Performance of a much more expensive lens

Jeff wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

It is rather tricky to take a photo without the lens being attached to a camera . So I would suggest that how the combination performs is all that matters \anything else is irrelevant ,

So ... here's a question.

There's a mountain scene with some foreground rocks and leaves. It's about a 30 degree angle of view. I want critical focus on the mountains so I focus to infinity. I also want to resolve 2mm detail on the foreground rocks and leaves. It's a golden hour situation, EV 12. I'd like to produce a 4000 x 3000 pixel image. There's a gentle wind blowing that limits shutter speed to 1/60 or faster.

What aperture should I use?

Will diffraction be an issue?

I wish I could upvote this twice! Alas, contrary to Jim Stirling's paranoid speculations, this is my only account here.

James Stirling wrote:

Jeff wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

Jeff wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

• Incorrect, it's a 40-150 2.8. However, it's efov to fx is 80-300 5.6.

It is not just effective diagonal AOV it is DOF control/ subject isolation and most critically total light gathered. In other words a FF 80-300mm F/5.6 on a FF camera will do the same job as a 40-150mm F/2.8 om m43. 70{-80}-300mm lenses are widely available and often very inexpensive. The reason being that such a slow lens is pedestrian low end in FF

Nikon AF Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4-5.6G Lens 1928 B&H Photo Video (bhphotovideo.com)

While amongst a few of the hard of thinking posters here , denial of equivalence and it's unavoidable consequences is a constant. Alas reality does not support their nonsense , equivalence applies equally to all sensor sizes from the smallest to the largest. Sadly you are not the first or no doubt last to make the same old BS fact dodging claims, it is an embarrassing tradition in the forum

Now to be clear the 40-150mm pros is a great lens for m43 but it is not the same as FF F/2.8 lens. Just as a lens on a smaller sensor format covering the same effective focal range is not the same as the 40-150mm .

is to simply ignore the sensor and concentrate on the lens.

It is rather tricky to take a photo without the lens being attached to a camera . So I would suggest that how the combination performs is all that matters \anything else is irrelevant ,

So ... here's a question.

There's a mountain scene with some foreground rocks and leaves. It's about a 30 degree angle of view. I want critical focus on the mountains so I focus to infinity. I also want to resolve 2mm detail on the foreground rocks and leaves. It's a golden hour situation, EV 12. I'd like to produce a 4000 x 3000 pixel image. There's a gentle wind blowing that limits shutter speed to 1/60 or faster.

What aperture should I use?

Will diffraction be an issue?

If your lens is not attached to a camera it really does not matter

On the contrary, this is precisely what matters.

It is diameter of the lens  opening that determines what details you'll resolve in the foreground,  that determines an upper limit on angular diffraction. Combined with the angle of view, it determines how much light you'll gather and the level of shot noise in the image.

What determines DOF is distance to the subject, angle of view, and physical lens opening. It's a geometric effect determined by these factors.

What determines light gathering is lens opening, luminance, angle of view, and 1/shutter.

If you need to buy a wide lens opening for good light gathering. A smaller format let's you do that with a shorter lens up to the point it can be made no shorter.

So why not buy the smallest format that meets your needs? No value judgement required, just some understanding what you are getting when you spend your hard-earned money.

Skeeterbytes wrote:

(a "toy lens" as I've learned just today, upthread)

Pls show where you found "toy lens", just as you quoted here.

Cheers,

Rick

Was I addressing you? Didn't think so; you shouldn't either.

Very rude answer to the simple question, instead of saying that you was not right.

faunagraphy wrote:

SonyX wrote:

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

Hey my man, im gonna be honest. If this many people are explaining your wrong, you are probably wrong. I build lenses for a living, I can assure you I know my way around a lens

My dear "Teenage pro photographer", I'm not wrong, no matter what "many people" are explaining. I can assure you, BS about 40-150/2.8 and 120-300/2.8 is pure nonsense. There are Nikon engineers, who build lenses for living, I'm sure they know better what they are doing and what is performance of their lenses.

Just like FT Olympus 150/2 or 90-250/2.8, put 120-300/2.8 via adapter on your m43 body, and you will see, they are completely different lenses. 120-300/2.8 can be used with z9, so it is effectively 45mp 120mm f/2.8 to 20mp 440mm "f/4" lens. Your new toy is not even close to it's performance.

Utter nonsense. The m43 sensor will simply ignore the excess image projection so the 120-300 will work like a 240-600mm f2.8 lens.

So, how do you compare 80-300mm lens to 240-600mm? This is the "utter nonsense"

The smaller angle of view will create an apparent DOF of a f5.6 FF lens.

