Jim, like i said , if that is how you want your photos to come out that is perfectly your prerogative. but i think is it disingenuous to say that the edge performance of a lens of this caliber is "absolutely irrelevant". Do you mean to say that in the process of making a painting it's ok if the painter can't paint along the edges because the paint won't stick to the canvas? I for one would want a tool that will be as neutral as possible so that the image that I want to convey is not tainted by the limitations of the tool and is the image that I, as the photographer want to convey. If the photograph requires depth of field, I can do that. If I want to isolate without vignetting and situate the sujbect off center, I can do that. If I want sharpness throughout the photograph, I can do that. The problem with the Oly line is that they don't have small f2.0 or smaller primes that are small and easier to handle than their excellent SHG zooms.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Do you still prefer quality primes for 4/ 3rds...?
- Thread starter 43photo
- Start date
windsprite
Veteran Member
Not if they are shooting indoors.....
Presumably most photographers are able to choose the right tools for the particular job they want to do. If a few people can't ... that doesn't mean we should have a smaller selection of tools available, just to save those people from themselves.
Julie
so what's your point? we are talking about softness at the edges not the shallowness of the depth of field that can be obtained that blurs the edges to oblivion. you confuse the two. softness is the state of being unsharp, not out of focus when other parts of the photograph are in focus. They are two different entities. But again, if you want to use that softness as part of your photograph, that may be a characteristic that you may want to use in you photograph. just know that it is there. my gripe is that there are too many people out there who know about somewhat major deficiencies of a lens then in the same sentence say that it is a great lens. and yes, that didn't happen with the Canon 50/1.4!!
well, here's a hint for you, check out the review of the Olympus 150/2.0, maybe you will experience an apparition!! I also checked the depth of field calculator that is conveniently on the net, the paper thin DOF of the Canon 85/1.2 wide open, is like a presentation board when compared to the the paper thin focus of the Oly 150/2.0 wide open at 30 feet. it even gets thinner as you focus closer. go check it out... http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html ...
my question is why can't other lens makers make lenses like the Oly 150/2.0? believe me I can vouch for that review, because I own and use one...
Hint:
John King
Veteran Member
Gidday Dragos
You are more than entitled to like this image. However I don't.
I am OK with the hand being OoF, even with the hair being OoF, even with zone 2 and zone 3 sharpness being non-existent (but I do not like that effect much at all ... ).
The fact that the tip of the person's nose is way OoF and even the moustache and glasses are OoF I find disturbing both visually and aesthetically. That it is hard to find any part of this image that is in critically sharp focus bothers me.
The image would probably do well in competition; however, that is one reason I choose not to enter competitions ...
Sorry, Dragos. I do not mean this as any sort of personal comment, but the image is lacking for me because of these things. It would be a far better image IMHO if at least the entire front part of the subject's face were in focus, including his nose etc.
--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
(see profile for current gear)
-- -- --
The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...
Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php
Bird Control Officers on active service.
Member of UK (and abroad) Photo Safari Group
Beautiful exposure and lighting.Go to the end of page two of this thread, and you'll see 100% samples of both the 35L and 85L wide open. Now do they fit into your notion of "great" or "just usable" ?
Seriously, do you realize what 85mm @ f/1.2 means in terms of practical results, DoF wise ? 85mm @ f/1.2 @ FF is the combination with the most shallow plane of focus (not tele effect) in the whole photographic industry, on any format, available on the market.
Now comprehend a paper thin plane of focus with everything on either side of it blurred away to oblivion and then we can talk the academics of extreme corner sharpness. I've never seen such a thing so I can't tell if they are sharp or not.
Hint:
You are more than entitled to like this image. However I don't.
I am OK with the hand being OoF, even with the hair being OoF, even with zone 2 and zone 3 sharpness being non-existent (but I do not like that effect much at all ... ).
The fact that the tip of the person's nose is way OoF and even the moustache and glasses are OoF I find disturbing both visually and aesthetically. That it is hard to find any part of this image that is in critically sharp focus bothers me.
