful. David >>>Isn't this behind the rush into image stabilisation.. >>>slower lenses? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >10mm lens might normally be OK at 1/15th not 1/10th, 300mm really needs >1/500th not 1/300th. Thus a WA of 15mm gives you a 1 stop advantage compared to the normal focal length of 30mm (all on an APS-C-type sensor)... and one and a half for an ultrawide of 10mm. But IS gives you up to 3 stops of stabilization. So IS would definitely be useful in WA lenses, especially in situations where you stop down to gain max. DOF. The reason they don't put IS into these lenses is IMHO that it would be too difficult to put the IS elements into the congested design of ultrawides and/or would cause the design to become too bulky and expensive. . Another good reason for in-camera stabilization. KS PS Apologies in advance to the purists. I know that "stop" means the size of the aperture, and thus stops can't possibly measure stabilization. > The reason they don't put IS into these lenses is IMHO that it would > be too difficult to put the IS elements into the congested design of > ultrawides and/or would cause the design to become too bulky and > expensive. . > > Another good reason for in-camera stabilization. The real reason is that the degree of precision needed in true ultrawides for small format - 10, 11, 12mm - is difficult to achieve, and it's very hard to design a wide-angle which permits a group to be decentered, and still produce a sharp, symmetrical image. Teles are comparatively tolerant and you can make an IS element which has almost zero dioptric effect. The huge size of the Canon 24-105mm f4 L IS is evidence. Today were looking at the 24-105mm, along with Sigma 24-70mm f2.8, 15mm fisheye and 12-24mm. The Sigma 24-70mm has terrible full aperture vignetting on the 1Ds MkII, very disappointing, and I hope that in practice it will clear up by f5.6 or else this one is going to get thumbs down for full-frame digital use despite the redesign. What also struck me was the massive difference between the Canon 24-105mm f4 and my Minolta 24-105mm f3.5-4.5 - the variable aperture is not a huge difference, and both are full frame lenses, and both of the expected performance. The IS lens is, subjectively, 'double size' in terms of its bulk and visual impact. I would guess the IS mechanism has something to do with it. David >>> Isn't this behind the rush into image stabilisation.. >>> slower lenses? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > 10mm lens might normally be OK at 1/15th not 1/10th, 300mm really needs > 1/500th not 1/300th. Why would that be? The lens is still a 300mm. You assumption indicates that the focal length increases, which it doesn't. >>>> Isn't this behind the rush into image stabilisation.. >>>> slower lenses? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Why would that be? The lens is still a 300mm. You assumption indicates > that the focal length increases, which it doesn't. The reciprocal of the focal length rule only applies to 35mm cameras. For a camera with a lens factor (or lens focal length conversion factor, to give it the proper term in full) of 1.5, a 300mm lens is the equivalent of a 450mm lens on a 35 and requires a proportionately higher shutter speed to eliminate the effects of camera shake. Neil >> The rule of thumb is changed by 50 per cent for APS size sensors, so a >> 10mm lens might normally be OK at 1/15th not 1/10th, 300mm really >> needs 1/500th not 1/300th. >> > Why would that be? The lens is still a 300mm. You assumption indicates > that the focal length increases, which it doesn't. No, his assumption is that the magnification that would result when shooting the same lens at the same distance and printing to the same size would increase. And it will indeed increase. Just think about it: If I had a sensor with a crop factor of 10 (say), and used a 30mm lens, which would then behave as a 300mm lens, would I be able to handholf at 1/30s? >>>> Isn't this behind the rush into image stabilisation.. >>>> slower lenses? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Why would that be? The lens is still a 300mm. You assumption indicates > that the focal length increases, which it doesn't. It has nothing to do with focal length (think about it!). The rule of thumb for 35mm is purely coincidental. It has to do with angle of view. Otherwise you could be shooting with a Minox at 1/8th of a second all the time. Cropping the full frame has the same effect - if you want to crop a 35mm shot down to half-frame by selectively enlarging, the circle of confusion is enlarged on the print, and therefore a higher shutter speed must be used (again, roughly 50 per cent faster, though as a half-frame user in the past, I used to work on the basis of a complete speed faster to stay on the safe side - 32mm lens on Olympus Pen, minimum hand held time 1/60th). Digital is, if anything, more demanding as we examine the images at high magnification. I'd say the same rule - use 1/125 with a 50mm lens, not 1/60th - as applies to half-frame should be used with 'APS' format