Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: BJL on March 03, 2020, 03:00:05 pm
-
I was happy to see in another thread a lot of interest is smaller but still optically excellent zoom lenses for the new MILC systems, like f/4 instead of f/2.8. This seems a natural opportunity given that the far higher usable exposure index (“ISO”) of modern cameras reduces the need for bigger lenses in a big range of high quality photographic work. When “big glass” was for speed with film, f/4 now gives more speed than any lens—zoom or prime—gave with film. And one thing that appeals to me is the wider zoom range that f/4 designs can give while maintaining good optical quality, potentially reducing the lens load from two to one or three to two, in turn making it more viable to have all lenses needed attached to a body and ready for use.
There’s one other change I’d like to see as new lens systems are being built from scratch: moving on from constant minimum f-stop designs to things like f/2.8-4 (or f/4-5.6 at longer focal lengths), which as far as I know can be of about the same weight and cost as f/4 (respect. F/5.6) designs and perform as well at the common apertures, while offering more speed (and DOF control) towards the short end.
The historic advantage of ”constant speed” designs was a limitation of mechanically coupled aperture settings causing f-stop to vary when zooming—a problem long solved.
-
I was happy to see in another thread a lot of interest is smaller but still optically excellent zoom lenses for the new MILC systems, like f/4 instead of f/2.8. This seems a natural opportunity given that the far higher usable exposure index (“ISO”) of modern cameras reduces the need for bigger lenses in a big range of high quality photographic work. When “big glass” was for speed with film, f/4 now gives more speed than any lens—zoom or prime—gave with film. And one thing that appeals to me is the wider zoom range that f/4 designs can give while maintaining good optical quality, potentially reducing the lens load from two to one or three to two, in turn making it more viable to have all lenses needed attached to a body and ready for use.
There’s one other change I’d like to see as new lens systems are being built from scratch: moving on from constant minimum f-stop designs to things like f/2.8-4 (or f/4-5.6 at longer focal lengths), which as far as I know can be of about the same weight and cost as f/4 (respect. F/5.6) designs and perform as well at the common apertures, while offering more speed (and DOF control) towards the short end.
The historic advantage of ”constant speed” designs was a limitation of mechanically coupled aperture settings causing f-stop to vary when zooming—a problem long solved.
I like what I'm seeing from Voightlander and Sony with respect to primes, especially at the wide end, in keeping the weight and size of the lens in mind when designing the lens. One big factor for me switching to mirrorless system was to save on bulk and weight...and with the "pissing match race" to design the highest image quality lens without any regard to the size of the lens...well that's not for me.
I've learned long ago that chasing the last 1% of anything is a losing battle and really does not amount to any differences in the end, be it in photography, road bikes, fly rods...you name it.
-
I like what I'm seeing from Voightlander and Sony with respect to primes, especially at the wide end, in keeping the weight and size of the lens in mind when designing the lens. One big factor for me switching to mirrorless system was to save on bulk and weight...and with the "pissing match race" to design the highest image quality lens without any regard to the size of the lens...well that's not for me.
I've learned long ago that chasing the last 1% of anything is a losing battle and really does not amount to any differences in the end, be it in photography, road bikes, fly rods...you name it.
The race doesn't seem to be for the highest image quality - rather, for the widest aperture. From f/1.4, to f/1.2, now to f/0.95.
That isn't necessarily a bad thing for primes. After all, one of the main reasons to use primes is for their aperture and subject isolation ability. And, of course, the lighter options are still available if you decide that you can live with f/1.8 instead of f/1.4.
It makes far less sense with zooms. An f/2.8 zoom is twice the size or more of an f/4 zoom, while requiring design compromises that lead it to being less sharp than an f/4 zoom would be, were the f/4 zoom designed with the same budget in mind. So, you're sacrificing size, and, potentially, optical quality. At the same time, the f/2.8 zoom is never going to isolate subjects as well, or be as sharp, as an even faster prime. So it's caught in the middle - capable of doing most things reasonably well, but not as fast as the primes, not as sharp as either primes or what can be achieved with good f/4 zooms, and larger and heavier than both.
There is definitely a place for f/2.8 zooms, and they need to be among the first lenses brought out by a manufacturer, since their place is in event, wedding and photojournalistic-style photography. But most users don't need that. A generalist photographer, who shoots a bit of everything, might need one or two fast primes, at favoured focal lengths for portraits, environmental portraits or whatever else you want subject isolation for, but, for the rest of your focal length range, you'd just need something as sharp, light and small as possible. Good f/4 zooms (which would likely cost as much as good f/2.8 zooms) would do that very well. f/2.8 zooms do both jobs poorly.