The image would probably do well in competition; however, that is one reason I choose not to enter competitions ...
Sorry, Dragos. I do not mean this as any sort of personal comment, but the image is lacking for me because of these things. It would be a far better image IMHO if at least the entire front part of the subject's face were in focus, including his nose etc.
--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
(see profile for current gear)
-- -- --
The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...
Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php
Bird Control Officers on active service.
Member of UK (and abroad) Photo Safari Group
I have had an Epson R3800 in mine for a while also. My 2200 and R2400 are nice but I want that 17" on the short side. R3800 for me due to smaller footprint. I live in a very small upstairs apartment. I can always buy the rolls and cut them to length. Then there is always software upgrades. A never ending story.
David
Sergey_Green
Veteran Member
I can see the tear rolling off his cheek after what you have said to him. Although I do think this image is slightly overdone, it demonstrated what the lens can do when pushed. Is it not what he posted it for? Had he doubled the distance (and he probably done it many times over) this image would look real good, as most of his images do.
--
http://www.pbase.com/sngreen
Harold66
Veteran Member
Hello
I wonder why this argument about not having to change lenses when having zoom comes back so often . If you have your 70-300mm on your camera and you need a short focal length , you need to change your lens as well
the argument of the weight in another thread does not wash either
with a zoom , you HAVE to carry all the weight ON the camera even when a single focal length would do
and NO , my worry abut single focal lens is now how fast it is
you are SOOO wrong. I think of how good they are , of how one would fit in a jacket pocket ... and more importantly , I KNow that the judicious use of a FEW single focal lengths would do the job perfectly and make me a better photographer in the process which no zoom can do as well
Harold
--
http://www.harold-glit.com
http://www.modelmayhem.com/haroldglit
rovingtim
Veteran Member
Indoor shooting is one of the best arguments for very bright primes.
Dim conditions stress all aspects of photography and everything improves if the camera can find more light. With variable aperture zooms, they sometimes can't be zoomed out because the lower light means it won't focus quickly enough. Thus you have to carry all the weight for no benefit whatsoever.
Dim conditions stress all aspects of photography and everything improves if the camera can find more light. With variable aperture zooms, they sometimes can't be zoomed out because the lower light means it won't focus quickly enough. Thus you have to carry all the weight for no benefit whatsoever.
DragosJianu
Well-known member
I started out with zooms then gradually fell in love with primes. As it is now, I only use two lenses, 35mm f/1.4 L and 85mm f/1.2 L and that's it. They cover all my needs. I only have one zoom, an UWA, but that lens lies dormant the whole year. It's just my travel lens, meant to shoot historic cities. An a third, very rarely used prime, a 100 macro.
The way I see it now, I could never turn back to slow f/2.8-f/4 zooms. So my perspective is : Why compromise ALL my pictures by using two 2500$ zooms, for the rare pictures that I might miss by using just two 3500$ primes ? I'd rather take 85-90 great shots with the amazing look and quality of luxury primes, and miss 10-15 shots, then take 100 average shots with a zoom.
The way I see it now, I could never turn back to slow f/2.8-f/4 zooms. So my perspective is : Why compromise ALL my pictures by using two 2500$ zooms, for the rare pictures that I might miss by using just two 3500$ primes ? I'd rather take 85-90 great shots with the amazing look and quality of luxury primes, and miss 10-15 shots, then take 100 average shots with a zoom.
dermicha
Leading Member
too late! already changed system (for the most part) to fulfill my desire for (small, fast) primes...
but some nice fast, small primes for oly wouldn't do harm to the system
--
regards
michael
sorry for bad english
http://www.flickr.com/photos/91624034@N00
http://miclart.deviantart.com/gallery/
http://www.myfourthirds.com/user.php?id=412&page=user_folders
your not as good as your gear makes you...
your gear is as good as you make it.
but some nice fast, small primes for oly wouldn't do harm to the system
--
regards
michael
sorry for bad english
http://www.flickr.com/photos/91624034@N00
http://miclart.deviantart.com/gallery/
http://www.myfourthirds.com/user.php?id=412&page=user_folders
your not as good as your gear makes you...
your gear is as good as you make it.
DragosJianu
Well-known member
Pentax ? 
dermicha
Leading Member
nikon fx
--
regards
michael
sorry for bad english
http://www.flickr.com/photos/91624034@N00
http://miclart.deviantart.com/gallery/
http://www.myfourthirds.com/user.php?id=412&page=user_folders
your not as good as your gear makes you...
your gear is as good as you make it.
--
regards
michael
sorry for bad english
http://www.flickr.com/photos/91624034@N00
http://miclart.deviantart.com/gallery/
http://www.myfourthirds.com/user.php?id=412&page=user_folders
your not as good as your gear makes you...
your gear is as good as you make it.
You do realize that an m4/3 primes will only have to cover 1/4 the frame that a full frame prime needs to cover, hence greatly reducing production costs right?
You also realize that what we want are not just quality primes, but quality PANCAKE primes to maintain pocketability of the smaller m4/3 models right?
I don't know how many times it has to be said so I'll say it again here, the m4/3 format's truly unique selling point is it's small size when compare to DSLRs while maintaining, for most part, the same IQ. If this can be achieved with quality collapsable pancake zooms then we would welcome that as well.
You also realize that what we want are not just quality primes, but quality PANCAKE primes to maintain pocketability of the smaller m4/3 models right?
I don't know how many times it has to be said so I'll say it again here, the m4/3 format's truly unique selling point is it's small size when compare to DSLRs while maintaining, for most part, the same IQ. If this can be achieved with quality collapsable pancake zooms then we would welcome that as well.
Glen Barrington
Veteran Member
--
Mayonnaise on white bread, mmmmm!
Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos. . .
http://glenbarrington.smugmug.com/
http://www.jpgmag.com/people/glenbarrington/photos
Mayonnaise on white bread, mmmmm!
Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos. . .
http://glenbarrington.smugmug.com/
http://www.jpgmag.com/people/glenbarrington/photos
Art_P
Veteran Member
but don't force me to comply with your idea of perfection
So, what lenses do you carry for this outing? Oh, did I mention your lenses can't have cost more than $1200 total.
Again, if you're happy with a few primes, that's great for you
But don't expect everyone to be happy with the same thing.
And if you're that flush with cash that money is no object, maybe you could send me a 50mm macro or 30mm f1.4 so I can see what I'm missing (I wouldn't be so presumptuous to ask for a 150 f2 or 300 f2.8)
btw, I do own some primes- OMZ 50mm 1.8, 200mm f4, a Sigma 600mm reflex and a 400mm 6.3 I converted to OM mount... don't use any of them much these days. The only prime I'm considering at this point is the Sigma 30mm 1.4, for an indoor lens. but will have to wait until cash flow isn't an issue.
--
Art P
Select images may be seen here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sigvarius/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cecropia_grove/
There are times when zooming w your feet just doesn't cut it, like when there is a pond in front of you, or a wall behind you. Then there's getting the proper angle, which may require being X feet from the subject to get things to line up, -then- you can frame the shot.
Well, if I have my 70-300 on, I'm expecting birds or bugs... If I see a tree or landscape that needs capturing, it will probably stay still long enough to change lenses. Would I get better results w a 300mm F2.8? Maybe, but if I have to sell my van to make the down-payment on that baby, I won't get out much to shoot anything, will I? Not to mention it's five times heavier
See above Give me a light, cheap zoom over a heavy fast prime and I'll actually use it, even if it does struggle sometimes to focus.
Then why go on about fast primes if your not worried about aperture?
OK, hypothetical- you're going on your daily walk, you may see and want to capture: trees in dew drops, wet berries, Spore capsules in a clump of moss, dragonflies at the waters edge, birds 20' up in the trees, dogs playing in the tennis court, a passing helicopter, the neighborhood chickens, some out buildings, bees on a clump of flowers, and maybe catch the light hitting the barn just right...
So, what lenses do you carry for this outing? Oh, did I mention your lenses can't have cost more than $1200 total.
Again, if you're happy with a few primes, that's great for you
But don't expect everyone to be happy with the same thing.
And if you're that flush with cash that money is no object, maybe you could send me a 50mm macro or 30mm f1.4 so I can see what I'm missing
(I wouldn't be so presumptuous to ask for a 150 f2 or 300 f2.8)btw, I do own some primes- OMZ 50mm 1.8, 200mm f4, a Sigma 600mm reflex and a 400mm 6.3 I converted to OM mount... don't use any of them much these days. The only prime I'm considering at this point is the Sigma 30mm 1.4, for an indoor lens. but will have to wait until cash flow isn't an issue.
--
Art P
Select images may be seen here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sigvarius/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cecropia_grove/
Tenken777
Leading Member
at least I only need to change 2 zoom lenses, instead of 4 or 5 primes. More lens changes also means higher risk of getting dust on the sensor. Try compare the weight of my 14-35mm to Canon 85LII, and you will see which one is the monster.
Which good primes can fit into a jacket pocket and still match the IQ of the 14-35mm? I only have experiences on Canon L primes, I used to have 24L, 35L, 85LII, 135L (plus a couple of L zooms). None of these primes can be fit into my jacket pocket (on the other hand you may have a larger pocket
All lenses will make me a better photographer anyway. I'm still learning how to handle my newly acquired 7-14mm.
Harold66
Veteran Member
well , I have been photographing for 15 years and I can 't think of a SINGLE instance when I would have wanted or needed 5 lenses , even single focal lengths
I don't expect many people here to agree with me but there is one thing I am sure : Most photographers have TOO MANY lenses. Having so many lenses prevents photographers to develop a vision
Even pro photogs who work on various assignments types ( say weddings and sports and safari and street photography ) and who may need to invest in several lenses would NOT need 4 or 5 lenses on the same assignment
In fact , if I think of the best photographers I have ever met or whose work I am familiar with , I don't know A SINGLE ONE that use more than one , or two ( or three at the most)lenses on a regular basis
if I have a 24mm and a 40mm , I can cover maybe 70% of my work.
add an 85 to 90 mm I can cover 95% of my work
add an 300mm and you got the remaining 5% covered
I have used many brands , many formats for both film and digital and I can 't think
of a single assignment when a zoom allowed me to take a pic that I would have not been able to do with the right single focal lens
The dust argument seems a little bit fallacious to me and anyway being an oly user I have NEVER cleaned my sensor because of dust
finally and again , the need for fast primes is not so important especially in the digital age , even if most people fail to acknowledge this
My biggest body of work is Portraiture and nude photography of women and I can assure everyone that in over 15 years of making pictures of women , there is NOT one single picture when I would have needed or wanted a 1.2 lens , regardless of the FOV
that's good to read. Again , each photographer must find what works for him or her.
I am just grateful that I can deal with zooms as little as possible
In a perfect world , I would never have to use one
Harold
--
http://www.harold-glit.com
http://www.modelmayhem.com/haroldglit
Harold66
Veteran Member
Of course not, If you found what works for you , that's great
Because when using one or two single focal lens , I ( and my contention is that most people would ) make BETTER pictures
I don't mean so much sharper and of higher technical quality ( although in most cases that is also the case ) but better composed images
More importantly , limiting yourself to use say 2 lenses for most of your work makes
you see the world YOUR way , train you to get a certain eye
Some people may be able to do that with zooms , but that is a longer and more failure -prone way to do it
That's a good question, except now I have to make compromises because of the
despairing lack of olympus line
On a daily walk ,as you put it two lenses would be sufficient most of the time
one lens between 24 and 28mm ( in 35mm terms)
one lens bewteen 40mm and 50mm
this why my Olympus does not get as much action as it should
I have the 14-42mm which I use very occasionally at 14 mm
the 50mmacro (100mm ) that I use ONLY for shooting women
and the 40-150mm that I use only at 40mm and 150mm
for much of my non-women work , I use my grd3 with its 28mm despite the tiny sensor and my GXR with its 50mm which is a way better camera than any m4/3 so far ( despite the fact That I prefer a 40mm FOV than a 50mm)
I don't expect that (see above). if we all had the same needs , the world would be a boring place
)Missing my point entirely . I am saying that most people spend too much money getting too many lensesAnd if you're that flush with cash that money is no object, maybe you could send me a 50mm macro or 30mm f1.4 so I can see what I'm missing
and if I was to spend that kind of money on a lens now ( no chance , I am broke
() , I would rather spend it on ONE single focal lens that on two or three or 4 zoomsMy point exactly , looks like you have too many lenses... like probably many people
Harold
--
http://www.harold-glit.com
http://www.modelmayhem.com/haroldglit
I have been marketing my photography for over 25 years.
Before I went Olympus digital a few months ago, I had shot with OM-1, OM-1n and OM4-T.
Zoom lenses were terrible in IQ so never used them. My 'rule' for using primes was to double focal length. So I used 18 or 21, 40, 90macro and 180 w/1.4 extender and tripod. This covered 95%+ of my work. I also used on occasion the 300.
But for 75% of my work, I used 18/40/90.
I now have E-620, 9-18, 14-54, 50-200 with tripod for my main 'kit'.
David
Before I went Olympus digital a few months ago, I had shot with OM-1, OM-1n and OM4-T.
Zoom lenses were terrible in IQ so never used them. My 'rule' for using primes was to double focal length. So I used 18 or 21, 40, 90macro and 180 w/1.4 extender and tripod. This covered 95%+ of my work. I also used on occasion the 300.
But for 75% of my work, I used 18/40/90.
I now have E-620, 9-18, 14-54, 50-200 with tripod for my main 'kit'.
David
Art_P
Veteran Member
OK, so with two lenses, lets say a 14mm and a 50mm macro
14- fine for landscapes
the 50 would work for bees and flowers, but dragon flies can be a bit flighty, and what about that sparrow 20' up in the tree? Oh, shall I add you can't stray off the path? (maybe there's 2' of snow, or you just don't feel like wading through waist high poison ivy)
Well, the most expensive of that bunch was the 200mm, which I picked up for $80, the rest I listed didn't cost me that much combined... And when I get around to selling them, I hope to break even...
$1200 on a single use lens? that I'll never seeand if I was to spend that kind of money on a lens now ( no chance , I am broke
Well, maybe if it's a fast 300mm macro... but that wouldn't be a single use lens, would it? So, yeah, I would trade my 70-300 for a 300mm, f4 or faster, macro focusing prime... so long as it's not much heavier and under $1000
but has no bearing on the lenses I use
12-60 + 70-300 are my every day lenses, and cover most of what I need
the other lenses are still here only because I haven't put them up for sale yet.
They've all been replaced by the two zooms above. So two lenses is too many?
Which one prime lens would you then recomend that can replace them?
remember- I need a general purpose walkabout lens
a lens that does macros
a birding lens
a landscape lens
And I'm NOT prepared to wade out into the pond, carry a scaffolding, or crawl through the poison ivy to get the shot.
Maybe I'll never reach the level of Ansel Adams, but this is a hobby for me, not a lifestyle or obsession...
I've been shooting w zooms for over 30 years, so stop trying to "save" me and we'll get along a lot better.
btw, I don't buy the 'you need primes to be a better photographer' argument...
I see the image, then do what I can to captur it, I don't spend my time looking through the VF trying to see the an image... If I did that, the bird would be gone, the shadow would have moved, the snow melted, the dewdrop fallen...
--
Art P
Select images may be seen here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sigvarius/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cecropia_grove/
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum