Reading mode: Light Dark

Lens sweet spot

Go to last post
D

David Gore

Senior Member
Messages
4,512
Reaction score
74
Location
FtLauderdale, FL, US
--
Dave

Please bear with me as I'm a relative newbe trying to learn.Is the following assumption pretty much correct:

So long as you can be shooting in at F8 there will be little differnce in cheaper Canon lenses and higher quality L lenses?: lenses really shine relative to the cheaper lenses at the largest Fstops?

So,it seems to me that having a IS lens that allows you toshoot at F8 is a huge benefit such as a 28-135IS lens.And,then if combined with a higher ISO,say,400,owners of cheaper lenses or with IS ability can achieve comprable results to L lenses?

Having stated that I suppose thats why my shots using my 28-135IS in aperature priority of F8 at 200ISO are turning out just as sharp as my 28-70 also shot at F8.Now,I suppose if I shot at F4 with the IS lens and F4 with the L lens I would get a much better picture with the L lens.I also presume if I used my 50mm 1:4 at F8 I would get an incredibly sharp Pic.

Does the same hold true for flash between the 2 lenses???

What I might have just stated is probably rudimentary to many/most board members so please indulge me as I try to learn.Thanks,Dave
 
Try to follow this link, where you can see the performance of a number of lenses at different f-stops

http://www.dforum.de/

then click => Technik => Objektiv liste

It has the 50/1.4, 28-70/2.8 and the 28-135 IS all tested - although by different testers, who apparently sometimes draw different conclusions, but the "raw" data is there for all to see.

--
Kjeld Olesen
http://www.acapixus.dk
 
In case you do not understand german, I forgot to say that you must finally click "zum Testchart" after clicking links for each lens.

--
Kjeld Olesen
http://www.acapixus.dk
 
Looking at those test charts again, it appears that we do have to take them with a grain of salt or two.

Not all the images were exposed simmilarly, which obviously will have a tremendous impact on the apparent results.

E.g. The Sigma 2.8/105 mm EX Macro APPEAR to have more contrast than the Canon 2.8/100 mm Macro USM which MAY be true, but as the Sigma shots are somewhat underexposed (relative to the Canon) we can not use those tharts to draw that conclusion.

Comparing the two different 28-135 IS charts also reveals very different results.

--
Kjeld Olesen
http://www.acapixus.dk
 
David Gore said:
--
Dave

Please bear with me as I'm a relative newbe trying to learn.Is the
following assumption pretty much correct:

So long as you can be shooting in at F8 there will be little
differnce in cheaper Canon lenses and higher quality L lenses?:
lenses really shine relative to the cheaper lenses at the largest
Fstops?
Click to expand...
Interesting article here. talks of results at different f-stops, comparing different lenses.

http://www.uschold.com/pdf/Report%20SLR%20Public%2009.02%20N.pdf
 
David Gore said:
So long as you can be shooting in at F8 there will be little
differnce in cheaper Canon lenses and higher quality L lenses?:
lenses really shine relative to the cheaper lenses at the largest
Fstops?
Click to expand...
If you shoot from f/8 to f/11, there probably won't be all that much difference in sharpness between two lenses with similar ranges. There will be some difference, though; my 50/1.4 at f/11 is definately sharper than my 16-35L at 16 mm and f/11.

But sharpness is only part of what makes a good picture. Even if the prime is sharper, the L zoom has much better contrast, and the color rendition is a lot more beautiful. You can make one look somewhat like the other in Photoshop, but it's really not the same as having it optically and not having to push bits around inside a limited colorspace.

Sometimes you need to shoot at big apertures ( or at least have them for focusing and just seeing through the viewfinder ) because of available light, or for bokeh. Or maybe it's a long lens, and has short DOF even at f/8. A lot of the better lenses have a much better out-of-focus image, which gives you "more pleasing" backgrounds.
David Gore said:
So,it seems to me that having a IS lens that allows you toshoot at
F8 is a huge benefit such as a 28-135IS lens.And,then if combined
with a higher ISO,say,400,owners of cheaper lenses or with IS
ability can achieve comprable results to L lenses?
Click to expand...
The thing is, faster, and sharper-faster lenses will allow you to use the lower ISOs, even 100. If you're downsizing your photos to display on the web, most of the noise will disappear, but if you're making enlargements, the noise will make a huge difference in quality.

I'm not trying to knock Canon's affordable glass at all; it's just that you asked if there's a difference, and I believe there is.
 
Forrest said:
Forrest41926 said:
So long as you can be shooting in at F8 there will be little
differnce in cheaper Canon lenses and higher quality L lenses?:
lenses really shine relative to the cheaper lenses at the largest
Fstops?
Click to expand...
If you shoot from f/8 to f/11, there probably won't be all that
much difference in sharpness between two lenses with similar
ranges. There will be some difference, though; my 50/1.4 at
f/11 is definately sharper than my 16-35L at 16 mm and f/11.

But sharpness is only part of what makes a good picture. Even if
the prime is sharper, the L zoom has much better contrast, and the
color rendition is a lot more beautiful. You can make one look
somewhat like the other in Photoshop, but it's really not the same
as having it optically and not having to push bits around inside a
limited colorspace.

Sometimes you need to shoot at big apertures ( or at least have
them for focusing and just seeing through the viewfinder ) because
of available light, or for bokeh. Or maybe it's a long lens, and
has short DOF even at f/8. A lot of the better lenses have a much
better out-of-focus image, which gives you "more pleasing"
backgrounds.
Forrest41926 said:
So,it seems to me that having a IS lens that allows you toshoot at
F8 is a huge benefit such as a 28-135IS lens.And,then if combined
with a higher ISO,say,400,owners of cheaper lenses or with IS
ability can achieve comprable results to L lenses?
Click to expand...
The thing is, faster, and sharper-faster lenses will allow you to
use the lower ISOs, even 100. If you're downsizing your photos to
display on the web, most of the noise will disappear, but if you're
making enlargements, the noise will make a huge difference in
quality.

I'm not trying to knock Canon's affordable glass at all; it's just
that you asked if there's a difference, and I believe there is.
Click to expand...
--
Dave

One reason I went with the much more expensive Canon 16-35L was the glass.I was so impressed with the color and contrast on my 100-400IS that I just wanted the same quality in my wide angle zoom,Having bought the lens just last night I can already tell the wonderful image quality and rich colors inherent in the L.I also figured that down the road if I want to sell I will get alot more for my money.I truly love this lens and with the 1.6 factor I just may keep this on my camera all the time.
 
David Gore said:
One reason I went with the much more expensive Canon 16-35L was the
glass.I was so impressed with the color and contrast on my
100-400IS that I just wanted the same quality in my wide angle
zoom,Having bought the lens just last night I can already tell the
wonderful image quality and rich colors inherent in the L.I also
figured that down the road if I want to sell I will get alot more
for my money.I truly love this lens and with the 1.6 factor I just
may keep this on my camera all the time.
Click to expand...
This is my favorite lens, and the one that's on my D60 about 90% of the time. It's not quite as sharp as my other lenses ... but if I use it properly, it comes pretty close. Like you said, the beautiful color rendition and the contrast are what I love about it -- that, and the wide view -- and I'll use this lens over my 50/1.4 when critical sharpness isn't an absolute necessity.

I'm finding this lens very sharp from f/4 to f/16 ... and very, very close to prime quality at 24 mm and f/11. Unfortionately, with the 1.6x crop, I use this lens almost exclusively at 16 mm. But when I get to full-frame, the quality I get out of this gem will be even better...

All of these were shot through a 16-35L:

http://valhallaphotos.com/html/Galleries/LandscapeGalleries.htm
 
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