digital. Large format users have different experience, and tend to stick with the 35mm-format rules even though a 300mm lens is 'standard' on 10 x 8 - and a short standard at that. In theory you could hand hold a 10 x 8 with 300mm at 1/60th. But they work to more critical standards, larger prints, and would normally never consider hand-holding anyway. Rollfilm is midway; again, users tend to follow the 35mm rule of thumb, because they want higher general quality, but you can shoot at 1/60th with a 105mm lens on 6 x 9cm as safely as you shoot at 1/60th with a 50mm lens on 35mm. David > Rollfilm is midway; again, users tend to follow the 35mm rule of thumb, > because they want higher general quality, but you can shoot at 1/60th with > a 105mm lens on 6 x 9cm as safely as you shoot at 1/60th with a 50mm lens > on 35mm. I would have to disagree.. You are shooting rollfilm because you want better pictures than 35mm gives... probably because you are going for bigger prints. If you allow more wobble you are going to lose that extra sharpness and the benefits of the larger format. The same is not true of digital if the sensor is just bigger and has the same number of pixels then what you say is true. This also means that the safe hand held speed gets less as pixel counts go up. You need to increase the speed by about 1/3 for a 10M pixel sensor compared to a 6M pixel sensor for the same lens. >> Rollfilm is midway; again, users tend to follow the 35mm rule of thumb, >> because they want higher general quality, but you can shoot at 1/60th [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > If you allow more wobble you are going to lose that extra sharpness and > the benefits of the larger format. But you're *not getting* any "more wobble" using 1/60 on a 6 x 9 than you are using the same shutter speed on a 35, using the normal focal lengths for both formats. For any given final image size, the 6 x 9 negative has to be enlarged less than half as much as the 35, which cancels out any increase in the effects of shake at the film plane resulting from the longer f.l. For someone who's reasonably steady, sharp images can be had hand-held at 1/60 regardless of format, as long as the "normal" lens for that format is being used. If you really want to ensure getting all of "that extra sharpness and the benefits of the larger format," you use a tripod. Neil >>> Rollfilm is midway; again, users tend to follow the 35mm rule of thumb, >>> because they want higher general quality, but you can shoot at 1/60th [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > are using the same shutter speed on a 35, using the normal focal lengths > for both formats. Yes you are. You get 80/50 times the wobble if you measure the error at the film plane. The film will be able to record this so you have lost definition to shake. It may not matter in the final print but why use expensive larger format stuff if you are just taking snaps? > For any given final image size, the 6 x 9 negative has to be enlarged less > than half as much as the 35, which cancels out any increase in the effects > of shake at the film plane resulting from the longer f.l. For someone > who's reasonably steady, sharp images can be had hand-held at 1/60 > regardless of format, as long as the "normal" lens for that format is > being used. I know that is the rule and has been for 50 years but it doesn't actually make it correct. If 35mm gave me the quality I needed then I would not use 6x9. So using 6x9 doesn't allow for the extra wobble you get with the longer lenses and you need to be more careful. > If you really want to ensure getting all of "that extra sharpness and the > benefits of the larger format," you use a tripod. Fine if its a fairly static subject. >>>> Rollfilm is midway; again, users tend to follow the 35mm rule of thumb, >>>> because they want higher general quality, but you can shoot at 1/60th [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > The film will be able to record this so you have lost definition to shake. > It may not matter in the final print It doesn't, and there you are. What matters is the final print, not the negative. > but why use expensive larger format stuff if you are just taking snaps? Where did "just taking snaps" come from? >> For any given final image size, the 6 x 9 negative has to be enlarged >> less than half as much as the 35, which cancels out any increase in the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > So using 6x9 doesn't allow for the extra wobble you get with the longer > lenses and you need to be more careful. As long as you're shooting hand held, the rule still works fine. And yes, most of the benefit you get from the larger format is still there. Compare prints made from 6 x 9 negatives and 35mm negatives, normal lens in each case, shot at the same shutter speeds. I've got prints from way back in the day when I was using a 2¼ x 3¼ press camera that I could not equal with a 35 at any shutter speed, and I never doubled the shutter speed just because I was using a 101mm lens. >> If you really want to ensure getting all of "that extra sharpness and the >> benefits of the larger format," you use a tripod. > > Fine if its a fairly static subject. Well, I suppose some would say if you don't use a tripod you're (in your own words) "just taking snaps." ;-) Neil > As long as you're shooting hand held, the rule still works fine. And yes, > most of the benefit you get from the larger format is still there. But not the most important one. That of having better quality and being able to enlarge more without the camera shake showing. > Compare prints made from 6 x 9 negatives and 35mm negatives, normal lens > in each case, shot at the same shutter speeds. I've got prints from way > back in the day when I was using a 2¼ x 3¼ press camera that I could not > equal with a 35 at any shutter speed, and I never doubled the shutter > speed just because I was using a 101mm lens. So you are lucky or able to hold them steady better than some. Did you enlarge them each 20x or just the same print size? The main reason for larger formats is to get better quality not the same quality. >> As long as you're shooting hand held, the rule still works fine. And yes, >> most of the benefit you get from the larger format is still there. > > But not the most important one. > That of having better quality and being able to enlarge more without the > camera shake showing. No one can hold a camera, or anything else, absolutely positively steady. We are not tripods. There is always some camera shake when shooting hand held; the reciprocal of the focal length rule (which was never intended to be for anything but 35s) is only expected to ensure that the shake is kept to an unnoticeable level, which in fact it may or may not do anyway. Many people cannot get really sharp pictures, or even acceptably sharp, hand-holding a 300mm lens at 1/300 second on a 35. Other people can get sharp pictures with the same lens at slower shutter speeds than that, at least some percentage of the time. In short, the rule is not something engraved in bronze or chiseled in stone by the Creator of the Universe. It's only a rule of thumb, reasonably useful. And by the way, in the days of much slower films people often used 1/25 second with normal lenses in larger formats and still got sharp results. >> Compare prints made from 6 x 9 negatives and 35mm negatives, normal lens >> in each case, shot at the same shutter speeds. I've got prints from way [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > So you are lucky or able to hold them steady better than some. > Did you enlarge them each 20x or just the same print size? The same print size, as I thought I made clear earlier. I had no need or desire to enlarge them both the same number of times. That would obviously have canceled out the benefit of using the larger format. > The main reason for larger formats is to get better quality not the same > quality. As I said, the 2¼ x 3¼ shots *were* clearly better quality. Neil [..........] > Rollfilm is midway; again, users tend to follow the 35mm rule of thumb, because they want higher general quality, but you can > shoot at 1/60th with a 105mm lens on 6 x 9cm as safely as you shoot at 1/60th with a 50mm lens on 35mm. > > David This points up another important aspect of successful hand-holdability, the effect of the ease of gripping the camera properly and releasing the shutter smoothly. I sold both of my Nikon FE-2 bodies and replaced them with FA bodies though they were essentially identical for one reason - the shutter releases were softer on the FAs, giving me almost a stop lower possible shutter speed with a particular lens. My Fuji *Wide* (2 1/4 x 3 1/4 with 65mm lens) was "iffy" at 1/125th and 1/250th was needed for reliability, yet my Mamiya 645 with added left side handle and bottom plate could easily be hand-held reliably at 1/30th with a 45mm or 1/60th with a 70mm lens on it. I never could shoot anything with any feeling of assurance with my Rollei twin-lens with a 75mm lens at speeds slower than 1/250th-1/500th - it was just too awkward to hold (I never liked hand-holding Hasselblads either...). And, I keep being surprised how well I do with my Sony 707 digital camera with its two-handed grip even though I now have the "shakes" (and the camera doesn't have a stabilizer). Gripability and shutter release smoothness count for as much as the shutter speed... -- David Ruether DRuether@twcny.rr.com rpn1@cornell.edu http://www.ferrario.com/ruether > >Isn't this behind the rush into image stabilisation.. > >slower lenses? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > -Joel This is all true, and below 1/60, subject movement plays a big role even in static pictures. Nikon says there 14mm f2.8 works with digital, Bjorn Rosslet, say it's OK. But a huge heavy and expensive lens, would be nice to have DX with less coverage so the lens looks more like 35mm frame 21mm lenses and doesn't have that huge front element. There are Sigma and Tamron version of the 14mm f2.8, I have heard varying reports on both. Tom >> I can't imagine doing much action stuff with a 10mm lens so IS would >> work (probably). > > The wider the lens, the less important IS becomes, because lens shake > translates into less image movement. HOLY sh.t! Someone that actually knows how a lens works. You're going to aggravate people by telling them the truth. Rita >The wider the lens, the less important IS becomes, because lens shake >translates into less image movement. Are you sure? With rectilinear lenses, rotations tend to have rather strong effects near the edges. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency According to Philip Homburg <philip@ue.aioy.eu>: > >The wider the lens, the less important IS becomes, because lens shake > >translates into less image movement. > > Are you sure? With rectilinear lenses, rotations tend to have rather strong > effects near the edges. Yes -- but does *any* IS system correct rotational movement? Certainly the in-the-lens style can't. If the sensor can be moved in different directions at opposite corners -- *and* if the camera has means to sense rotational change around the axis of the lens, and the algorithms to correct that out -- then yes, IS would help. But I don't think that any camera has those capabilities built in yet. Enjoy, DoN. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- > According to Philip Homburg <philip@ue.aioy.eu>: >>> The wider the lens, the less important IS becomes, because lens [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Enjoy, > DoN. IS systems correct rotation about axes normal to the lens optical axis (rotation about an axis along the horizontal and vertical edges of the camera back, if you like). Most IS systems do not correct for rotation about the lens axis (making the camera back not horizontal). I believe that Pentax /does/ have the rotational correction. I don't see any reason why the IS in a wide-angle lens would not correct for the greater displacement of the image at the edges of the image. David > According to Philip Homburg <philip@ue.aioy.eu>: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > algorithms to correct that out -- then yes, IS would help. But I don't > think that any camera has those capabilities built in yet. That's all they have. Linear movement of the sensor or lens element, in response to detected rotational (angular) shift of the camera. They do not respond (or need to respond) to on-axis fore-back shake, or pure lateral displacement of the entire camera, as both are only significant causes of shake at 1:1 (or close-up generally). The important shake, which they must detect, is pitch/yaw type rotational shake. David >> Hmm. I was not aware of that lens. Still, I already have the 12-24 >> Nikkor. It >> seems wide enough for almost anything. The question is speed. > > Isn't this behind the rush into image stabilisation.. > slower lenses? It's nothing more than a marketing boom and cash cow for the lens manufacturer. They get to manufacture cheaper lenses with less capable optics and advertise IS/VR gives the 3-4 stops more usability under low light conditions. > Do you need quick lenses if you stabilise the image? Yes! The reason is IS/VR does not cure or eliminate the need to use good technique. > I can't imagine doing much action stuff with a 10mm lens so IS would > work (probably). The biggest myth is IS/VR actually helps improve image quality at focal lengths of 50mm and wider. There isn't a person alive that can distinguish between an image in a double-blind test that has IS/VR on when used at 50mm and wider. Rita > The biggest myth is IS/VR actually helps improve image quality at focal > lengths of 50mm and wider. There isn't a person alive that can > distinguish > between an image in a double-blind test that has IS/VR on when used at > 50mm > and wider. Rita, I tell you again this is simply not true. I have used a 28mm (equiv.) lens in low light with Minolta's AS, where I didn't want to use flash (actually in a few shots I did use flash but threw away the results since they were much less satisfactory) and the AS gave me adequately sharp results at 1/4 second or so. I *could not* have gotten those results at 1/4 hand held without it. That IS/VR/AS is much more important with long lenses in most circumstances, I do not dispute. But it's simply wrong to say it has no usefulness with short lenses. Neil >> The biggest myth is IS/VR actually helps improve image quality at >> focal lengths of 50mm and wider. There isn't a person alive that can [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > adequately sharp results at 1/4 second or so. I *could not* have > gotten those results at 1/4 hand held without it. It's not that I don't believe you, but I haven't seen anything that suggests that it does work at 50mm and wider. Other than people's claims that they "observe" a difference do you know of any unbiased or advertising driven sites that have actual tests results with images taken at WA with IS/VR on and off? I really would like to see some actual 17mm or 18mm IS/VR comparisons, but as of yet been unable to find any. > That IS/VR/AS is much more important with long lenses in most > circumstances, I do not dispute. But it's