The lens remains a f2.8 lens because for portion of the projected image collected by the sensor, the photons per area remain those equivalent to those from a f2.8 lens.

Yes, and you are 100% right. Now remember that each pixel is 4 times smaller on m43.

****

If the rainfall is 30cm on a rainy day, the water you collect will be 30 cm deep, whether you use a cup or a swimming pool.

Pls order 30cm of whisky in the bar and look at the barmen's reaction.

****

If you use 1 cup of pancake mix to make one pancake, and use another 1 cup to make a 4x bigger pancake, the first pancake will be 4x thicker than the second. This is the difference between a f2.8 m43 lens and a f5.6 FF lens, even if they have the same sized front element (1 cup).

And if the first pancake is fed to a child and the 2nd to an adult with a 4x bigger mouth, both will eat the same quantity of pancake mix per bite. The mouth is the sensor size.

****

I'm explaining it to you in terms you will probably understand because you clearly do not understand photographic terminology, although I'm sure you can press buttons.

Although it's more likely that you do, but your arrogance and sunk cost fallacy doesn't let you admit it.

Until you understand the limitations of your gear, you will never be as good a photographer as someone who does.

Let me give you another example, instead of your pancakes.

You have 40-150/2.8 m43 lens, that will project whole light to the sensor. Now take FF lens 80-300/5.6 that projects the light to 4 times bigger FF sensor, put focal reducer that will concentrate the whole light from the f/5.6 to the smaller sensor. There is no 0.5x speedbooster, but imaging there is one. The lens is now with EFL 40-150mm, and what aperture it will be?

Important is not amount of light per sq mm, but amount of light that was catched by each micro lens on the sensor. That is why f/2.8 lens on 1/4 size sensor will never have performance of f/2.8 lens on FF. Never!

If only you actually knew half as much as you think you do. There's a reason I sold my d700 after a week. Full frame is overrated. And you have to remember dual is, the amazing ibis, dual gain iso, and iso invariance

Do you even understand I was naming the lens, not the bokeh capabilities?  Let's use a 75-300 for comparison cause that's about as relevant as what you said i said

Bought mine used with the lens hood , and a case for $995 at KEH. Just like new. Works perfect.

john isaacs wrote:

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

This lens is so cheap!!! Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not Warren Buffet, 1500 bucks is a lot of money for me. But this lens is well worth it. It is so dang sharp, it reminds me of my Zeiss lenses. It even seems to perform better optically than my 75 1.8. This lens is so good. It takes my friend's canon 300 2.8l in my experience shooting with both. This lens feels big but small at the same time. Perfect size. The build is amazing. The ergonomics areunbeatable. I build lenses, and I have probably worked with well over 150 lenses. I only buy and keep good lenses, and chase the best glass in the world. This lens is so good. I cannot say enough about it. It's a 9500 dollar lens for 1500 bucks (comparing it to the 120-300 2.8 fl)

You cannot compare an f/2.8 m43 lens to an f/2.8 FF lens; especially not those two lenses.

And its' bokeh can be really harsh at times.

The 40-150mm's bokeh can definitely be rather ugly in some situations. I also found mine disappointingly soft wide open when used with the 1.4x TC, only really acceptably sharp stopped down to f/5.6-6.3 @ 210mm.

It's a decent enough lens, but I do find the gushing comparisons with much more expensive full frame options to be more than a little silly.

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

If only you actually knew half as much as you think you do. There's a reason I sold my d700 after a week. Full frame is overrated.

It was overrated for you, for your needs. For many other people, any camera, that is not in mobile phone, is overrated. So what?

I had 40-150/2.8 for 2 weeks and returned it. It was slightly soft on a one side at 40mm. In many situations I wouldn't notice it. But I had no reason to keep it together with ff 70-200/2.8 and d850. No regrets. But, I would never say that m43 or 40-150 are overrated, because I'm not having the lens anymore.

And you have to remember dual is, the amazing ibis, dual gain iso, and iso invariance

Why I have to remember them? What is the connection between your new lens and ISO invariance?

SonyX wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

SonyX wrote:

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

Hey my man, im gonna be honest. If this many people are explaining your wrong, you are probably wrong. I build lenses for a living, I can assure you I know my way around a lens

My dear "Teenage pro photographer", I'm not wrong, no matter what "many people" are explaining. I can assure you, BS about 40-150/2.8 and 120-300/2.8 is pure nonsense. There are Nikon engineers, who build lenses for living, I'm sure they know better what they are doing and what is performance of their lenses.

