Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 70

Thread: I've got a unhealthy mindset/mentality

  1. #1
    Member NikonMI6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    .:North of Singapore:.
    Posts
    71

    Unhappy I've got a unhealthy mindset/mentality

    hey guys, just started out photog this year feb.. as an amateur.. didn't really have much
    time or resources to go deep into it.. however, as i visit forums and read reviews, i've built up
    a thinking that whenever a lens has an constant aperture of f2.8, i will think that lens is of
    top grade..

    but sometimes i wonder that there are lenses of variable aperture which produces images that
    will somehow be better than some of those lenses with constant aperture? or is it really true
    that those lenses with constant aperture will always be better than lenses with variable
    aperture of similar focal length?

    please help me understand the photog world better.. thanks!


    EDIT: excluding prime lenses as none of them involves variable apertures! and this category totally slipped my mind..
    Last edited by NikonMI6; 25th August 2010 at 09:50 PM.

  2. #2

    Default Re: I've got a unhealthy mindset/mentality

    can't say anything for nikon but canon's 15-85mm performs well despite having variable aperture.

    and i think your mentality is flawed, primes are top grade if u ask me
    instagram: @2ndhandphotog

  3. #3
    Senior Member zac08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    East
    Posts
    11,755

    Default Re: I've got a unhealthy mindset/mentality

    Quote Originally Posted by NikonMI6 View Post
    hey guys, just started out photog this year feb.. as an amateur.. didn't really have much
    time or resources to go deep into it.. however, as i visit forums and read reviews, i've built up
    a thinking that whenever a lens has an constant aperture of f2.8, i will think that lens is of
    top grade..

    but sometimes i wonder that there are lenses of variable aperture which produces images that
    will somehow be better than some of those lenses with constant aperture? or is it really true
    that those lenses with constant aperture will always be better than lenses with variable
    aperture of similar focal length?

    please help me understand the photog world better.. thanks!
    It may be better in certain areas, but it's not always the better choice when you consider economics and weight/size.

    And it's not always the case to be the same for all f2.8 lenses. For e.g. a Nikon 28-70mm f2.8 is much better in terms of optical quality than a Tamron 28-75mm f2.8. But the price difference is SO much. $2.5k to 2.6k vs $500-$600.

    So would you want to spend such money for the optical improvement??
    Michael Lim
    My Flickr Site

  4. #4

    Default Re: I've got a unhealthy mindset/mentality

    constant aperture = better?

    oh boy.........

    the only thing that a constant aperture zoom offers is a constant aperture. that's all.

    the faster constant aperture zooms are faster, that's all. it's just a name.

    there are non-constant aperture zooms that work perfectly fine and are tack sharp stopped down.

  5. #5
    Senior Member fatigue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Blk138 Bedok North Ave3
    Posts
    2,924

    Default Re: I've got a unhealthy mindset/mentality

    Here's the secret to the constant aperture.



    There's a slanted slit that adjust the aperture as you zoom in and out.

    You can try it yourself, observe the aperture of the lens as it zooms in and out.
    The aperture will close a bit in it's shorter focal length.
    9815-1974
    FB: Hilos Camera Repair

  6. #6
    Member NikonMI6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    .:North of Singapore:.
    Posts
    71

    Default Re: I've got a unhealthy mindset/mentality

    Quote Originally Posted by magicianhisoka View Post
    can't say anything for nikon but canon's 15-85mm performs well despite having variable aperture.

    and i think your mentality is flawed, primes are top grade if u ask me
    oh ya.. my bad.. didn't take prime lenses into account.. was thinking of zoom lenses all along..

  7. #7
    Member NikonMI6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    .:North of Singapore:.
    Posts
    71

    Default Re: I've got a unhealthy mindset/mentality

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    constant aperture = better?

    oh boy.........

    the only thing that a constant aperture zoom offers is a constant aperture. that's all.

    the faster constant aperture zooms are faster, that's all. it's just a name.

    there are non-constant aperture zooms that work perfectly fine and are tack sharp stopped down.
    hmmm.. so let's say we have Brand X have 70-200 f2.8 and 70-300 f4-5.6,
    will an image taken @ 100mm f5.6 from 70-300 f4-5.6 be sharper than an image taken @ 100mm f5.6 from 70-200 f2.8?

    p.s. please do not associate above examples with any brands
    Last edited by NikonMI6; 25th August 2010 at 10:00 PM.

  8. #8
    Member NikonMI6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    .:North of Singapore:.
    Posts
    71

    Default Re: I've got a unhealthy mindset/mentality

    Quote Originally Posted by zac08 View Post
    It may be better in certain areas, but it's not always the better choice when you consider economics and weight/size.

    And it's not always the case to be the same for all f2.8 lenses. For e.g. a Nikon 28-70mm f2.8 is much better in terms of optical quality than a Tamron 28-75mm f2.8. But the price difference is SO much. $2.5k to 2.6k vs $500-$600.