simply wrong to say it has > no usefulness with short lenses. On dSLRs it's simply not effective. Rita >It's not that I don't believe you, but I haven't seen anything that suggests >that it does work at 50mm and wider. Other than people's claims that they These posts made me curious, so I just tried a test: http://www.posted-online.com/IS/ You'll see two (cropped) images of a newspaper 10' away though a 17mm (27.2 equiv) lens, f/8, 1/4sec with a D30. One iamge has IS turned on, the other is without IS. The IS clearly helps. Now we know. -Joel >>It's not that I don't believe you, but I haven't seen anything that suggests >>that it does work at 50mm and wider. Other than people's claims that they [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Now we know. How did you contrive to add a standard amount of shake to each shot? :-) >>These posts made me curious, so I just tried a test: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >How did you contrive to add a standard amount of shake to each shot? I don't know about a "standard" amount of shake, but these are (of course, though I didn't mention it) hand-held. I have a steady hand, though, as the images show, not steady enough to shoot at 1/4 without IS. -Joel >>> It's not that I don't believe you, but I haven't seen anything that suggests >>> that it does work at 50mm and wider. Other than people's claims that they [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > How did you contrive to add a standard amount of shake to each shot? > :-) (rim shot: ta-DUM!) Pretty good. But I tend to believe those posting tests when they have no axe to grind. Signaturejohn mcwilliams >>> It's not that I don't believe you, but I haven't seen anything that suggests >>> that it does work at 50mm and wider. Other than people's claims that they [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > How did you contrive to add a standard amount of shake to each shot? > :-) It is true that a truly scientific test would account for the creation of a calibrated, identical and repeatable amount of *shake* in both shots but his test certainly provided ample proof that IS makes a difference when used with a camera that is in his hands. And after all, is that not the intent of IS? >> It's not that I don't believe you, but I haven't seen anything that suggests >> that it does work at 50mm and wider. Other than people's claims that they [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Now we know. Rita hates VR for some reason. Oddly, she has never been able to clearly express why. She talks about VR the way RichA talks about plastic. Neither has she ever brought up the one thing against VR that can be clearly and easily demonstrated (which is why all the lens manufacturers give you a way to turn it off). > Rita hates VR for some reason. Oddly, she has never been able to > clearly express why. She talks about VR the way RichA talks about > plastic. Neither has she ever brought up the one thing against VR > that can be clearly and easily demonstrated (which is why all the > lens manufacturers give you a way to turn it off). On the contrary, I love IS/VR when properly used. This is why I advocate the use of the switch. I like my switch! Rita >> Rita hates VR for some reason. Oddly, she has never been able to >> clearly express why. She talks about VR the way RichA talks about [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >On the contrary, I love IS/VR when properly used. This is why I advocate >the use of the switch. I like my switch! Hey, I got yer switch right here, Baby! SignatureNew Jersey threw out a one-hundred-fifty-year-old law Thursday that prevents idiots from voting. It threw the presidential race into chaos. As if Hillary Clinton wasn't facing enough problems, William Shatner is now leading in New Jersey. >> Rita hates VR for some reason. Oddly, she has never been able to >> clearly express why. She talks about VR the way RichA talks about [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > On the contrary, I love IS/VR when properly used. This is why I advocate > the use of the switch. I like my switch! I think it was first noticed by a few pros, but probably Scott Kelby has done as much as anyone to publicize the problem. And this would be true for any kind of stabilization system, in camera or lens mounted. What happens, if you have done absolutely everything you can to ensure that a picture will be perfectly sharp -- tripod, perfect focus, autofocus off, remote release, sharpest aperture, mirror locked up -- you have removed every possible source of vibration in the camera except one: the IS. These things keep moving when there is no movement at all in the camera; you could have set in concrete on granite slab, and the IS will vibrate slightly, whether it is in the lens or in the body. That slight vibration can cause blurring. Therefore it is vitally important, when seeking the sharpest possible picture, to turn any stabilization system off. Nikon says that VR II has solved that problem, but I wonder how it would. The problem is, in order to detect movement, something has to move. Werner Heisenberg was pulled over by a traffic cop. "Do you know how fast you were going?" snarled the cop. Heisenberg replied, "No, but I know exactly where I am." > Werner Heisenberg was pulled over by a traffic cop. "Do you know how fast you > were going?" snarled the cop. Heisenberg replied, "No, but I know exactly > where I am." Hi. There's a vaguely similar relation between time and energy that explains a certain sexual frustration on the part of Mrs. Heisenberg: Unfortunately, when Werner had the energy, he didn't have the time and vice versa... >> It's not that I don't believe you, but I haven't seen anything that >> suggests that it does work at 50mm and wider. Other than people's [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > (27.2 equiv) lens, f/8, 1/4sec with a D30. One iamge has IS turned > on, the other is without IS. The IS clearly helps. I thank you for taking the time to take these shots. Really, there is no discernable difference between these two shots that would make one get overly excited. The top one does have a subtle edge in "sharpness" that you really have to look for to see. Between the two shots one could and would conclude that technique of the photographer contributed more to overall sharpness than IS. If you did this test with ten or fifteen shots taken under a double-blind setting and didn't know what the switch was set at I'll bet you couldn't pick the ones shot with IS on. > Now we know. I think the jury is still out on this one, but I feel it's a good start to prove this to yourself. Take the same shots under the exact conditions at 50mm+ and I'll bet you will see a dramatic difference, even with two shots. And like you state above, this was shot at "17mm (27.2 equiv)" on a cropped sensor. That being said, if this were shot on the 5D with its FF sensor you would never ever see any difference since IS wouldn't even be capable of generating the placebo effect. Rita >>> The biggest myth is IS/VR actually helps improve image quality at >>> focal lengths of 50mm and wider. There isn't a person alive that can [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > and off? I really would like to see some actual 17mm or 18mm IS/VR > comparisons, but as of yet been unable to find any. I don't think I've seen any *that* wide (are we still talking equivalents?). But just recently I bought a Coolpix P3 which has VR, moving sensor variety, and tried a number of quick low-light shots around the apartment with the lens at the short end, 36mm equiv., VR on and off, and at 1/4 and even 1/2 second the VR did eliminate or substantially reduce the visible effects of camera shake. I'll admit this sort of test is not scientific, but I found it convincing. In the situation mentioned earlier I was using a Minolta A200, shooting inside an old whaling ship, the captain's quarters etc., all at 28mm equiv., in fairly poor light. In that case I had the AS on all the time, so made no comparisons. But I feel sure I could not have gotten the sharp shots I did without AS. >> That IS/VR/AS is much more important with long lenses in most >> circumstances, I do not dispute. But it's simply wrong to say it has >> no usefulness with short lenses. > > On dSLRs it's simply not effective. I don't see why there should be a difference with dSLRs, unless you're thinking of mirror vibration or some such thing. But I haven't yet tried my Maxxum 5D in low light no-flash situations so can't really argue that. Do you still have your 18-200 VR? If so you might try that at the short end in low light and compare for yourself, VR on and off. Neil >> I can't imagine doing much action stuff with a 10mm lens so IS would >> work (probably). [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > between an image in a double-blind test that has IS/VR on when used at 50mm > and wider. In any event, VR is not a substitute for a fast lens, no matter how much you might like VR. >> The biggest myth is IS/VR actually helps improve image quality at >> focal lengths of 50mm and wider. There isn't a person alive that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > In any event, VR is not a substitute for a fast lens, no matter how > much you might like VR. I think there might be a shred of truth to that! Rita >>> I can't imagine doing much action stuff with a 10mm lens so IS would >>> work (probably). [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > you > might like VR. I think, though, that you have to take into consideration that a fast superwide has all sorts of problems wide open. The 14mm f2.8s for FF all have some vignetting, CA and resolution problems that are mitigated by stopping down to f4 or 5.6. So one might say that a fast lens is no substitute for VR, no matter how much you might like a fast lens ;-) Toby >On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 07:49:00 -0800, Rita ? Berkowitz wrote >(in article <12qn8os976ngg22@news.supernews.com>): >>> I can't imagine doing much action stuff with a 10mm lens so IS would >>> work (probably). [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> between