-
Disclaimer: I am not a zoom aficionado at all.
I have owned - briefly - a Nikkor AF-S 2.8/24-70 ED which hit me for € 1418.42 from my wholesaler back in '09. It was the worst Nikkor that I have bought; the only one in fact that let me down that badly. It was huge, and the image quality sucked. It was absolutely not the handy walk around lens I had imagined. And yes, bought sight unseen because even the wholesaler didn't carry much stock.
A smaller aperture one might well be less bulky, but today even f4 seems a bit of a sacrifice.
Some say that faster lenses than f2.8 are a conceit; no, they are very useful tools that widen your options. If you intend to shoot stopped down to f8 and below, you may as well carry slow primes instead. Zooming with your feet seems entirely feasible if you are dealing with subjects that require great DOF, for I'd guess you would probably not be working off a tripod very much. Time might well be on your side, making zooming a non-essential.
Anyway, in my own defence: never owned a zoom in my entire professional career; it was an amateur's mistake...
:-)
Rob
-
Disclaimer: I am not a zoom aficionado at all.
I have owned - briefly - a Nikkor AF-S 2.8/24-70 ED which hit me for € 1418.42 from my wholesaler back in '09. It was the worst Nikkor that I have bought; the only one in fact that let me down that badly. It was huge, and the image quality sucked. It was absolutely not the handy walk around lens I had imagined. And yes, bought sight unseen because even the wholesaler didn't carry much stock.
A smaller aperture one might well be less bulky, but today even f4 seems a bit of a sacrifice.
Some say that faster lenses than f2.8 are a conceit; no, they are very useful tools that widen your options. If you intend to shoot stopped down to f8 and below, you may as well carry slow primes instead. Zooming with your feet seems entirely feasible if you are dealing with subjects that require great DOF, for I'd guess you would probably not be working off a tripod very much. Time might well be on your side, making zooming a non-essential.
Anyway, in my own defence: never owned a zoom in my entire professional career; it was an amateur's mistake...
:-)
Rob
It depends, for instance, I've no use for a fast wide zoom. Longer focal lengths, certainly, but they are all primes.
Horses for our individual courses.
-
It depends, for instance, I've no use for a fast wide zoom. Longer focal lengths, certainly, but they are all primes.
Horses for our individual courses.
No arguments there!
Got through my annual (after 80) driving test medical today, so if this place sells I can still drive back to Britain, but who knows whether it or here will have been quarantined by then.
What a friggin' mess it's turning out to be.
Rob
-
No arguments there!
Got through my annual (after 80) driving test medical today, so if this place sells I can still drive back to Britain, but who knows whether it or here will have been quarantined by then.
What a friggin' mess it's turning out to be.
Rob
Rob, that is good news: albeit amongst a sea of bad.
Best
Keith
-
Zooms are necessary for documentary (journalistic) photography, where absolute crystal-clear image quality isn't as important as having a good, usable image. The reproduction will have more effect on image quality than your original file. And if you're at a sporting event with fences, or a political event with large crowds and security, or even a musical event, or shooting military stuff, you can't always, or even usually, "zoom with your feet." So they have their uses, but why in God's name Nikon is putting out f2.8 zooms for its Z system is not something I've been able to figure out. The first "kit" zoom was an f4, it's fairly compact, and my sample is very good, and it fit well with the compact body. Then, they started with the f2.8s which are not only unnecessary, but huge, and a poor fit for the small body. I'm simply not going to buy them. I would buy a 70-200 (and maybe even the wide-angle room, though I don't much shoot wide) if they were f4. I simply see little use for the huge f2.8 elephant gun zooms any more. I have a (now aging) F system, and I did carry a 70-200 around town a few days ago, stuck on the Z adapter, and the whole assembly sorta sucked. The lack of f4 zooms is causing me to reevaluate my commitment to Nikon, although I've shot Nikon since the 70s. I did carry three f2.8 zooms around Iraq a decade and a half ago, and it was a load then; I'm now old, and I'm not going to do that anymore.
