 |
 | 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 / February 2007Lens question
Let's say I shot the same landscaping scenery with two different lenses. 1. One is expensive f2.8 2. Second is much less expensive f4.5. each shot is at the same AV say f9 (so there is no need for big f), same TV and same magnification Will lens no.1 produce better picture? thanks > Let's say I shot the same landscaping scenery with two different > lenses. 1. One is expensive f2.8 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > thanks If your technique is perfect...with tripod and mirror lock-up...and you're working with a high-quality lens...then most likely...yes. Your results MAY be better, and if you're talking about a variable aperture 4.5-5.6 zoom, for example, it almost surely will be. There are exceptions to everything, but generally, you get what you pay for.  SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > Let's say I shot the same landscaping scenery with two different lenses. > 1. One is expensive f2.8 > 2. Second is much less expensive f4.5. > each shot is at the same AV say f9 (so there is no need for big f), same > TV and same magnification > Will lens no.1 produce better picture? That depends on the lenses and the camera. There is going to be less difference than if you shoot at full aperture but even then you can't say which will be better unless you know which lens it is. > Let's say I shot the same landscaping scenery with two different lenses. > 1. One is expensive f2.8 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > thanks As everyone has said, depends on the lens. All lenses are not created equal even if they are cheap or expensive. Nikon's two kit lenses the 18-70 is considered a much better lens than the 18-55 f4-5.6. At f8 the 18-70 is considered almost as good as the 17-55, a lens that costs 3-4X on a TV you probably won't see the difference. But the 17-55 is far better at f2.8-f5.6, the sign of a good lens is that the lens is good all over its f stop range not just at one f stop. You pay for the lens design and the lens designer making all the compromises that go into making a lens perform. Tom > Let's say I shot the same landscaping scenery with two different lenses. > 1. One is expensive f2.8 > 2. Second is much less expensive f4.5. > each shot is at the same AV say f9 (so there is no need for big f), same TV > and same magnification > Will lens no.1 produce better picture? There is no firm answer here. *Sometimes* the "fast" lens is the best the manufacturer makes and will be better at all apertures. But sometimes not; sometimes the stretches they make to get the maximum aperture end up hurting performance throughout the range. So it will depend on the individual lens. If you are shooting raw and remove all software sharpening and examine the image both will appear soft. The point being that moderate differences in lens quality that would be apparent on low grain transparency film are becoming completely insignificant in the digital world where software processing is key, inevitable and inseparable from other factors that go in to making a print. >If you are shooting raw and remove all software sharpening and examine the >image both will appear soft. >The point being that moderate differences in lens quality that would be >apparent on low grain transparency film are becoming completely >insignificant in the digital world where software processing is key, >inevitable and inseparable from other factors that go in to making a print. This is true. Digital photography is NOT film photography. Signature--- Paul J. Gans David Bennet advice is correct. I have spent and tested several lenses and found that expensive fast lenses do not mean they are better. For example, Nikon 18-35mm f4.5 outperforms the 17-35mm f2.8 in resolutions. On top of this, the f2.8 has very weird distortion. This is a $400 lens against a $1,200 lens. The faster lens is fast but the two stop difference can easily be acheived with the DSLR ISO setting. The poor picture quality is just not acceptable. On top of this, the fast lens is twice heavier and bulkier. You can see the test results here: http://www.mancha-knight.com/lenstest/ZoPr.htm All the shots were taken at f5.6. ~~Eno > Let's say I shot the same landscaping scenery with two different lenses. > 1. One is expensive f2.8 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > thanks >David Bennet advice is correct. I have spent and tested several lenses >and found that expensive fast lenses do not mean they are better. For [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >All the shots were taken at f5.6. Your claim that the 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 AF Nikkor is optically superior to the 17-35mm f/2.8 seems, on the face of it, bizarre. The 17-35mm f/2.8 AF-S Nikkor is widely reputed to be one of the very best wide angle zoom lenses ever designed. By common consent, it actually performs better optically than the fixed focal length Nikkors within its zoom range. The 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 AF Nikkor is very much a consumer zoom lens. The much cheaper Tokina 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 is known to be a far better performer, with superior sharpness and significantly lower distortion. The accepted wisdom is that the results from the 17-35mm f/2.8 AF-S Nikkor should easily blow away these two lenses. Your tests are therefore very interesting. I wonder what the Nikon affocionados will make of them! >>David Bennet advice is correct. I have spent and tested several lenses >>and found that expensive fast lenses do not mean they are better. For [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >Your tests are therefore very interesting. I wonder what the Nikon >affocionados will make of them! His tests aren't all that interesting unless there's a lot more to them than he presented on his Web site. Be nice if Photozone would do a test of the 18-35 so it could be compared to the 17-35 using their much more thorough methodology. But to me he blows his cred when he says that "you can just increase the ISO". >>>David Bennet advice is correct. I have spent and tested several lenses >>>and found that expensive fast lenses do not mean they are better. For [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >But to me he blows his cred when he says that "you can just increase >the ISO". It is always interesting when someone comes up with something that challenges the accepted wisdom. ;-) In the early production of the 17-35mm f/2.8 AF-S Nikkor there were some truly appalling samples sold. It took some time for Nikon to get the quality control sorted out. I wonder if the sample tested was one of those? I used to own the 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 AF Nikkor, and it was a quite uninspiring lens, with disappointing sharpness and excessive distortion. Perhaps our man found an exceptional example, and compared it with a 17-35mm that was made on the first Friday? ;-) > David Bennet advice is correct. I have spent and tested several lenses > and found that expensive fast lenses do not mean they are better. For [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > All the shots were taken at f5.6. Fascinating. In particular, the f/2.8 really stands out in the full-page small format, but doesn't look as good in the closeup. It's the 17-55 f/2.8 that I'm seriously considering. And I doubt I'd shoot stopped down as far as f/5.6 more than 10% of the time. Going to higher ISOs isn't an option -- I'm using 1600 already, and I haven't found a way to make the 3200 output usable yet. And I'm already limited by subject motion on shutter speed much of the time. So fast lenses are really the only game in town for me. Which is why I use a lot of fast primes, mostly old manual-focus lenses (24mm f/2, 58mm f/1.2 NOCT, 135mm f/2). > It's the 17-55 f/2.8 that I'm seriously considering. And I doubt I'd > shoot stopped down as far as f/5.6 more than 10% of the time. Going to > higher ISOs isn't an option -- I'm using 1600 already, and I haven't > found a way to make the 3200 output usable yet. And I'm already limited > by subject motion on shutter speed much of the time. So fast lenses are > really the only game in town for me. Evidently (I say that because I didn't do my own comparison) the 17-55 is a better choice if you intend to shoot wide open. Since the 17-35 is better otherwise, that's the one I went with. This is all secondhand information, of course. > Which is why I use a lot of fast primes, mostly old manual-focus lenses > (24mm f/2, 58mm f/1.2 NOCT, 135mm f/2). The 24/2 is pretty much next on my "lens list". What do you think of it, in particular used wide open? I feel a need for a wide angle that's faster than 2.8, and that seems to be what there is. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > The 24/2 is pretty much next on my "lens list". What do you think of it, > in particular used wide open? I feel a need for a wide angle that's > faster than 2.8, and that seems to be what there is. Well, I'm very happy with it -- but I've been using it with pushed B&W film and then high-ISO digital mostly, so I'm not evlauating corner sharpness or some kinds of distortion very critically. I did shoot a bunch of slides in Australia and New Zealand shortly after getting it, and it seemed to do that very nicely too, as I remember. I'm very glad I bought it. >> The 24/2 is pretty much next on my "lens list". What do you think of it, >> in particular used wide open? I feel a need for a wide angle that's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > film and then high-ISO digital mostly, so I'm not evlauating corner > sharpness or some kinds of distortion very critically. Oh, that's fine -- I'm not planning on using it as a landscape lens. That's what the 17-35 is for. It would get more use as a low-light, wide-open, wide-angle, when f/2.8 just won't do. Have you noticed any problem with flare? SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >>> The 24/2 is pretty much next on my "lens list". What do you think of it, >>> in particular used wide open? I feel a need for a wide angle that's [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > wide-angle, when f/2.8 just won't do. Have you noticed any problem with > flare? No, not flare-prone, and I'm not using it with a hood. My flare grousing is focused on my 18-70mm, but then that's a consumer kit lens. >> Which is why I use a lot of fast primes, mostly old manual-focus lenses >> (24mm f/2, 58mm f/1.2 NOCT, 135mm f/2). > The 24/2 is pretty much next on my "lens list". What do you think of it, > in particular used wide open? I feel a need for a wide angle that's > faster than 2.8, and that seems to be what there is. I found a couple of 24mm f2s rather low contrast wide open. The 2.8 is better (though not good at the edges and corners FF, but maybe good for digital). I did not think Nikon's 28mm f1.4 was outstanding, but the f2.8 AIS is. I did check out Canon's 24mm f1.4, and by f2.8 it was quite good over most of the FF, a very good lens. BTW, see my Nikkor comparison list, at -- http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html, and also my 17-35 comparison with other Nikkors, at -- http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/wa-zooms.htm -- David Ruether DRuether@twcny.rr.com rpn1@cornell.edu http://www.ferrario.com/ruether The f2.8 did produce much brighter and contrasty pictures under the same lighting condition. The bottom crop is actually sharp but top crop is way off. Also, top right corner has a weird distortion. I believe the front lens is so heavy that it droops. This may be a production problem as some suggested but this lens was bought much later than the 18-35 around September 2006. The shop is offering to replace another one but I decided to just take a refund. It is just a disappointment for something that cost 4x the 18-35 that I use so much. Before the zoom, I have been using prime: 20 f2.8 and 35 f2.0. The 17-55 f2.8 actually cost a little less than the 17-35 f2.8 but I will want to see someone post a test before throwing money away again. The shop charged me a 15% restocking fee. By the way, I bought the lens based on Photozone's review. I have another snafu buying a Sigma lens based on Photozone reviews. The lens sure is sharp but the contrast is pale. Frankly, I have not encounter a zoom that can beat primes in terms of speed, resolution, distortion and reproduction ratio. I also find MTF charts misleading. ~~Eno > Fascinating. In particular, the f/2.8 really stands out in the > full-page small format, but doesn't look as good in the closeup. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Which is why I use a lot of fast primes, mostly old manual-focus lenses > (24mm f/2, 58mm f/1.2 NOCT, 135mm f/2). > David Bennet advice is correct. I have spent and tested several lenses > and found that expensive fast lenses do not mean they are better. For [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > ~~Eno Well, as I point out in my Nikkor evaluation list (FF) at -- http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html, samples do vary, particularly with wide angle zooms. I think you have a poor sample of the known to be generally superb 17-35mm (see both the above and this comparison of it with the 18-35 and several other non-zoom Nikkors in its range, at -- http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/wa-zooms.htm). By f5.6, most Nikkor wides (except the 14-15mm rectangulars) are sharp to the corners even FF, and a few are good even wide-open... -- David Ruether DRuether@twcny.rr.com rpn1@cornell.edu http://www.ferrario.com/ruether |
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.