an image in a double-blind test that has IS/VR on when used at 50mm >> and wider. >In any event, VR is not a substitute for a fast lens, no matter how much you >might like VR. In theory that is true. In practice lugging huge amounts of glass across rugged countryside is a bit of a downer. Signature--- Paul J. Gans >> One thing that crops up (so to speak) in the sensor size debate is the >> argument that there are no good wide angle lenses for smaller sensors. I am [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I have and recently acquired the 11-18 Tamron SP- it suits my needs > rather nicely. It's not a fish eye. I sell quite a few Sigma 10~20 zoom ($599.99 cdn). That lens seems to get good reviews. > One thing that crops up (so to speak) in the sensor size debate is the > argument that there are no good wide angle lenses for smaller sensors. I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > better) > Nikkor. The 10.5mm fish eye is a good lens, but it is a fish eye. It's a fisheye that converts to rectilinear with Nikon Capture 4, though. And the conversion is surprisingly good, in my opinion. Of course there's some loss of definition in the corners as you'd expect, but a lens that wide is going to look a little funny in the corners anyway. I have the 10.5 and I love it. But then I like fisheyes anyway, which I suppose puts me positively in the minority. Neil >> One thing that crops up (so to speak) in the sensor size debate is the >> argument that there are no good wide angle lenses for smaller sensors. I [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > love it. But then I like fisheyes anyway, which I suppose puts me positively > in the minority. Well then, I would be in the minority, too. I have taken some beautiful pictures with that lens. Nikon Capture NX also has the conversion utility, but I figure I use a fish eye because I want the fish eye effect. >>> One thing that crops up (so to speak) in the sensor size debate is the >>> argument that there are no good wide angle lenses for smaller sensors. I [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > pictures with that lens. Nikon Capture NX also has the conversion utility, > but I figure I use a fish eye because I want the fish eye effect. That's my chief reason for having it too, and the easy conversion to rectilinear in software is just frosting on the cake. Neil > One thing that crops up (so to speak) in the sensor size debate is the > argument that there are no good wide angle lenses for smaller sensors. I am [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Nikkor. The 10.5mm fish eye is a good lens, but it is a fish eye. The Sigma > 10-20mm f/4-5.6 zoom is too slow. Tokina 12-24 f4 ? Sigma/Nikon 14mm f2.8 ? SignatureJon B Above email address IS valid. <http://www.bramley-computers.co.uk/> Apple Laptop Repairs. >> One thing that crops up (so to speak) in the sensor size debate is the >> argument that there are no good wide angle lenses for smaller sensors. I am [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Tokina 12-24 f4 ? >Sigma/Nikon 14mm f2.8 ? Tamron SP AF11-18mm F/4.5-5.6 Di II LD Aspherical [IF]? SignatureNew Jersey threw out a one-hundred-fifty-year-old law Thursday that prevents idiots from voting. It threw the presidential race into chaos. As if Hillary Clinton wasn't facing enough problems, William Shatner is now leading in New Jersey. > One thing that crops up (so to speak) in the sensor size debate is > the argument that there are no good wide angle lenses for smaller [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > better) Nikkor. The 10.5mm fish eye is a good lens, but it is a fish > eye. The Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 zoom is too slow. Agreed. There are now some pretty good (but slow) wide zooms starting at 10-12mm for DX - but fast (which means fixed focal lengh) and sharp rectilenear ultrawides for DX are few and far between. However, while the ultrawide focal lengths (e.g. 16-17mm) are there for Canon FF offerings - the performance is not there unless you are willing to use an adapter. If you want wide and good edge sharpness on a EOS 5D, you can either put on a Zeiss Distagon 21mm f/2.8 T (not really wide) or a Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 D AF-S IF-ED - but if you want AF and original Canon glass - forget it! http://hannemyr.com/photo/uwaz.html Signature- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://hannemyr.com/photo/ ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sigma SD10, Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > One thing that crops up (so to speak) in the sensor size debate is the > argument that there are no good wide angle lenses for smaller sensors. I am [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I really don't see a use for an 8mm lens. They should look at Pentax, Pentax has a wonderful DA 14mm f:2.8 (IF)ED, I am surprised that Nikon didn't do one. They (Nikon) have made a 20mm for ages, and a 14mm with a 1.5 crop, would be close to a 20mm. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.