-
F/2.8 zooms are vital. They're 'do everything' lenses that do a decent job of almost anything, without requiring lens changes - a photojournalist's or event photographer's ideal tool. To that end, they are optimised for versatility over other considerations - they can isolate subjects, but not like a prime, and they are fairly sharp, but not like a prime, and not like an f/4 zoom could be. They are ideal for a role that requires this versatility in a single lens but does not require ultimate sharpness and can manage with big, heavy lenses.
Canon are on to a good thing with their f/2 zooms. Huge and heavy, they take what an f/2.8 zoom can do and do it even better, taking subject isolation to prime-like levels (if not equal to the widest primes) at the cost of weight. For certain wedding photographers, this may be acceptable.
High-end (as opposed to budget-oriented consumer-end) f/4 zooms are different, despite sharing similar focal lengths. They are likely to be used less by the always-ready, shoot-from-the-hip event photographer's or photojournalist and more by those more deliberate, slower-paced photographers who would like a prime's sharpness, but don't need the wide aperture (at least at most focal lengths) and could use a zoom to be able to shoot at a range of focal lengths instead of carrying a bag of primes, since they're rarely using the prime's aperture and subject isolation ability anyway. Unlike consumer zooms, which have a strict price constraint and need to be a one-lens-does-most solution for those who are only ever to bring one or two lenses, these zooms would be designed with much looser price constraints and an emphasis on image quality rather than large zoom range - users of these lenses are likely to be willing to buy and carry several lenses, unless going ultra-light for a specific outing. Like the f/2.8 zooms, they would also need good dust and weather sealing, since they'd commonly be used in adverse conditions.
Beyond the obvious aperture difference, the key difference between a f/2.8 zoom and a premium f/4 zoom is the difference in design focus. F/2.8 zooms are meant to shoot everything and anything, with minimal lens changing, but without necessarily being the best at anything. F/4 lenses would be much more focused - designed to excel image quality wise, with the ability to replace primes within the limits of their aperture range (or at f/5.6 and below, at least), without any pretence of also being ideal for subject isolation. They would likely supplant the slower primes (say, the Zeiss Batis line) while complementing other, faster primes, allowing a user to have prime-level image quality throughout the zoom range, while adding one or two primes for subject isolation or low-light capability at the focal lengths where they are really required.
-
Zooms, even f4 versions, are too big and cumbersome compared to light prime if one is to carry their gear around their wrist or neck all day. I have a couple of f4 zooms and much prefer using small fast primes when traveling. I use the zooms when shooting landscapes and need a focal length not covered by a prime. I used to take my f4 zooms with me while traveling, but they saw so little use I decided to not take them anymore. Too slow for inside dim locations or evening shooting and to big / heavy to lug around all day for weeks on end.
My travel kit is all primes ( 25, 35, 85 )...looking closely at the latest Sony 20 1.8
-
Zooms, even f4 versions, are too big and cumbersome compared to light prime if one is to carry their gear around their wrist or neck all day. I have a couple of f4 zooms and much prefer using small fast primes when traveling. I use the zooms when shooting landscapes and need a focal length not covered by a prime. I used to take my f4 zooms with me while traveling, but they saw so little use I decided to not take them anymore. Too slow for inside dim locations or evening shooting and to big / heavy to lug around all day for weeks on end.
My travel kit is all primes ( 25, 35, 85 )...looking closely at the latest Sony 20 1.8
That's all well and good if you just need to cover one or two focal lengths.
Many times, you need lots of different focal lengths. You need them to be sharp, you may not need them at wide aperture, but you need them available. 'Foot zooming' is all well and good when shooting people, but isn't an option when shooting landscapes or architecture, due to space constraints, perspective changes or changes in relative size or position between scene elements.
A single zoom will generally be larger and heavier than a small prime (unless you're comparing, say, an f/4 zoom with an f/1.4 prime). But a single f/4 zoom will almost certainly be smaller and lighter than the three or four primes it would replace if you needed coverage throughout the zoom range.
It's not an ultralight option - it's an option to have when trying to maximise your capabilities for a given weight, by adding capabilities where you need them and not adding excess size and weight for capabilities you're never going to use anyway.
-
That's all well and good if you just need to cover one or two focal lengths.
Many times, you need lots of different focal lengths. You need them to be sharp, you may not need them at wide aperture, but you need them available. 'Foot zooming' is all well and good when shooting people, but isn't an option when shooting landscapes or architecture, due to space constraints, perspective changes or changes in relative size or position between scene elements.
