Reading mode: Light Dark

Same flower, 3 lenses, your comments.

Go to last post
Lance B

Lance B

Forum Pro
Messages
35,343
Solutions
5
Reaction score
16,051
Location
AU
I took this flower with 3 different lenses, the DA16-45, 77 & 31 limited:

The Limited's are superb lenses, but the DA16-45 really did a great job and the close focus ability is excellent. I am rediscovering the wonderful abilities of the DA16-45, but of course the Limiteds are special. :-)

The unusual looking tan coloured background is actually mulch and this is what gives the "pattern" you see.

*ist D, DA16-45 @ 45mm, f6.3, 1/50sec, ISO200 Handheld.



*ist D, 77mm Ltd, f6.3, 1/60sec, ISO200 Handheld.



*ist D, 31mm Ltd, f6.3, 1/50sec, ISO200 Handheld.



--
Lance B
GMT +10hours

 
I'd like the flower of the 31' best, but the Bokeh is very nice with the DA 16-45.

Well done.

TOPS.
 
All 3 look good to me, however, the limiteds seem to be somewhat sharper. I have the 16-45 also but it seems soft to me. I have read that the type of filter used can make the difference there. What type, if any do you use? You always post very nice work!!

SG Burgess
USA
8:45 am EDT
 
SGBurgess said:
All 3 look good to me, however, the limiteds seem to be somewhat
sharper. I have the 16-45 also but it seems soft to me. I have read
that the type of filter used can make the difference there. What
type, if any do you use? You always post very nice work!!
Click to expand...
Thank you for your nice comment SG Burgess! :-)

The only time I use a filter is either a polarizer or a graduated ND. All other times I NEVER have a filter on the lens. I believe in the minimalist theory where possible. I also believe that you can tell the difference between a good and a bad filter as I once used a cheaper version polarizer and you could actually see that there was a difference even looking through the viewfinder! It may not be so evident with a UV filter used for front element protection, but why introduce more glass when not necessary?

My polarizers are B&W or Hoya super multi coated, not the Hoya single coated versions.
SGBurgess said:
SG Burgess
USA
8:45 am EDT
Click to expand...
--
Lance B
GMT +10hours

 
Lance,

am I right in assuming that you took all three pics at minimum focusing distance and that the magnification of the DA16-45@45 at 28cm was larger than with the FA31 at 30cm or the FA77 at 70cm (their respective minimum focusing distances)? I admit that I'm too lazy to calculate the maximum magnification for the two FAs ...

If that is so the DOF should be greater with less magnification, so I think partly the sharper appearance of the two FA pics could be attributed to that (and the nice bokeh of the DA16-45). Would be interesting then to compare all three lenses at the same level of magnification!

If my assumption and or math is not correct at least I'd thank you for sharing those comparative shots; interesting to see how those different lenses handle a job like this!

--
Phil

GMT +1
 
Hi Lance, I think it's a bit unfair to compare them when the flower isn't the same size in each. It would be interesting to see them all at the same magnification.

It would look like number one has the best bokeh but that maybe unfair on the other two as there's less background to look bad in number one and the dof must be greater in 2 & 3.

More results but a bit more scientific please.
 
oh dear, I can clearly see why limited lenses are so expensive ... they are magnificent :) I wish I had money for 31mm :(
--
Fero Novak, London
 
;-)

My favorite Shop in Germany told me that mine (black) is on the way ...

Should arrive at home in 1-2 days

BR

TOPS.
dsowner said:
oh dear, I can clearly see why limited lenses are so expensive ...
they are magnificent :) I wish I had money for 31mm :(
--
Fero Novak, London
Click to expand...
 
Your photos continue to convince me that the limiteds are a worthy investment - someday I'll join the llimited/LBA club. I think the shot with the 77 has more depth if that is the right word - the flower has more of a three dimensional quality to it even though the the actual DOF in the shot with the 31 is greater. The 16-45 really did a nice job too, glad I do have this lens.
--
Whimik

 
dsowner said:
oh dear, I can clearly see why limited lenses are so expensive ...
they are magnificent :) I wish I had money for 31mm :(
Click to expand...
I agree - I usually think lens quality can't really be determined by a saved-to-web photo, but time after time these pics show up here from the Limiteds and they have something special about them. Please, someone setup a PEPSI challenge so I can find out if I'm really insane.
 
Hi Lance!
  • DA16-45: like the bokeh, colours are less nice than the limiteds though. Better picture for the flower because you could get closer.
  • FA77: better bokeh than the FA31, but compared to the FA31 the flower is flattened too much by the compressed perspective.
  • FA31: background too sharp (DOF difference rather than bokeh difference), like the perspective more because it makes the blue bits slightly bigger and more sticking out of it.
All in all I prefer the colour and sharpness of the limiteds.

Thanks for this comparison Lance! Happy with my FA77, longing for a FA31 now... damn...

;-) Wim

--
Belgium, GMT+1

 
Home from work and trying very hard to post a few things before this flu medicine kicks in and I'm asleep. So if this doesn't make sense please forigive me.

All three are beautiful shots of an unusual flower. I've never seen an Iris(?) with such color variations. Shot #1 looks a little soft compared to #2 and #3 - might be due to the DOF being much shallower. Of them all, #2 is the sharpest and most appealing to me. But, I like the background of #1 out of all three of them the best.

Extremely appealing and useful comparison of the three lenses. Great choice of subject for the comparison as the background shows how the different lenses show out of focus areas differently.
--
11:29 AM

 
I agree it's not the kind of test I'd run out & buy a lens over, but it's a good test to see which lens is best for the tester in a certain situation. I guess we've all done this test and my findings were similar, the kit lens (in my case 18-55) is very versatile; but the classics can feel more rewarding.

--
Pete Neises
 
Hi Lance, nice idea to compare these lenses with real photos instead of photos of charts or brick walls! In the end that's what the end product is. However I think that to make a more meaningful comparison you should try to have the flower occupy the same area in the frame: with the 31 and 16-45 that's easy enough, but with the 77 you need to get back at a greater distance, which will modify your perspective. I think you should also have the same aperture in all shots, to get the same DOF (actually I'm not sure if having the same aperture but at different distances will give you the same DOF).

Anyway, I liked the shots, and if I had to choose based on this test I would take the 77mm limited (surprise?)

--
Pablo
GMT+1hr+1hr summer time
http://www.pbase.com/pablof
 
philzucker said:
Lance,

am I right in assuming that you took all three pics at minimum
focusing distance and that the magnification of the DA16-45@45 at
28cm was larger than with the FA31 at 30cm or the FA77 at 70cm
(their respective minimum focusing distances)? I admit that I'm too
lazy to calculate the maximum magnification for the two FAs ...
Click to expand...
I didn't really go to minimum focus distance, but was about or near the minimum for each, so yes the FA31 was 30cm, the FA77 was 70cm and the DA16-45 was within the macro setting, but I couldn't say exactly at what distance.
philzucker said:
If that is so the DOF should be greater with less magnification, so
I think partly the sharper appearance of the two FA pics could be
attributed to that (and the nice bokeh of the DA16-45). Would be
interesting then to compare all three lenses at the same level of
magnification!
Click to expand...
Yes, you are correct, there was more DOF for the two FA's and I would say that the "close focus" function of the DA16-45 would not show it in the best light, so to speak.

The DOF will be the same or very similar for the focus distance and the same aperture, ie a 50mm at 50cm has the same DOF as a 100mm at 100cm with the same aperture.
philzucker said:
If my assumption and or math is not correct at least I'd thank you
for sharing those comparative shots; interesting to see how those
different lenses handle a job like this!
Click to expand...
I am very happy with all 3 lenses.
philzucker said:
--
Phil

GMT +1
Click to expand...
--
Lance B
GMT +10hours

 
whimik said:
Your photos continue to convince me that the limiteds are a worthy
investment - someday I'll join the llimited/LBA club. I think the
shot with the 77 has more depth if that is the right word - the
flower has more of a three dimensional quality to it even though
the the actual DOF in the shot with the 31 is greater. The 16-45
really did a nice job too, glad I do have this lens.
Click to expand...
If you get either Limited you won't be disappointed and I am more and more convinced by the outstanding ability of the DA16-45.

--
whimik said:
Whimik

Click to expand...
--
Lance B
GMT +10hours

 
--
Lance B
GMT +10hours

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top