A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

fast glass?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old January 9th 06, 06:48 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default fast glass?

Danny wrote:
"MarkČ" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news5mwf.8789$V.3101@fed1read04...
Danny wrote:
"Charles" wrote in message
...
In article , Danny
wrote:

Just a thought.

Just a thought. Read a basic book about photography.


Why is their always a smart-arse on every Usenet group? - don't you
have a ****ing job to go to?


It might have been a bit abrupt...but it certainly has a shred of
truth to it, since this is a topic any general photography technique
book would cover in some detail...but I understand your reaction to
his less-than-tactful reply...

For a better answer...see my original reply.
I'm surprized others haven't listed these little items.
They matter.

Ah heck... Here's a RE-post of it (with a bit more added), just in
case you lose your way.


Some reaons:
1. Intentional limiting of/greater control of depth of field.
2. Bright viewfinder...not only helpful for manual focus, but just
plain easier to accurately use in general.
3. Focus sensors work far better when you double, tripple or
quadruple the light it has to work with (which applies to any/every
shot, since the focus mechanism works PRIOR to stopping the bright
lens down. 4. You can use very fast shutter speeds...which is often worth
sacrificing a
bit of lens-based sharpness.
5. With many camera bodies, certain focus sensors become active ONLY
with lenses that are 2.8 or faster, simply due to the need for
greater light gathering/sensitivity.



That last one sounds interesting - are we talking digital bodies here?


No.
It has nothing to do with whether the body is digital or not...because the
focus systems of SLRs and DSLRs work the same way. They don't focus with
the sensor. They focus with sensors that bounce off the mirror just before
it flips out fo the way for exposure of the film...or sensor.

Come to that, how *do* you know that an A/F sensor is working
properly? - is there more to it than simply seeing if the relevant
focus point lights up?


Yes.

- I suppose there must be, because an *ist
will illuminate all focus points, even with the lens cap on!.....


It's a little more complicated than that.
On several Canon bodies, for example, it has to do with whether certain
sensor points act as vertical line-of-contrast sensors...or
horizontal-line-of-contrast sensors...or...with brighter glass...cross-type
sensors, which are sensitive to both vertical and horizontal lines of
contrast. Even in cameras where the sensor itself doesn't change it's
characteristics, more light ALWAYS means easier/quicker focus. An important
example of this is focus-tracking moving objects, like birds or other
fast-moving objects. In less-than-optimal lighting, its a very difficult
thing for any body to do well, and every bit of light helps. If you compare
a 5.6 lens to a 2.8 lens in this example (or any example), the body will
have **four times** the light to work with by using the 2.8 lens instead of
the 5.6. This is easily enough to make the difference between successful
focus tracking...and utter failure...in many instances such as flying birds.
Stick a 1.8 lens on there, and you're talking GREAT focus track ability.

While it might be even nicer to have a 400mm f1.4 lens (f1.4 being an
amazing 16 times the amount of light gathered by a 5.6 lens!), the size a
400mm lens would have to be to acheive this would be immense. So...you
usually only find apertures that wide on normal lenses, such as 50mm. But
don't discount the benefit of huge apertures on less-than-tele lenses! The
wider you go, the larger the aperture you often need to the kind of blurred
background you want in certain shots. Add to this that auto-focus AND
manual focus are both made easier with bright viewfinders, and very real
advantages of large aperture lenses become very apparent.

Nuff on that, but I think you get the idea, right?
It's not the silly waste many here have erroneously implied.
Sure, there are those who might buy a big lens because they think it's
cool...just like old geezers still by 200MPH Corvettes with no intention of
driving over 65MPH...but that doesn't mean it's useless. To the contrary,
it's actually useful to ANY photographer, simply because his camera body
with perform better in the ways I've described.

Hope this helped...
-Mark


  #22  
Old January 9th 06, 06:55 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default fast glass?

Danny wrote:
"MarkČ" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:K_lwf.8788$V.1281@fed1read04...
Danny wrote:
everyone seems to want 'fast glass' - f/2.8, 1.7, 1.4, etc, but I'm
left wondering 'why' As most people know, lenses are not at their
sharpest wide open - usually requiring f/7 - 9 (ish) before they
attain their maximum potential.

So why the fuss about 'fast' lenses?, and why pay the huge premiums
to own them? Most of my own lenses are 2.8, with one at 1.7, and
one at 1.4 - yet I invariably have to stop down in order to get a
nicely sharp image, which sort of defeats the object of the 'fast
glass', doesn't it?
I mean, why pay three times the price for a 'fast' lens, when you
only end up stopping it down? I've got a theory that it's the mania
for bright lenses that's behind a lot of the 'focus fuss' that clogs
up the various forums - perhaps people don't realise that you're
just not going to get the same image quality out of wide open lens
and are mistaking 'softness' for focus issues. Just a thought.


Some reaons:
1. Intentional limiting depth of field.
2. Bright viewfinder...not only helpful for manual focus, but just
plain easier to use with accuracy.
3. Focus sensors work far better when you double, tripple or
quadruple the light it has to work with prior to actual
exosure--regardless of the aperture you use for that exposure.
4. You can use very fast shutter speeds...which is often worth
sacrificing a bit of lens-based sharpness.



Number 3 sounds a viable reason in theory - but it presupposes that
the camera itself doesn't have any A/F issues. I can only say that
the Pentax f/1.4 A/F lenses are not noted for fast focus in low
light.


That's because AF focus speed is dependant upon 4 things.
1. AF sensor sensitivities (which are entirely body-based), which vary from
hunting for horizontal, diagonal, vertial lines...or a combination of two or
all three.
2. The speed and accuracy of the focus motor in each lens.
3. The nature of the object you're trying to auto-focus on (a smooth white
wall with no texture will fool nearly any focus system unless it has the aid
of either a projected pattern (like is eitted by many shoe flashes), or a
distance measuring capability.
4. The relative motion of the subject, and the degree to which this motion
disrupts the sensor's ability to identify lines of contrast (which it uses
to focus on).
5. Theoretically...the sharpness of the lens glass itself.

You could take the same lens, and get wildly different focus speed/accuracy
from it depending on what camera body model it's sitting on. Try it in a
shop! Stick a macro lens on a Canon Rebel XT...and focus it. Now stick
that same lens onto a 1D Mark II. That SAME lens that hunted and missed on
the Rebel XT with snap into focus almost instantly on a more sensitive body.

In fact, many slower Pentax lenses are quicker to focus under
the same conditions.


There are many factors involved.
See above.


  #23  
Old January 9th 06, 09:44 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default fast glass?


"Danny" wrote in message
...
everyone seems to want 'fast glass' - f/2.8, 1.7, 1.4, etc, but I'm left
wondering 'why' As most people know, lenses are not at their sharpest
wide open - usually requiring f/7 - 9 (ish) before they attain their
maximum potential.


Only on consumer glass.
Try getting yourself a Nikon 85/1.4, Nikon 135 f/2.0 DC , Nikon 60 micro,
Canon 85/1.2 L , Canon 135 f/2.0 L and Canon 100 macro.
Stop it down 1 stop and you can see the glass at their optimum aperture.

Also sometimes the ambient lighting does not allow you to take photos at
smaller aperture hence stopping down to 1.4 or 1.0 in some case ... give the
extra speed.



  #24  
Old January 9th 06, 10:01 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default fast glass?

MarkČ wrote:

No.
It has nothing to do with whether the body is digital or
not...because the focus systems of SLRs and DSLRs work the same way. They
don't focus with the sensor.


Oops. That should read, "They don't focus using the IMAGE sensor...
....And I've added "[]" below...

They focus with [Separate AF sensors] using redirected light that
reflects off of the mirror just before it flips out fo the way for
exposure of the film...or sensor.



  #25  
Old January 9th 06, 11:13 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default fast glass?

Danny wrote:
everyone seems to want 'fast glass' - f/2.8, 1.7, 1.4, etc, but I'm
left wondering 'why' As most people know, lenses are not at their


Give me f/1.8 or f/1.4 prime wide lens for my Pentax body, and I will be
finally able to shoot sharp images of my little son indoors, with nice
blured background and without harsh flash shadows. That's so simple. And
no, I do not care about slight loss of sharpners, although SMC 31/1.8 is
said to be very sharp lens.

B.

  #26  
Old January 9th 06, 11:21 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default fast glass?


"MarkČ" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:bNmwf.8790$V.2542@fed1read04...
Danny wrote:
"MarkČ" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news5mwf.8789$V.3101@fed1read04...
Danny wrote:
"Charles" wrote in message
...
In article , Danny
wrote:

Just a thought.

Just a thought. Read a basic book about photography.


Why is their always a smart-arse on every Usenet group? - don't you
have a ****ing job to go to?

It might have been a bit abrupt...but it certainly has a shred of
truth to it, since this is a topic any general photography technique
book would cover in some detail...but I understand your reaction to
his less-than-tactful reply...

For a better answer...see my original reply.
I'm surprized others haven't listed these little items.
They matter.

Ah heck... Here's a RE-post of it (with a bit more added), just in
case you lose your way.


Some reaons:
1. Intentional limiting of/greater control of depth of field.
2. Bright viewfinder...not only helpful for manual focus, but just
plain easier to accurately use in general.
3. Focus sensors work far better when you double, tripple or
quadruple the light it has to work with (which applies to any/every
shot, since the focus mechanism works PRIOR to stopping the bright
lens down. 4. You can use very fast shutter speeds...which is often
worth
sacrificing a
bit of lens-based sharpness.
5. With many camera bodies, certain focus sensors become active ONLY
with lenses that are 2.8 or faster, simply due to the need for
greater light gathering/sensitivity.



That last one sounds interesting - are we talking digital bodies here?


No.
It has nothing to do with whether the body is digital or not...because the
focus systems of SLRs and DSLRs work the same way. They don't focus with
the sensor. They focus with sensors that bounce off the mirror just
before it flips out fo the way for exposure of the film...or sensor.

Come to that, how *do* you know that an A/F sensor is working
properly? - is there more to it than simply seeing if the relevant
focus point lights up?


Yes.

- I suppose there must be, because an *ist
will illuminate all focus points, even with the lens cap on!.....


It's a little more complicated than that.
On several Canon bodies, for example, it has to do with whether certain
sensor points act as vertical line-of-contrast sensors...or
horizontal-line-of-contrast sensors...or...with brighter
glass...cross-type sensors, which are sensitive to both vertical and
horizontal lines of contrast. Even in cameras where the sensor itself
doesn't change it's characteristics, more light ALWAYS means
easier/quicker focus. An important example of this is focus-tracking
moving objects, like birds or other fast-moving objects. In
less-than-optimal lighting, its a very difficult thing for any body to do
well, and every bit of light helps. If you compare a 5.6 lens to a 2.8
lens in this example (or any example), the body will have **four times**
the light to work with by using the 2.8 lens instead of the 5.6. This is
easily enough to make the difference between successful focus
tracking...and utter failure...in many instances such as flying birds.
Stick a 1.8 lens on there, and you're talking GREAT focus track ability.

While it might be even nicer to have a 400mm f1.4 lens (f1.4 being an
amazing 16 times the amount of light gathered by a 5.6 lens!), the size a
400mm lens would have to be to acheive this would be immense. So...you
usually only find apertures that wide on normal lenses, such as 50mm. But
don't discount the benefit of huge apertures on less-than-tele lenses!
The wider you go, the larger the aperture you often need to the kind of
blurred background you want in certain shots. Add to this that auto-focus
AND manual focus are both made easier with bright viewfinders, and very
real advantages of large aperture lenses become very apparent.

Nuff on that, but I think you get the idea, right?
It's not the silly waste many here have erroneously implied.
Sure, there are those who might buy a big lens because they think it's
cool...just like old geezers still by 200MPH Corvettes with no intention
of driving over 65MPH...but that doesn't mean it's useless. To the
contrary, it's actually useful to ANY photographer, simply because his
camera body with perform better in the ways I've described.

Hope this helped...



Yes it did, very interesting and informative - thanks for taking the
trouble.


  #27  
Old January 9th 06, 11:34 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default fast glass?


"Danny" wrote in message
...
everyone seems to want 'fast glass' - f/2.8, 1.7, 1.4, etc, but I'm left
wondering 'why' As most people know, lenses are not at their sharpest
wide open - usually requiring f/7 - 9 (ish) before they attain their
maximum potential.

So why the fuss about 'fast' lenses?, and why pay the huge premiums to own
them? Most of my own lenses are 2.8, with one at 1.7, and one at 1.4 -
yet I invariably have to stop down in order to get a nicely sharp image,
which sort of defeats the object of the 'fast glass', doesn't it?

I mean, why pay three times the price for a 'fast' lens, when you only end
up stopping it down? I've got a theory that it's the mania for bright
lenses that's behind a lot of the 'focus fuss' that clogs up the various
forums - perhaps people don't realise that you're just not going to get
the same image quality out of wide open lens and are mistaking 'softness'
for focus issues. Just a thought.


Simple, so you can get pictures in lower light. without flash.

I have a Minolta back and some lenses. True my 28-200 takes a sharper
picture at f4 (its best) than my 50mm f1.4, but in poor light the f1.4 will
take a sharp shot without flash, when the f4 will blur due to subject or
camera movement. In lower light the f1.4 will still shoot without flash,
but the f4 would need a tripod.


  #28  
Old January 9th 06, 12:22 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default fast glass?

"Danny" wrote in message
...

"Charles" wrote in message
...
In article , Danny
wrote:

Why is their always a smart-arse on every Usenet group?


I meant what I said. Read some basic photography books and you will
understand why we need fast glass.



OK. let's try again, shall we?

I'm well aware why some people 'need' fast lenses, and those that do need
them usually buy high quality optics (at high quality prices) that are up
to the job.

My point (perhaps not clearly made) is that the great mass of 'hobby'
photographers are buying cheaper lenses that are unsharp at wide
apertures, simply because an f/2.8 badge on a lens gives it more street
cred than an f/5.6 - even though the cheap ".8 might very well have to be
stopped down past the 'slower' lens in order to get a decently sharp
image.

I know - because I've been suckered by the manufacturers as well, and If I
was buying them again I'd be far less impressed by the alleged maximum
aperture, and concentrate on element quality and construction.

btw, sorry for flying off the handle, I just assumed that you were taking
the ****.

Right off the top, an f2.8 lens will be sharper at f5.6 than an f5.6 lens
will be at that aperture, as a general rule. Your statement that a lens is
at its weakest wide open applies to all glass, no matter the maximum
aperture. (I can think of no exceptions.) Second, you have more control
over depth of field with a fast lens than one with a smaller max aperture.
The ability to get a shallow DOF and blur backgrounds can be essential.
Third, ability to get faster shutter speeds to capture movement in low light
may be critical. Fourth, the suggestion that you read up on photography is
a valid one.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com


  #29  
Old January 9th 06, 04:49 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default fast glass?


"Danny" wrote in message
...

"Charles" wrote in message
...
In article , Danny
wrote:

Just a thought.


Just a thought. Read a basic book about photography.



Why is their always a smart-arse on every Usenet group? - don't you have a
****ing job to go to?


I don't know why it is so hard to either ignore a post or give a real,
useable, respectful answer. But anyways...

I work as a photojournalist and frequently cover sporting events that are
either indoors or conducted at night under lights. The last thing that they
will allow you to do is pop a flash in their face. Also, the flash might
expose the subject OK but the background will black out. And the subject
will suffer from the flat direct flash. One could use super fast film and
push it, but the negative effects from that would be much worse than the
very slight loss of sharpness from shooting at f2.8. When I shoot basketball
games I generally shoot 800 speed film or digital equivalent at f2.8 and
1/250. Any slower lens will not allow a decent shutter speed for stopping
action.
Also, the wide aperture is very cool for isolating your subject from the
background when you do portraits. Remember, most fast lenses are considered
pro grade and they are pretty sharp to begin with. The wide aperture does
require accurate focusing. But my Nikkor 80-200 f2.8D seems to be sharper at
f2.8 than my Nikkor 80-200 f3.5-5.6 is at f5.6. Remember, that is a very
subjective non-scientific analyisis based on memory of anecdotal evidence,
but I feel confident enough that I use my 2.8 way more than the 3.5-5.6. I
only use the latter outdoors when weight becomes a factor.

Sasquatch


  #30  
Old January 9th 06, 06:46 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default fast glass?


"Danny" wrote in message
...
everyone seems to want 'fast glass' - f/2.8, 1.7, 1.4, etc, but I'm left
wondering 'why' As most people know, lenses are not at their sharpest
wide open - usually requiring f/7 - 9 (ish) before they attain their
maximum potential.

So why the fuss about 'fast' lenses?, and why pay the huge premiums to own
them? Most of my own lenses are 2.8, with one at 1.7, and one at 1.4 -
yet I invariably have to stop down in order to get a nicely sharp image,
which sort of defeats the object of the 'fast glass', doesn't it?

I mean, why pay three times the price for a 'fast' lens, when you only end
up stopping it down? I've got a theory that it's the mania for bright
lenses that's behind a lot of the 'focus fuss' that clogs up the various
forums - perhaps people don't realise that you're just not going to get
the same image quality out of wide open lens and are mistaking 'softness'
for focus issues. Just a thought.


Most lenses aren't their sharpest until stopped down a few stops...if you're
starting
with f/1.4 that "few stops" is probably f/4, if your lens starts at f/4
those same "few
stops" are f/11...kinda limits you a bit, doesn't it?


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Making Stained Glass at home, help Frank in UK Digital Photography 1 February 8th 05 01:58 PM
Making Stained Glass at home, help starlia 35mm Photo Equipment 0 February 8th 05 01:58 PM
Making Stained Glass at home, help Frank in UK 35mm Photo Equipment 0 February 8th 05 01:04 PM
Heat absorbing glass or one-size-fits all glass carrier for 23CII negative popping problem Phil Glaser In The Darkroom 2 June 1st 04 01:47 PM
Filter glass for Janpol enlarging lens? Donald Qualls In The Darkroom 7 May 29th 04 11:32 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.