    So would you want to spend such money for the optical improvement??
    if money is not an issue, why not? and in this case, i am comparing constant
    aperture lenses and variable aperture lenses of similar focal length.. instead
    of IQ of both constant aperture lenses..

  9. #9
    Member enzeru21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    upper thomson
    Posts
    1,493

    Default Re: I've got a unhealthy mindset/mentality

    i think it depends on where and how you use the lens too...
    enzeru21 Canon 500D |Tamron17-50mm f/2.8| Sigma30mm f/1.4 | 580EX II
    mylightedreams

  10. #10

    Default Re: I've got a unhealthy mindset/mentality

    Quote Originally Posted by NikonMI6 View Post
    hmmm.. so let's say we have Brand X have 70-200 f2.8 and 70-300 f4-5.6,
    will an image taken @ 100mm f5.6 from 70-300 f4-5.6 be sharper than an image taken @ 100mm f5.6 from 70-200 f2.8?

    p.s. please do not associate above examples with any brands
    it really depends, there are constant aperture lenses that are not really that sharp... if you don't know that, then you need to get out more.

  11. #11

    Default Re: I've got a unhealthy mindset/mentality

    Depends on the lens. The Sony CZ 16-80 is stupidly sharp at almost all apertures, quite frequently beating "constant aperture" lenses at the same aperture. Same with the Sony 70-300G.

    The main benefit for constant aperture lenses is that the aperture is constant... Makes setitng and fixing the exposure easier too, as well as allowing for faster shutter speeds due to the extra stops of light hitting the sensor (assuming you're shooting at a larger aperture than the variable-aperture lenses are capable of). But sharper or better? Not necessarily, no.
    Alpha

  12. #12

    Default Re: I've got a unhealthy mindset/mentality

    I believe this is a phase that most of us underwent when we just started out in photography...

    When i got caught on the heat of digital photography... i was like you and became obsessed with fast zoom and purchase the Canon EF 28-70 f/2.8L USM... Unfortunately, i sold it within 6months after acquiring it. It's still listed down on my list as my worse photography investment thus far ... The only benefit it has is the convenience of a zoom at fixed f/2.8... and at a terribly prohibitive price!

    Having say that, most important is know what you need. If you need a zoom at fixed f/2.8, by all means get the 24-70 or 70-200 f/2.8...

    If not, you can get fast primes and zoom with your feet! Cheaper, lighter and better optical quality!
    Last edited by Akatsuki; 25th August 2010 at 10:36 PM.
    Playing with M43.

  13. #13
    Member scorpioh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Woodlands
    Posts
    1,973

    Default Re: I've got a unhealthy mindset/mentality

    I am almost a total prime shooter. F2.8 is actually quite slow in my opinion. But that's about as fast as zooms can get right? Yeah, right.
    I say the lens is the soul of a camera. What about the body? Well, it's just the body...

  14. #14
    Member enzeru21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    upper thomson
    Posts
    1,493

    Default Re: I've got a unhealthy mindset/mentality

    who knows... maybe canon will come up with a 1.8 zoom lens...
    enzeru21 Canon 500D |Tamron17-50mm f/2.8| Sigma30mm f/1.4 | 580EX II
    mylightedreams

  15. #15

    Default Re: I've got a unhealthy mindset/mentality

    Quote Originally Posted by NikonMI6 View Post
    hmmm.. so let's say we have Brand X have 70-200 f2.8 and 70-300 f4-5.6,
    will an image taken @ 100mm f5.6 from 70-300 f4-5.6 be sharper than an image taken @ 100mm f5.6 from 70-200 f2.8?

    p.s. please do not associate above examples with any brands
    the answers are in the lens review...

    it all depends on what u shoot... if u shoot landscape.. u usually use smaller aperture ... to have wide dof... in this case, constant aperture does not help... and even cheap lens becomes sharp when stop down...

    anyway, no need to be so sharp la... look at those film pics by great pg in the past... not sharp, but got feel... i love them..

    content is more important...


    pls see http://www.lebeck.de/

    not so sharp right?

    fyi, in photozone.de canon kit lens 18-55 is very sharp... kit lens nowadays can really produce good results... dun play play...

  16. #16
    Member NikonMI6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    .:North of Singapore:.
    Posts
    71

    Default Re: I've got a unhealthy mindset/mentality

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    it really depends, there are constant aperture lenses that are not really that sharp... if you don't know that, then you need to get out more.
    hmmm.. ok ok.. I will get out more.. there's really lots to cover in photography..
    more than anyone could imagine?

  17. #17
    Member NikonMI6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    .:North of Singapore:.
    Posts
    71

    Default Re: I've got a unhealthy mindset/mentality

    Quote Originally Posted by Rashkae View Post
    Depends on the lens. The Sony CZ 16-80 is stupidly sharp at almost all apertures, quite frequently beating "constant aperture" lenses at the same aperture. Same with the Sony 70-300G.

    The main benefit for constant aperture lenses is that the aperture is constant... Makes setitng and fixing the exposure easier too, as well as allowing for faster shutter speeds due to the extra stops of light hitting the sensor (assuming you're shooting at a larger aperture than the variable-aperture lenses are capable of). But sharper or better? Not necessarily, no.
    hmmm.. so for those who doesn't require constant aperture,
    there are lenses out there for them which are cheaper and
    produces better image quality than those with constant aperture?

  18. #18
    Member NikonMI6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    .:North of Singapore:.
    Posts
    71

    Default Re: I've got a unhealthy mindset/mentality

    Quote Originally Posted by Akatsuki View Post
    I believe this is a phase that most of us underwent when we just started out in photography...

    When i got caught on the heat of digital photography... i was like you and became obsessed with fast zoom and purchase the Canon EF 28-70 f/2.8L USM... Unfortunately, i sold it within 6months after acquiring it. It's still listed down on my list as my worse photography investment thus far ... The only benefit it has is the convenience of a zoom at fixed f/2.8... and at a terribly prohibitive price!

    Having say that, most important is know what you need. If you need a zoom at fixed f/2.8, by all means get the 24-70 or 70-200 f/2.8...

    If not, you can get fast primes and zoom with your feet! Cheaper, lighter and better optical quality!
    oh.. tot I am only one of the few out there who has
    this kind of mentality.. haha.. I know primes are good
    but I believe having a zoom lens is good in case there's
    a time when switching between lenses is almost impossible..

    and prime with long focal length don't come cheap I believe..

  19. #19
    Member NikonMI6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    .:North of Singapore:.
    Posts
    71

    Default Re: I've got a unhealthy mindset/mentality

    Quote Originally Posted by sfoto100 View Post
    the answers are in the lens review...

    it all depends on what u shoot... if u shoot landscape.. u usually use smaller aperture ... to have wide dof... in this case, constant aperture does not help... and even cheap lens becomes sharp when stop down...

    anyway, no need to be so sharp la... look at those film pics by great pg in the past... not sharp, but got feel... i love them..

    content is more important...


    pls see http://www.lebeck.de/

    not so sharp right?

    fyi, in photozone.de canon kit lens 18-55 is very sharp... kit lens nowadays can really produce good results... dun play play...
    hmmm.. I think I should read more reviews.. most of the reviews I've
    read usually compare lenses of the same class, that is, same focal length
    and of constant aperture.. if not when they review the lens individually,
    they seldom relate it to other lenses..

    on the other hand, I can't always be stopping down to achieve that particular
    sharpness, sometimes one do require that extra stop of light.. unless shooting
    landscape with tripod..

    I will bookmark the link first, surfing with my phone now.. can't view that site
    correctly..

  20. #20
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Bedok
    Posts
    3,268

    Default Re: I've got a unhealthy mindset/mentality

    Quote Originally Posted by NikonMI6 View Post
    hmmm.. so let's say we have Brand X have 70-200 f2.8 and 70-300 f4-5.6,
    will an image taken @ 100mm f5.6 from 70-300 f4-5.6 be sharper than an image taken @ 100mm f5.6 from 70-200 f2.8?

    p.s. please do not associate above examples with any brands
    Actually, it might. Generally lenses are not at it's sharpest wide open, and optimally, you need to stop down lenses by one to two stops at least to see the full potential of the lens. This is just a general number as each lens has it's own optimal sharpest aperture.

    I used to own a Panasonic m4/3 len 45-200mm f/4-5.6 that was sharp at 45mm only from f/6.7 onwards. I didn't know at that time and wondered why pics I took with wider apertures kept coming out looking a bit "OOF" (actually was soft) but reviews from a number of people and websites have since confirmed that.

    If I had a 45mm f/2.8 and I shot at f/4, it would have in theory given me a much sharper image than the other lens at f/4.

    There are lenses which some reviews like to say "sharp wide open" but even so, stopping them down will generally still yield even sharper images.

    On a separate note, if you shoot wide open and there is a choice between zoom lens of f/3.5-5.6 and a constant f/4, the reason why f/4 would be superior is when you zoom in and out, you still get the same amount of light in. Several photographers I've talked who have a penchant for using manual everything, having that means you can set your manual setting and not have to worry about different amount of light when you zoom in and out with aperture fully opened. Personally, I would just let the camera adjust the exposure automatically but yes, the camera has to do that by slowing down your shutter speed when you zoom in... and you know that when you zoom in, you need even higher shutter speed to compensate for shakes and stuff, right? If the camera slows down the shutter speed, then the shakes become even more apparent, blah blah... you get the point.

    And yet one more thing, when you shoot at widest aperture, f/2.8 and f/3.5 may not seem like much but when you zoom in, f2.8 and f/5.6 has significant amount of light going in. Imagine bokeh (if you're into that) for a 100mm f/2.8 vs a 100mm f/5.6!
    Last edited by wildcat; 26th August 2010 at 07:13 AM.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •