Lense Quality?
Russell Smithers
there are no bad lenses these days, which I suppose
make sense as technology allows us to have higher standards.
But my question is, when would I need to spend money on a
higher quality lense. Or more to the point when and in what
circumstances would I actualy benefit from a better quality lense.
Better quality lense, I meen one better than say my 35-80, or
my 75-300mm canon USM lenses that I bought about 8 years
ago.
The reason why I ask is my picture taking is alot better these
days, and for the purposes of entering competitions/30x20
enlargements would better quality optics make a difference.
Also there are some situations when vignetting seems
to be apparent in the odd photo (rare, only once in 20 or more
films), and normaly low level lighting.
Sorry for banging on, but I realy would appreciate some serious
and well thought out answers.
If I haven't given enough info please email me.
Photo Gallery
www.smithers-nasa.freeserve.co.uk
U P D A T E D ------ 19th December 1999
--
Photo Gallery
www.smithers-nasa.freeserve.co.uk
U P D A T E D ------ 19th December 1999
Mike Chirnside
kit and go for medium format!!!
Jon
<rus...@smithers-nasa.freeserve.co.uk> writes
You have probably asked one of the most difficult to answer questions
possible. For me anyway. I'll try and answer and try and get my answer
to make some sense.
Firstly I don't think that Canon USM lenses are that far down the line
to be considered out dated by technology. I personally think you would
struggle to beat them with current lenses that are there equivalent in
price and specification and or the market niche they are aimed at.
I regularly judge at photographic society meetings and can quite
categorically state that I have seen some pin sharp well exposed slides
with more than adequate contrast (prints as well) that have been taken
on lenses 10 20 30 40 years old. Although the chap who exhibited some of
his late wife's work was keen to admit they had been taken on a 35mm
summicron lens that had been bought nearly forty years ago I believe.
If you wish to upgrade then fine, do so. But to what? Define better
quality. If you and I where to take the same scene at the same time from
the same position in the same light, using the same film and the same
camera body using identical settings but you were using your Canon
35-80mm and I was using a Nikkor 20-35 f2.8 lens which in it's day was
considered to be a pretty fine piece of glass the resultant images
projected from fifteen to twenty feet away on the same projector and
lens would show remarkably little difference. Certainly not enough to
justify the quantum leap in price.
Your obvious question should now be 'So why buy a lens of that price?'
Answer because it's 1 to 2 stops faster than most entry level /
intermediate lenses, it's build quality is far superior, it has to be
for the market the lens is aimed at (serious amateurs professionals)
because these people tend to use their kit far more, in far from
pleasant surroundings and they tend to get used perhaps with a little
less care than they deserve.
A further point any and all manufactured goods no matter how they are
produced must have production tolerances. On the less expensive lenses
this is relatively wider than on lenses produced for the top end of the
market, which are produced again to finer tolerance levels. Less chance
of a 'rogue' lens creeping in. Considering the number of lenses
produced by the major camera manufacturers and the independent lens
makers it's surprising we don't encounter more 'lemons' really. These
production tolerances can and do IMHO lead to lenses from the same
stable and the same specification being 1/3rd of a stop out or slightly
less sharp at a particular aperture.
I have a Nikkor 85mm f1.4 manual focus lens which I have recently
purchased. OK at f1.4 the edges are a little raggedy and definition is
not perfect. But I defy you to tell this from a full frame enlargement
of 16x12. Who cares about the edges anyway, it's the centre we are
normally most interested in. Slight cropping can loose those poor edges
anyway. This lens is an absolute gem throughout the aperture range
giving it's best at about f8 with fll and f16 being the spiders ankles.
I recently printed a colour neg from my student days of a Scottish
landscape. This was taken on a Pentax Spotmatic, using a 'standard' 50mm
f1.8 lens, the resulting picture is lovely, yes I know modern enlargers
papers chemicals etc. will have helped but the old adage of 'crap in
equals crap out' still holds true.
My final point, if you wish to make enlargements of that size (30 x 12)
dump your 35mm kit and buy Medium Format.
BOL
Jon
John Halliwell
<j...@wolfseye.demon.co.uk> writes
>You have probably asked one of the most difficult to answer questions
>possible. For me anyway. I'll try and answer and try and get my answer
>to make some sense.
Me too.
>
>Firstly I don't think that Canon USM lenses are that far down the line
>to be considered out dated by technology. I personally think you would
>struggle to beat them with current lenses that are there equivalent in
>price and specification and or the market niche they are aimed at.
>
>I regularly judge at photographic society meetings and can quite
>categorically state that I have seen some pin sharp well exposed slides
>with more than adequate contrast (prints as well) that have been taken
>on lenses 10 20 30 40 years old. Although the chap who exhibited some of
>his late wife's work was keen to admit they had been taken on a 35mm
>summicron lens that had been bought nearly forty years ago I believe.
If you go off magazine articles, prime lenses (excluding maybe a few
'specialist' types) hit their peak about 40 years ago and were very
close to being 'as good as their going to get'. Zooms on the other hand
have come a long way in that time (largely due to improved coatings
etc.). Of course different manufacturers will use different processes to
create the lens, giving different 'qualities'.
>
>If you wish to upgrade then fine, do so. But to what? Define better
>quality. If you and I where to take the same scene at the same time from
>the same position in the same light, using the same film and the same
>camera body using identical settings but you were using your Canon
>35-80mm and I was using a Nikkor 20-35 f2.8 lens which in it's day was
>considered to be a pretty fine piece of glass the resultant images
>projected from fifteen to twenty feet away on the same projector and
>lens would show remarkably little difference. Certainly not enough to
>justify the quantum leap in price.
I was looking for some fast 28-70 & 80-200 lenses, but at the end of the
day, they were a 'wish' item, not a 'need' item. When I realised I'd
rarely if ever need the faster apertures, I lost interest.
I've had one shot blown up to 30x20 from Kodachrome 25, the detail in
the print is amazing for such an enlargement, but sadly it's out of
focus. It's not easy to tell from the tranny, but blown up to that size,
it stands out very badly. At these sort of enlargements, your technique
is very much under the spotlight, any errors will be magnified and much
more visible.
If you want to get the best out of 35mm, remember it's the little things
you do that help the most. Cleaning dirt out of the back of the camera
reduces the chances of 'tramlines' across the whole film (yes I've
managed to ruin lots this way). Use a tripod and stop the lenses down
(but don't get stuck in tripod, f16, mirror lock-up routine for every
shot). Sort your focussing out as well. Don't open the back until you've
rewound (yes I've done that a few times - if you do do it, don't stand
there looking at the exposed film, snap the back shut and rewind).
I don't bother too much about very sharp 35mm because if I want it sharp
I'll use medium format, which as Jon says is much better for large blow-
ups.
--
John
Pentax MX, LX, Super-A (Super Program) & Z-1 (PZ-1).
Pentax auto 110.
Miranda MS-2 Super.
Mamiya C330f & 645SV.
Lubitel 166.
John Halliwell
opposite:
In article <9vRvTDAl...@photopia.demon.co.uk>, I wrote:
>I was looking for some fast 28-70 & 80-200 lenses, but at the end of the
>day, they were a 'wish' item, not a 'need' item. When I realised I'd
>rarely if ever need the faster apertures, I lost interest.
I was wandering down my local high street today, passing by the local
camera shop. As always I stopped to see what they had to offer in the
secondhand window. Ten minutes later I leave the shop having acquired
yet another lens, a nice manual focus Tamron 70-210 SP f3.5 complete
with hood and Hoya skylight for a reasonable £65. OK, I've lost 1/2 a
stop over a f2.8, but saved over £500. If I ever do get that FM2, it'll
fit that as well!
--
John
Preston, Lancs, UK.
Russell Smithers
I will be doing A3 size, I think thats half the size or close to
30x20.
But yes, I use my tripod alot, but not to the point where I
use it when it's not needed.
Thanks for all the replies, and have a good New Year...
Russell Smithers wrote in message <83qbk6$gjg$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>...