Just like FT Olympus 150/2 or 90-250/2.8, put 120-300/2.8 via adapter on your m43 body, and you will see, they are completely different lenses. 120-300/2.8 can be used with z9, so it is effectively 45mp 120mm f/2.8 to 20mp 440mm "f/4" lens. Your new toy is not even close to it's performance.

Utter nonsense. The m43 sensor will simply ignore the excess image projection so the 120-300 will work like a 240-600mm f2.8 lens.

So, how do you compare 80-300mm lens to 240-600mm? This is the "utter nonsense"

Dude ... I was saying that a 120-300 f2.8 lens with adapter on a m43 sensor will work like a native 240-600 f2.8 lens. Because that's what you spoke of above (see bold). 🤦‍♂️ I was pointing out that just because the 120-300 was made for a bigger sensor doesn't make it inherently better, as you claimed.

The smaller angle of view will create an apparent DOF of a f5.6 FF lens.

The lens remains a f2.8 lens because for portion of the projected image collected by the sensor, the photons per area remain those equivalent to those from a f2.8 lens.

Yes, and you are 100% right. Now remember that each pixel is 4 times smaller on m43.

This whole "20 MP FF sensor" is an arbitrary thing you made up when you began losing the argument. No one here ever claimed that a 20MP m43 sensor is equal in performance to a 20MP FF sensor. I've repeatedly said that difference in performance will vary based on specific sensors (megapixels) and processing power of the camera. This is why I shared charts comparing m43 sensors with high MP FF sensors.

****

If the rainfall is 30cm on a rainy day, the water you collect will be 30 cm deep, whether you use a cup or a swimming pool.

Pls order 30cm of whisky in the bar and look at the barmen's reaction.

That depends. Is it 30cm whisky in a pipette or a bucket? See my point?

Important is not amount of light per sq mm, but amount of light that was catched by each micro lens on the sensor. That is why f/2.8 lens on 1/4 size sensor will never have performance of f/2.8 lens on FF. Never!

It will if the sensor has equal pixel density (80MP FF sensor) and equivalent processing capabilities.

Consider the performance of the m43 sensor in High Resolution mode, or comparisons of the Sony A7R series with 100MP Fujifilm sensors. In both cases, performance is very similar despite differing sensor sizes.

faunagraphy wrote:

SonyX wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

SonyX wrote:

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

Hey my man, im gonna be honest. If this many people are explaining your wrong, you are probably wrong. I build lenses for a living, I can assure you I know my way around a lens

My dear "Teenage pro photographer", I'm not wrong, no matter what "many people" are explaining. I can assure you, BS about 40-150/2.8 and 120-300/2.8 is pure nonsense. There are Nikon engineers, who build lenses for living, I'm sure they know better what they are doing and what is performance of their lenses.

Just like FT Olympus 150/2 or 90-250/2.8, put 120-300/2.8 via adapter on your m43 body, and you will see, they are completely different lenses. 120-300/2.8 can be used with z9, so it is effectively 45mp 120mm f/2.8 to 20mp 440mm "f/4" lens. Your new toy is not even close to it's performance.

Utter nonsense. The m43 sensor will simply ignore the excess image projection so the 120-300 will work like a 240-600mm f2.8 lens.

So, how do you compare 80-300mm lens to 240-600mm? This is the "utter nonsense"

Dude ... I was saying that a 120-300 f2.8 lens with adapter on a m43 sensor will work like a native 240-600 f2.8 lens.

Yes, this is true.

Because that's what you spoke of above (see bold). 🤦‍♂️ I was pointing out that just because the 120-300 was made for a bigger sensor doesn't make it inherently better, as you claimed.

It is better with the bigger sensor, it is longer (again better) on the smaller sensor. It is absolutely different lens.

The smaller angle of view will create an apparent DOF of a f5.6 FF lens.

The lens remains a f2.8 lens because for portion of the projected image collected by the sensor, the photons per area remain those equivalent to those from a f2.8 lens.

Yes, and you are 100% right. Now remember that each pixel is 4 times smaller on m43.

This whole "20 MP FF sensor" is an arbitrary thing you made up when you began losing the argument. No one here ever claimed that a 20MP m43 sensor is equal in performance to a 20MP FF sensor.

No one ever claimed that aperture phisicaly changes when image (sensor size) is cropped.

I've repeatedly said that difference in performance will vary based on specific sensors (megapixels) and processing power of the camera. This is why I shared charts comparing m43 sensors with high MP FF sensors.

Why are you sharing high MP FF charts, when m43 is only 20mp? What is the sense?

****

If the rainfall is 30cm on a rainy day, the water you collect will be 30 cm deep, whether you use a cup or a swimming pool.

Pls order 30cm of whisky in the bar and look at the barmen's reaction.

That depends. Is it 30cm whisky in a pipette or a bucket? See my point?

M43 - pipette, FF - bucket? 30cm - f/2.8

Correct? Is the volume/ ammount of whisky equal?

Important is not amount of light per sq mm, but amount of light that was catched by each micro lens on the sensor. That is why f/2.8 lens on 1/4 size sensor will never have performance of f/2.8 lens on FF. Never!

It will if the sensor has equal pixel density (80MP FF sensor) and equivalent processing capabilities.

Why again do you want to compare 80mp with 20mp?

You have the privilege to have 20mp to 60mp on FF, on m43 you have 20mp sensor only.

Pixel aria is important, if you want to compare apples to apples, not pipettes with buckets.

-- hide signature --

Wildlife photography in central and western India, and the Pacific Northwest. Mostly Micro Four Thirds with some Nikon F.

SonyX wrote:

I've repeatedly said that difference in performance will vary based on specific sensors (megapixels) and processing power of the camera. This is why I shared charts comparing m43 sensors with high MP FF sensors.

Why are you sharing high MP FF charts, when m43 is only 20mp? What is the sense?

Because low MP FF sensors lack the cropability of high MP sensors, and so cannot compete with m43 in terms of reach. You could get reach comparable (not equal but close) to m43 using a Sony A7Riv for same FL and cropping, but you cannot do that with an A9.

****

If the rainfall is 30cm on a rainy day, the water you collect will be 30 cm deep, whether you use a cup or a swimming pool.

Pls order 30cm of whisky in the bar and look at the barmen's reaction.

That depends. Is it 30cm whisky in a pipette or a bucket? See my point?

M43 - pipette, FF - bucket? 30cm - f/2.8

Correct? Is the volume/ ammount of whisky equal?

Of course not. We agree on that. But this is also why it's absurd to say that a f5.6 lens on FF is as good as a f2.8 lens on m43. This was your original claim.

Important is not amount of light per sq mm, but amount of light that was catched by each micro lens on the sensor. That is why f/2.8 lens on 1/4 size sensor will never have performance of f/2.8 lens on FF. Never!

It will if the sensor has equal pixel density (80MP FF sensor) and equivalent processing capabilities.

Why again do you want to compare 80mp with 20mp?

Because there are times (esp. in nature photography) when you need either reach (by long FL or smaller, pixel-dense sensor like Four Thirds) or a high MP FF sensor with the ability to crop in post.

You have the privilege to have 20mp to 60mp on FF, on m43 you have 20mp sensor only.

But you also have brighter lenses that remain light and handholdable. So what the sensor lacks, you can compensate with better lenses.

The Sony 200-600, Nikon 200-500, Tamron 150-600 etc. weigh around 5 lb. Comparable m43 lenses weigh around 2 lb or less. Even the Leica 200mm weighs only 1200 gm and it's a f2.8 lens instead of f5.6+, and much, much better build and IQ.

M43 has f1.2 pro-grade lenses that remain relatively lightweight and affordable.

Smaller sensors also make computing faster and IBIS a lot easier, so you have the world's best IBIS by far, and unique features like ProCapture, handheld high res, live bulb, live composite etc. which are either missing from FF cameras entirely, or not as good, or were missing until recently.

Lastly, smaller sensor bodies are a lot cheaper which is a huge benefit if you're an enthusiast photographer.

Pixel aria is important, if you want to compare apples to apples, not pipettes with buckets.

You don't shoot m43 gear like FF gear because they have different strengths and weaknesses. You shoot m43 gear like m43 gear.

SonyX wrote:

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

If only you actually knew half as much as you think you do. There's a reason I sold my d700 after a week. Full frame is overrated.

It was overrated for you, for your needs. For many other people, any camera, that is not in mobile phone, is overrated. So what?

I had 40-150/2.8 for 2 weeks and returned it. It was slightly soft on a one side at 40mm. In many situations I wouldn't notice it. But I had no reason to keep it together with ff 70-200/2.8 and d850. No regrets. But, I would never say that m43 or 40-150 are overrated, because I'm not having the lens anymore.

I thought my 40-150 f2.8 was soft on one side on my Panasonic, however after borrowing friends m43 cameras for comparative tests, it turned out that my gx8 sensor box was misaligned. Panasonic fixed it under warranty and now miraculously the lens is perfect. and to think I was blaming the lens and interestingly that was because it didn't show up as a fault when using my other slower standard lenses!

And you have to remember dual is, the amazing ibis, dual gain iso, and iso invariance

Why I have to remember them? What is the connection between your new lens and ISO invariance?

-- hide signature --

Alex
http://www.instagram.com/alex_cy

faunagraphy wrote:

SonyX wrote:

I've repeatedly said that difference in performance will vary based on specific sensors (megapixels) and processing power of the camera. This is why I shared charts comparing m43 sensors with high MP FF sensors.

Why are you sharing high MP FF charts, when m43 is only 20mp? What is the sense?

Because low MP FF sensors lack the cropability of high MP sensors, and so cannot compete with m43 in terms of reach.

As I see, you completely forgot where we came here from and fighting your own war. 40-150mm vs 120-300mm, what extra reach do I need here?

You could get reach comparable (not equal but close) to m43 using a Sony A7Riv for same FL

40-150mm vs 120-300mm, where do you see the same FL?

and cropping, but you cannot do that with an A9.

On A9 I'll need 70-300/4-5.6 lens

****

If the rainfall is 30cm on a rainy day, the water you collect will be 30 cm deep, whether you use a cup or a swimming pool.

Pls order 30cm of whisky in the bar and look at the barmen's reaction.

That depends. Is it 30cm whisky in a pipette or a bucket? See my point?

M43 - pipette, FF - bucket? 30cm - f/2.8

Correct? Is the volume/ ammount of whisky equal?

Of course not.

This the only parameters you gave to compare.

We agree on that. But this is also why it's absurd to say that a f5.6 lens on FF is as good as a f2.8 lens on m43. This was your original claim.

Important is not amount of light per sq mm, but amount of light that was catched by each micro lens on the sensor. That is why f/2.8 lens on 1/4 size sensor will never have performance of f/2.8 lens on FF. Never!

It will if the sensor has equal pixel density (80MP FF sensor) and equivalent processing capabilities.

Why again do you want to compare 80mp with 20mp?

Because there are times (esp. in nature photography) when you need either reach (by long FL or smaller, pixel-dense sensor like Four Thirds) or a high MP FF sensor with the ability to crop in post.

M43 has only pixel-dense sensor, no "other times" here.

You have the privilege to have 20mp to 60mp on FF, on m43 you have 20mp sensor only.

But you also have brighter lenses that remain light and handholdable. So what the sensor lacks, you can compensate with better lenses.

That is why 40-150/2.8 should be compared to 80-300/5.6, and not to 120-300mm f/2.8

The Sony 200-600, Nikon 200-500, Tamron 150-600 etc. weigh around 5 lb. Comparable m43 lenses weigh around 2 lb or less.

There are no m43 100-300/2.5-3.1 zoom lenses

Even the Leica 200mm weighs only 1200 gm and it's a f2.8 lens instead of f5.6+, and much, much better build and IQ.

M43 has f1.2 pro-grade lenses that remain relatively lightweight and affordable.

FF50/1.8 lightweight and affordable, 25/1.2 is not.

Smaller sensors also make computing faster and IBIS a lot easier, so you have the world's best IBIS by far, and unique features like ProCapture, handheld high res, live bulb, live composite etc. which are either missing from FF cameras entirely, or not as good, or were missing until recently.

Lastly, smaller sensor bodies are a lot cheaper which is a huge benefit if you're an enthusiast photographer.

Pixel aria is important, if you want to compare apples to apples, not pipettes with buckets.

You don't shoot m43 gear like FF gear because they have different strengths and weaknesses. You shoot m43 gear like m43 gear.

Adrian Harris wrote:

SonyX wrote:

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

If only you actually knew half as much as you think you do. There's a reason I sold my d700 after a week. Full frame is overrated.

It was overrated for you, for your needs. For many other people, any camera, that is not in mobile phone, is overrated. So what?

I had 40-150/2.8 for 2 weeks and returned it. It was slightly soft on a one side at 40mm. In many situations I wouldn't notice it. But I had no reason to keep it together with ff 70-200/2.8 and d850. No regrets. But, I would never say that m43 or 40-150 are overrated, because I'm not having the lens anymore.

I thought my 40-150 f2.8 was soft on one side on my Panasonic, however after borrowing friends m43 cameras for comparative tests, it turned out that my gx8 sensor box was misaligned. Panasonic fixed it under warranty and now miraculously the lens is perfect. and to think I was blaming the lens and interestingly that was because it didn't show up as a fault when using my other slower standard lenses!

Unfortunately, it was not my case. The lens was tested on g85 and g9 with the same result.

And you have to remember dual is, the amazing ibis, dual gain iso, and iso invariance

Why I have to remember them? What is the connection between your new lens and ISO invariance?

-- hide signature --

Alex
http://www.instagram.com/alex_cy

-- hide signature --

Adrian
http://www.artfotografia.co.uk/