Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,821   Posts: 1,581,823   Online: 1159
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Ogden, Utah USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,320
    the newest leica book has lens test data on every leica lens and while i haven't had a chance to ponder the charts all that much, the feeling i get is that lens performance is more a function of construction than maximum lens opening. Most of the Leica lenses seem to perform best when stopped down a bit, even the smaller aparature ones.

  2. #12
    narsuitus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    566
    Quote Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht View Post
    is a fast lens, stopped down, just as good as a slow lens at the same aperture?
    It depends on the lenses and the situation.

    For example…

    At f/16, I see a significant difference in image quality between my fast normal lens on my small format camera and my slow normal lens on my medium format camera. The medium format image is so much better.

    At f/16, I see very little difference in image quality between my high-priced 50mm f/1.4 lens and my low-priced 50mm f/1.8 lens.

    At f/16, the close-up images produced by my high-quality 55mm f/3.5 macro lens are so much better than those produced by my high-quality 50mm f/1.4 lens.

    At f/5.6, the close-up images produced by my 105mm f/2.8 macro lens have more image detail than those produced by my 105mm f/2.5 lens. However, the portrait images produced by my 105mm f/2.5 lens are better than the portrait images produced by my 105mm f/2.8 macro lens.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/11336821@N00/6012452194/
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails composite1 03 sml.jpg  

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,083
    Impossible to generalize, Ralph. There is no law in optics that says a faster lens will perform better or worse at f/8 than a slower lens. It depends on the lens.

  4. #14
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,794
    Images
    1
    thanks. i was looking for an easy answer, but you are right. There is none,have to study the mtfs in question.
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  5. #15
    Jim Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rural NW Missouri
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,859
    Quote Originally Posted by narsuitus View Post
    . . . At f/16, I see a significant difference in image quality between my fast normal lens on my small format camera and my slow normal lens on my medium format camera. The medium format image is so much better.

    At f/16, I see very little difference in image quality between my high-priced 50mm f/1.4 lens and my low-priced 50mm f/1.8 lens. . . .
    At f/16 any decent 50mm lens on a 35mm camera should be noticably diffraction limited. A good MF lens should be conspicuously better at f/16.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    501

    Diffraction limit

    There are many optics books and websites that provide information to answer this question. For example:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction_limit

    The old rule of thumb: "The best definition is obtained 2-stops down from wide open" still holds for modern lenses.

    Larger apertures are subject to aberrations (coma, spherical etc.) that can be eliminated by stopping down a couple of stops. The exceptions are lateral chromatic and distortion.

    Stopping down beyond this degrades the image by diffraction. This point is called the diffraction limit. Further stopping down causes increased degradation because of diffraction.

    The smaller the physical size of the aperture the greater the diffraction caused degradation. The wave length of light is constant so focal length, format etc come into play.

    So stop down 2-stops for the best definition. Stop down more if you need the depth-of-field but you will lose some sharpness at the focused subject plane.

    Photography is simple, don't make it complicated.


    www.makingKodakFilm.com

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    501

    is a fast lens, stopped down, just as good as a slow lens at the same aperture?

    To clearly answer:

    It is unlikely they will be equal.


    Lateral color and distortion will not be corrected by stopping down.

    Depending on the structure and materials used the contrast and color may not be equal.

    In order to get the speed in the faster lens other performance characteristics are compromised.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    St. Louis, Mo.
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,002
    I used to shoot Contax. The slower Zeiss lenses were said to have tested a little sharper than their faster counterparts.

    In real life shooting I doubt you would tell a difference.

  9. #19
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,509
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    437
    The reason(s) for buying a faster lens vs the slower lens, even though it costs more, in response to someone else's comment earlier in the thread:

    • The faster lens is easier to focus in low light
    • The faster lens can let you use a faster shutter speed in low light, enabling you to capture an image you couldn't with the slower lens
    • The faster lens may have a more aesthetically pleasing appearance at or near wide-open than the slower lens does
    • The faster lens will let you blur out backgrounds and foregrounds more than the slower lens does (see item above)


    and then there's always, perhaps the most important reason of all-

    • the faster lens proves you're a better photographer because you can afford more expensive equipment, and gives you an excuse to toss around terms like bokeh, circle of confusion, and diffraction limited... (cough cough)

  10. #20
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,794
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Jones View Post
    At f/16 any decent 50mm lens on a 35mm camera should be noticably diffraction limited. A good MF lens should be conspicuously better at f/16.
    all mts, i've seen so far verify this statement!
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin