16-85mm vs 35mm
- Thread starter fatBozZ
- Start date
The field of view and amount of blur should be the same, yes.
Though in most cases the 35mm will be sharper, as it is purely designed for 35mm instead of needing to be a "compromise" lens for zoom.
Last edited:
Do note that the amount of blur should be the same, but the quality of the blur might not be the same. Also note that the out-of focus point of light might also not be the same (dependent of the design, shape and number of aperture blades). So you should really read up some review and check the quality of blur of both lens before deciding.
fatBozZ said:
I think it 2 lens nothing to compare, maybe u only zoom to 35mm and compare to 35mm f1.8 vs f4.5. That is what you want.
For me both I'll need, cause in 35mm f1.8 can be used as low light environment.
When in the wide angle I lost of 16mm in DX format.
That why my answer pls grab both.
Thanks
Last edited:
He's specifically talking about both at 35mm f/2.8 - no need to confuse the issues with f/4, f/1.8, etc. It's a simple "what if" question.
Well, I never said it was realistic.
But, in pure theory, if you have a zoom and set it to the same focal length as a prime, and set to the same aperture, you will get a similar image (quality of blur aside).
It's for him to discover if his lens can actually do it.
Last edited:
Rashkae said:Well, I never said it was realistic.
But, in pure theory, if you have a zoom and set it to the same focal length as a prime, and set to the same aperture, you will get a similar image (quality of blur aside).
It's for him to discover if his lens can actually do it.
Yes actually prime lens can be delivery better IQ than same aperture with zoom lens.
If compare from 17-55 @ 35mm f2.8 and the 35mm @ f2.8 the result for 35mm prime definitely sharper than 17-55 f2.8G.
If the zoom lens stop 1 or 2 stop down the aperture you may get more blur image.
Actually less blur - stopping down the aperture means you are closing the aperture, thus increasing DOF.
Rashkae said:
But on the 16-85 built-in VR just shoot with VR for help in smaller aperture if needed sharper image.
The only lost with out of focus blur.
Last edited:
VR will help with handshake, but not with motion blur. VR is not a cure-all.
Also, it will depend on what you are trying to shoot - if a small aperture will spoil the desired effect, then you would not use it.
Rashkae said:
That why can't compare from both
Just refer here for sample compared.
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/newbies-corner/1089511-nikon-micro-normal-lens-2.html
Last edited:
rain5533 said:That why can't compare from both
Just refer here for sample compared.
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/newbies-corner/1089511-nikon-micro-normal-lens-2.html
That thread compares the use of close up filters to using a dedicated macro. No link to this thread. Please do not post irrelevant stuff that just detracts from the basic, simple question he asked. You are only making this thread veer off topic.
Haiz... why make things more confusing. Lets just look at it this way,
In theory, comparing two lenses - one zoom and one prime - say 17-50mm f2.8 and 35mm f2.8, at 35mm and aperture f2.8, their degree of blur should be the same.
However, although the amount of blur is the same, the quality of their blur might differ, depending on the lens construction, aperture blades construction, number of blades, shape of blades, etc (thus my first post in this thread).
As to VR or no VR, it is the same. With VR thrown in, you might get a stabilized lens that would result in less motion blur at certain condition, but motion blur do not equate to bokeh or background blur.
Normally when I test for bokeh or blur quality, I mount my camera on tripod and I try not to have too many variable, so the camera and lens are stabilized before I do the test.
So, as we know now that Nikon do not produce a 18-85mm f2.8 lens, but in theory (in theory only) if they did, the explanation would be the same.
(PS. VR will not improve, neither will it degrade the amount of background/foreground blur of the lens at any given aperture. It will help to reduce and/or eliminate motion blur at lower shutter speed normally possible for any given aperture by non-VR lenses)
In theory, comparing two lenses - one zoom and one prime - say 17-50mm f2.8 and 35mm f2.8, at 35mm and aperture f2.8, their degree of blur should be the same.
However, although the amount of blur is the same, the quality of their blur might differ, depending on the lens construction, aperture blades construction, number of blades, shape of blades, etc (thus my first post in this thread).
As to VR or no VR, it is the same. With VR thrown in, you might get a stabilized lens that would result in less motion blur at certain condition, but motion blur do not equate to bokeh or background blur.
Normally when I test for bokeh or blur quality, I mount my camera on tripod and I try not to have too many variable, so the camera and lens are stabilized before I do the test.
So, as we know now that Nikon do not produce a 18-85mm f2.8 lens, but in theory (in theory only) if they did, the explanation would be the same.
(PS. VR will not improve, neither will it degrade the amount of background/foreground blur of the lens at any given aperture. It will help to reduce and/or eliminate motion blur at lower shutter speed normally possible for any given aperture by non-VR lenses)
Last edited:
Hi, here my latest update on actual photos reviews.
Crop
Just find up the bigger different from this 2 lens.
Thanks
Crop
Just find up the bigger different from this 2 lens.
Thanks
Last edited:
Which only go to show that at the same aperture, the degree of blur is suppose to be the same. However if you look at the out-of-focus point of light, there is some difference between the two...
and that proof what I have been preaching in both my post. Degree of blur is the same, quality of blur might be different... it all depend on the construction of the lens, the number of blades, the shape of the blades and so on and so fore.
rhino123 said:
If you wanna finding the good to compare sharpness will go for zoom lens.
Some here :
If wide open you may get more CA on white object.
Again... not necessary. That is true for the particular lens/lenses you have shown. But not all the prime lens had lousier CA control as compared to zoom lens so it is inaccurate to tell anyone to just go to zoom lens for whatever reason
Similar threads
