 Rick Richardson |
True or false, what would you say? Someone once said on this site that it makes absolutely no difference whether your using 'fast' lenses on a digital camera (such as 2.8, 1.4, etc.). 'If you are buying this high end glass for your digital you are throwing your money away.'
|
|
|
|
||
|
Michelle Ross |
I'd say it's definitely false! I notice a great difference in my Tamron 28-75 2.8 lens vs. my Minolta 75-300 4-5.6 zoom. . . But that's just me and I don't tend to use the lenses for the same type of things but when I try to use my MInolta zoom at track meets it just cannot focus nearly as fast or as well as my Tamron! Maybe this answer isn't in relation to what you are saying but I think it is!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Michael H. Cothran |
Interesting question. This is really a "gray" area, as the answer is not purely true or false. Digital cameras do not resolve in the same manner as film, and cannot resolve (yet) with the same amount of detail as can fine grain film. So, it is quite possible in many cases that a quality lens' resolution power is greater than the pixelation resolution of a given digital camera. This is still often the case with film cameras, in that the lens is capable of resolving detail better than film can record it. Thus, once a lens reaches a certain resolution power, the rest is moot, since your film or digital camera cannot record it any better. There are also other major factors to consider - that being a lens' ability to record contrast and color fidelity. Also, and in general, when a lens manufacturer creates a "fast" lens, they are usually designed as "high end" optics rather than consumer grade cheaper lenses. So one can usually expect better image quality, especially in the wider aperture range, but closed down to f8 and smaller may not lead to any significant difference in image quality between a fast lens and a slow lens (providing both are quality lenses). Michael H. Cothran www.mhcphoto.net
|
|
|
|
||
|
Rick Richardson |
Makes sense.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christopher A. Vedros |
I'd love to know who said that. First off, not every opinion posted here should be taken as fact. Some people are very set in their ways, and will profess their opinions strongly. Michael makes some good points about resolution and image above. This is a scientific fact. For a given scene, if you compare a lens with a max aperture of f4, to a similar lens with a max aperture of f1.4, the larger aperture will: This holds true for film and digital SLRs alike. If either, or both, of these benefits is valuable to your needs, then no one can successfully argue that you would be wasting your money.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bob Cammarata |
Chris, The way I read the question was from an image quality standpoint. It's obviously true about the difference in depth of field/faster shutter speed with the faster lens. If what Michael C. points out is true, it makes one wonder if it would not be wise to upgrade the camera to match the capabilities of the optics.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Rick Richardson |
So in the end what I'm hearing is that, digital or not, it's still all about the quality of the lens and always will be.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Karma Wilson |
I profess to not understanding the inquiry at all. If you have a faster lens you can record a shallower depth of field, shoot in lower light situations, and record sharper images. This happens on digital--I can visibly see the difference. My best lens is my Sigma macro and the difference is quite astounding between that and my lower end lenses. Not that I always use it. But you can bet I'll be upgrading my equipment to all faster, better quality lenses. And there are fast/cheap lenses. I have a 50mm 1.8 canon that's $75. It serves its purpose, but it's not even comparable to my Sigma. I only use it if I need pics in very low light. Karma Karma
|
|
|
|
||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Still don't know what the origianl person was talking about, context wise. Could've been saying why get a faster, higher priced lens when you can change iso on digital. But usually, which means always, sometimes, if they have versions with 2.8 and 5.6 at the same focal length, the 2.8 is made to have better glass and optics.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Rick Richardson |
Thanks everyone. I think Michael hit the context spot on, though. Based on responses I think I see more fixed 2.8's in my digital future.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||