A single zoom will generally be larger and heavier than a small prime (unless you're comparing, say, an f/4 zoom with an f/1.4 prime). But a single f/4 zoom will almost certainly be smaller and lighter than the three or four primes it would replace if you needed coverage throughout the zoom range.
It's not an ultralight option - it's an option to have when trying to maximise your capabilities for a given weight, by adding capabilities where you need them and not adding excess size and weight for capabilities you're never going to use anyway.
I'm not worried about the overall weight of my kit...it's the weight of the camera and lens hanging off my wrist that is critical.
For landscapes, yes I take along the zooms in my pack and using them off a tripod removes the excessive weight. For travel, cultural, street etc... I use primes for my stated reasons...weight and bulk. When I have a certain prime ( focal length ) I look for images that I can make with that lens and not worry about other focal lengths. Totally different mindset using a single focal length versus a zoom with many focal lengths. For me, I find it much more enjoyable way to shoot and I feel I get more focus on the subjects resulting in stronger images.
So for travel, it's primes all the way for their weight and better use in dim environments. For landscape I take both zooms and primes, but mostly shoot primes.
-
I'm not worried about the overall weight of my kit...it's the weight of the camera and lens hanging off my wrist that is critical.
For landscapes, yes I take along the zooms in my pack and using them off a tripod removes the excessive weight. For travel, cultural, street etc... I use primes for my stated reasons...weight and bulk. When I have a certain prime ( focal length ) I look for images that I can make with that lens and not worry about other focal lengths. Totally different mindset using a single focal length versus a zoom with many focal lengths. For me, I find it much more enjoyable way to shoot and I feel I get more focus on the subjects resulting in stronger images.
So for travel, it's primes all the way for their weight and better use in dim environments. For landscape I take both zooms and primes, but mostly shoot primes.
For me, that is key.
It's been years since I left home with more than one camera with one choice-of-the-mood lens attached.
Sure, when I was working, I had no choice but to drag everything along.
To amplify a little on my rationale for a single lens at a time: it concentrates the mind in the same way as does refusing to wander around seeking pictures with another photographer - or anyone, in fact, hanging around me and chatting and generally messing with my mind and adding extraneous pressures where and when there should be none.
Rob
-
For me, that is key.
It's been years since I left home with more than one camera with one choice-of-the-mood lens attached.
Sure, when I was working, I had no choice but to drag everything along.
To amplify a little on my rationale for a single lens at a time: it concentrates the mind in the same way as does refusing to wander around seeking pictures with another photographer - or anyone, in fact, hanging around me and chatting and generally messing with my mind and adding extraneous pressures where and when there should be none.
Rob
Agreed, but it’s possible to use zooms that way also.
- pre set the zoom to the focal length you feel like using at that moment,
- frame
- either shoot as is or just use the zooming capability not to find a FL that works but to fine tube the framing so as to minimize the amount of cropping needed in post
It’s just the way you perceive and use a given capability. Our brain has the ability to control that. 😀
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Agreed, but it’s possible to use zooms that way also.
- pre set the zoom to the focal length you feel like using at that moment,
- frame
- either shoot as is or just use the zooming capability not to find a FL that works but to fine tube the framing so as to minimize the amount of cropping needed in post
It’s just the way you perceive and use a given capability. Our brain has the ability to control that. 😀
Cheers,
Bernard
Few differences for me.
1. Zooms weigh more than primes so that extra weight starts to be felt after hours of shooting.
2. Primes are typically faster so allowing better opportunities when things get dim.
3. Not having that ability to just zoom anytime to crop better in the back of my mind clears things up to totally focus on images with the focal length attached to the camera.
Yes one can force themselves to use only one focal length of the zoom...but the question to be asked is why not just use a prime?
-
I had to do a spell of event photography last year mostly indoors and without fast zooms that deliver a decent image at 2.8 at all focal lengths I would have been sunk. They exist for a reason.
That said, if I am out for myself I will use a good prime nearly all the time. I just enjoy it more and as someone said above, I look for images my prime's focal length is suited to and pass the others by. Every new day, there is an infinitely of new images to make. No one is missing out.
For travel I have found the Olympus 12-100mm f4 (equiv 24-200mm) hard to better, plus one prime. The 12-100mm is good at all focal lengths and not too big or heavy. Pretty good indoors for architecture because the stabilisation on Oly cameras is very efficient. A great travel or general-purpose lens.
So fast is good and so is slow. Entirely depends on the circumstances.
-
I had to do a spell of event photography last year mostly indoors and without fast zooms that deliver a decent image at 2.8 at all focal lengths I would have been sunk. They exist for a reason.
...
That said, if I am out for myself I will use a good prime nearly all the time...
I do a lot of Art-event photography and do it all with 1.4 primes. 2 stops means 6400 asa or 1600 asa - - some difference.
-
I do a lot of Art-event photography and do it all with 1.4 primes. 2 stops means 6400 asa or 1600 asa - - some difference.
Yes, of course. Because you're talking about specialized photography. When I have friends over to shoot portraits, which I much enjoy doing, I almost always use a fast 85 or 105, especially out in the garden when I want the background color but I also want the sitter isolated. That's not the ideal place for a zoom, IMHO, even a fast one. There, you *can* zoom with your feet, or hers.
When doing street, though, a compact f4 24-70 zoom is perfect, and it's not going to break your wrist. I really don't go out in the mood for a particular lens, and I'm not particularly able to say to myself, "There's an infinity of new images to take." When I go for walks around my town, with picture taking in mind, and a Z6, I often take no images at all, or perhaps only one or two, because I really have to think there's something at least a bit exceptional about what I'm shooting. I'm not just taking one shot of a possible infinity, in my mind, anyway. When I see something I really want, images that often exist only momentarily, I don't want the camera to be wearing a 35 and I need a 70. (And then, when I get home, even if I've taken only one shot of something I thought was exceptional, I often finally decide that it isn't.)
Really, this whole conversation is somewhat meaningless. We all have slightly different purposes and tastes, and we find the lenses we need. I will sometimes leave a portrait session and then walk around with an 85 on the camera without feeling especially handicapped by it, just like I don't feel handicapped when I'm walking around seeing images but have no camera at all.
-
Yes, of course. Because you're talking about specialized photography. When I have friends over to shoot portraits, which I much enjoy doing, I almost always use a fast 85 or 105, especially out in the garden when I want the background color but I also want the sitter isolated. That's not the ideal place for a zoom, IMHO, even a fast one. There, you *can* zoom with your feet, or hers.
When doing street, though, a compact f4 24-70 zoom is perfect, and it's not going to break your wrist. I really don't go out in the mood for a particular lens, and I'm not particularly able to say to myself, "There's an infinity of new images to take." When I go for walks around my town, with picture taking in mind, and a Z6, I often take no images at all, or perhaps only one or two, because I really have to think there's something at least a bit exceptional about what I'm shooting. I'm not just taking one shot of a possible infinity, in my mind, anyway. When I see something I really want, images that often exist only momentarily, I don't want the camera to be wearing a 35 and I need a 70. (And then, when I get home, even if I've taken only one shot of something I thought was exceptional, I often finally decide that it isn't.)
Really, this whole conversation is somewhat meaningless. We all have slightly different purposes and tastes, and we find the lenses we need. I will sometimes leave a portrait session and then walk around with an 85 on the camera without feeling especially handicapped by it, just like I don't feel handicapped when I'm walking around seeing images but have no camera at all.
Kinda sums it up, really.
However, I perhaps see the walking around bit differently. If I have no camera with me, photography very, very rarely enters my head; if I do have one, then I am clearly predispositioned and in the mood to make snaps, which means that at such moments I honestly do feel there are as many possibilities as there are panes of glass that a shop front can offer.
That doesn't come without is own problem, though: after a few years, I got to know those fronts too well, and feel that continuing to use them would become repetition rather than new work. Which may be interesting enough for a casual viewer not carrying the mental baggage of history, but not so for me.
That's where working with people becomes so much more rewarding because the operational options are greater: you can let them give your something - as the windows - talk and direct them, or just play games between the two of you, the best way - at least for me. The worst thing is a wooden model who gives you zilch and just blinks at the wrong moment. A polite exit or a feigned equipment malfunction is the only answer.
What happens when I get the latent (there's a throwback!) images/files home? First of all, I take a pretty quick look at them to see the shape, and if I like it or feel I can cut into any part of it, I keep it. I think shape/design/geometry, call it what you will, is really a governing aspect of images. They need a sort of internal completeness (something a square helps, forces? into your framing). After that, it's a matter of understanding what made me press the tit in the first place, and sometimes it's obvious and at other times not quite so much. Then, recognition complete, it's time to work on it to bring it out.
Mostly though, my intuition doesn't let my sense of whether there is something there or not, down. Trusting your intuition is essential: without it you would shoot nothing or, worse, everything. It's back to basic principles: you have it in your make-up, or you do not. Anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to sell you something. I know: having been bought a guitar at around age eleven taught me that sad lesson: wishing ain't enough.
Rob
-
@John Camp: “Really, this whole conversation is somewhat meaningless”.
Agreed that such conversations become meaningless when they are turned into either/or, black and white (and no grayscale) verbal battles.
Perhaps I should have made it clearer up front that I am seeing some role for smaller but still high quality zoom lenses in addition to all the valuable well-established options, and asked in terms of the degree of interest they are likely to attract. Many responses so far are divided between “yes, I would like more such lenses” and “no, I personally have no use for them and nor do [some categories of] professional photographers, so they are pointless”.
P. S. I am happy carrying a camera with lenses like my 12-60/2.8–4 or 50–200/2.8–3.5 all day on an urban or wildlife outing, but I have no disagreement with those who prefer less weight and have less desire to handle a wide FOV range on such outings, or are more willing to make multiple lens changes in the field.
-
I am a fan of fast prime lenses and have no interest in variable speed zooms. The fact that the sensor in a ML body is closer to the lens mount means that faster lenses are possible. For me, the weight is simply a reality of the F2.8 zooms and the more efficient sensors means better images in darker venues.
-
@John Camp: “Really, this whole conversation is somewhat meaningless”.
Agreed that such conversations become meaningless when they are turned into either/or, black and white (and no grayscale) verbal battles.
Perhaps I should have made it clearer up front that I am seeing some role for smaller but still high quality zoom lenses in addition to all the valuable well-established options, and asked in terms of the degree of interest they are likely to attract. Many responses so far are divided between “yes, I would like more such lenses” and “no, I personally have no use for them and nor do [some categories of] professional photographers, so they are pointless”.
P. S. I am happy carrying a camera with lenses like my 12-60/2.8–4 or 50–200/2.8–3.5 all day on an urban or wildlife outing, but I have no disagreement with those who prefer less weight and have less desire to handle a wide FOV range on such outings, or are more willing to make multiple lens changes in the field.
I see the same thing. I shoot Micro 4/3s these days, and I'm very happy that some zooms like you describe are becoming available.
I would also like to point out, regarding the zooms vs. primes argument, that only zooms allow you to control both perspective and framing simultaneously. I mostly do landscape work, and often I'll want certain elements in the foreground, framed in the right balance with the background. The perspective needed dictates where I stand, and then the framing dictates the focal length.
For how I work, zooms are by far the better option. Others druthers may be different. :)
-
I would also like to point out, regarding the zooms vs. primes argument, that only zooms allow you to control both perspective and framing simultaneously. I mostly do landscape work, and often I'll want certain elements in the foreground, framed in the right balance with the background. The perspective needed dictates where I stand, and then the framing dictates the focal length.
For how I work, zooms are by far the better option. Others druthers may be different. :)
Exactly. 'Foot zooming' isn't a thing when you have more than one important element in a scene, and is sometimes impossible anyway due to topological constraints. This applies to almost all landscape photography, but also to urban scenes, etc. A sharp zoom is critical.
At the same time, when shooting these subjects, you rarely need f/2.8, or even f/4. And, when you want something fast or with shallow DOF, you normally want something faster than f/2.8 anyway. Hence the f/4 zoom setup, with the addition of one or two fast primes, plus a macro. Unfortunately, with f/4 zooms not usually living up to their f/2.8 siblings, we're often stuck carrying the extra dead weight just to get a sharp lens, without ever actually using them wide-open.
-
Poor old St Ansel. How he survived and made a reputation as the world's leading landscape shooter, all without zooms, is one of life's great mysteries.
;-)
-
Poor old St Ansel. How he survived and made a reputation as the world's leading landscape shooter, all without zooms, is one of life's great mysteries.
;-)
He also shot on large format film. You can take a lot of crops out of that.
Cropping is basically large format's equivalent of zooming.
-
FWIW, I have owned the Nikkor 70-200mm and currently use the Sony equivalent. They are 2 of the best lenses I have used. Of course that is by far my most used focal length range.
-
FWIW, I have owned the Nikkor 70-200mm and currently use the Sony equivalent. They are 2 of the best lenses I have used. Of course that is by far my most used focal length range.
The Sony 70-200/2.8 seems to have some peculiarities which make it ideal for portraits and events, but less than optimal as an all-purpose lens which also has to shoot landscapes, buildings, etc.
Essentially, it's much sharper at portrait distance, and other nearer distances, than it is at infinity.
This is probably why some tests, shooting at portrait distance, say it's the sharpest 70-200 out there, but others, shooting at infinity, find it to be poorer than its Canon and Nikon counterparts.
The 90/2.8 macro exhibits this behaviour to an even greater extent, but, as a dedicated macro lens and labelled as such, can be excused for it - it's meant to be optimised for close subjects, not shooting at infinity.
The 70-200/2.8 is probably designed that way too, to an extent, to satisfy its event/wedding/portrait photographer base, but this leaves it less than ideal as an all-round short-to-medium telephoto lens. In the focal lengths that it overlaps, the 100-400/4.5-5.6 has no such predilection for shorter focus distances, and, when shooting more distant subjects at the same focal length and aperture, seems sharper.
Also, like a lot of other Sony lenses, it also seems to have significant copy-to-copy variation. I've seen some that were as sharp as the Nikon, as well as others so soft I thought they were from a cheap telephoto bundled with an entry-level body and a kit lens.
-
Poor old St Ansel. How he survived and made a reputation as the world's leading landscape shooter, all without zooms, is one of life's great mysteries.
;-)
Especially given how many high-quality large format zooms he had to choose from. :)
-
He also shot on large format film. You can take a lot of crops out of that.
Cropping is basically large format's equivalent of zooming.
Tu!t tut! you are denying the very point of large format, which is exactly the same as with any other smaller one: fill the frame. That's the whole point of the size and inconvenience: to get better quality out of it. Even a politician could figure that one out: the smaller the area you use, then the worse the outcome. It's not as if LF had some magical property spread across its acreage: it does not, and in fact, the smaller the format the more successful the lens designer in concentrating definition on smaller areas.
You can't cut a 24mm x 36mm bit out of an 8" x 10" film and imagine you can use that cutting up and get the same result as from the real 135 format equipment; no way no how.
-
Tu!t tut! you are denying the very point of large format, which is exactly the same as with any other smaller one: fill the frame. That's the whole point of the size and inconvenience: to get better quality out of it. Even a politician could figure that one out: the smaller the area you use, then the worse the outcome. It's not as if LF had some magical property spread across its acreage: it does not, and in fact, the smaller the format the more successful the lens designer in concentrating definition on smaller areas.
You can't cut a 24mm x 36mm bit out of an 8" x 10" film and imagine you can use that cutting up and get the same result as from the real 135 format equipment; no way no how.
The larger the format, the less precise the lens needs to be.
And the point of cropping with large format isn't to crop 8x10 to 4x5 or any other extreme crops. By the time you needed to crop that much, you'd probably already have another lens that could fill the full frame at the desired angle of view. Rather, it's small crops - cropping 8x10 to 6x9, 7x9 or similar, for example - to change the angle of view of the final image, a bit like cropping a shot from a 24mm lens to achieve a similar angle of view of a 27mm or 28mm lens. But if you needed the angle of view of a 35mm lens, you wouldn't do a huge crop to get there - you'd likely have a different prime for the job.
That's how landscape photography works with primes. You're either cropping or stitching. In Adam's time, there wasn't much stitching, and there still aren't really any zooms for large format, so cropping it is. You take your camera and a boxful of lenses that, together, cover the required zoom range without too much cropping required, shoot with the most appropriate lens, then crop to final composition. With a good selection of lenses (say, six lenses to cover the 16-135mm equivalent focal length range) you won't require a huge amount of cropping. But you don't compromise your final composition and frame the scene at 24mm when you really need 28mm, just because you only have 24mm available. Large formats have plenty of resolution to spare - they can take a small crop. Unless your goal is ultimate resolution rather than a well-composed photo, in which case you should probably just bring a Gigapan and the longest lens you can reasonably fit onto it.
-
The larger the format, the less precise the lens needs to be.
And the point of cropping with large format isn't to crop 8x10 to 4x5 or any other extreme crops. By the time you needed to crop that much, you'd probably already have another lens that could fill the full frame at the desired angle of view. Rather, it's small crops - cropping 8x10 to 6x9, 7x9 or similar, for example - to change the angle of view of the final image, a bit like cropping a shot from a 24mm lens to achieve a similar angle of view of a 27mm or 28mm lens. But if you needed the angle of view of a 35mm lens, you wouldn't do a huge crop to get there - you'd likely have a different prime for the job.
That's how landscape photography works with primes. You're either cropping or stitching. In Adam's time, there wasn't much stitching, and there still aren't really any zooms for large format, so cropping it is. You take your camera and a boxful of lenses that, together, cover the required zoom range without too much cropping required, shoot with the most appropriate lens, then crop to final composition. With a good selection of lenses (say, six lenses to cover the 16-135mm equivalent focal length range) you won't require a huge amount of cropping. But you don't compromise your final composition and frame the scene at 24mm when you really need 28mm, just because you only have 24mm available. Large formats have plenty of resolution to spare - they can take a small crop. Unless your goal is ultimate resolution rather than a well-composed photo, in which case you should probably just bring a Gigapan and the longest lens you can reasonably fit onto it.
Grandmother, eggs, the sucking of...
:-)
-
Poor old St Ansel. How he survived and made a reputation as the world's leading landscape shooter, all without zooms, is one of life's great mysteries.
;-)
Prime lenses for view cameras are all relatively tiny. The focal length is accommodated by the bellows, and he certainly wasn’t interested in wide apertures. So he was able to carry a selection of primes in a small space, especially compared to the overall size of his "kit".
-
The Sony 70-200/2.8 seems to have some peculiarities which make it ideal for portraits and events, but less than optimal as an all-purpose lens which also has to shoot landscapes, buildings, etc.
Essentially, it's much sharper at portrait distance, and other nearer distances, than it is at infinity.
This is probably why some tests, shooting at portrait distance, say it's the sharpest 70-200 out there, but others, shooting at infinity, find it to be poorer than its Canon and Nikon counterparts.
The 90/2.8 macro exhibits this behaviour to an even greater extent, but, as a dedicated macro lens and labelled as such, can be excused for it - it's meant to be optimised for close subjects, not shooting at infinity.
The 70-200/2.8 is probably designed that way too, to an extent, to satisfy its event/wedding/portrait photographer base, but this leaves it less than ideal as an all-round short-to-medium telephoto lens. In the focal lengths that it overlaps, the 100-400/4.5-5.6 has no such predilection for shorter focus distances, and, when shooting more distant subjects at the same focal length and aperture, seems sharper.
Also, like a lot of other Sony lenses, it also seems to have significant copy-to-copy variation. I've seen some that were as sharp as the Nikon, as well as others so soft I thought they were from a cheap telephoto bundled with an entry-level body and a kit lens.
I am using the Sony 70-200 f4. Compact and a sturdy construction. Could be just my copy but super sharp. A bread and butter lens for me.
-
I see the same thing. I shoot Micro 4/3s these days, and I'm very happy that some zooms like you describe are becoming available.
I would also like to point out, regarding the zooms vs. primes argument, that only zooms allow you to control both perspective and framing simultaneously. I mostly do landscape work, and often I'll want certain elements in the foreground, framed in the right balance with the background. The perspective needed dictates where I stand, and then the framing dictates the focal length.
For how I work, zooms are by far the better option. Others druthers may be different. :)
Just like to point out that perspective is determined by where your feet are; not what focal length you use, zoom or otherwise. ;D
-
Just like to point out that perspective is determined by where your feet are; not what focal length you use, zoom or otherwise. ;D
True that. You can no more zoom with your feet than you can change perspective by zooming.
-
I am using the Sony 70-200 f4. Compact and a sturdy construction. Could be just my copy but super sharp. A bread and butter lens for me.
My Nikkor 70-200 F4 is very sharp, too. Even better, it's just as sharp at F4 as it is at F8. Close-focusing is another bonus. :)
My earlier, first-gen Nikkor 70-200 F2.8 VR was notably soft at F2.8. All that weight and cost were for naught.
-
Just like to point out that perspective is determined by where your feet are; not what focal length you use, zoom or otherwise. ;D
Quite; so many don't realise that, thinking mistakenly that perspective is governed by focal length. This is sometimes the result of seeing lens distortions and thinking those are perspective effects, such as when trying to shoot a close-up of a face with a wide-angle lens.
An extension of that is the confusion about DOF where wides are understood to give more DOF than longer lenses. Not so: all lenses, regardless of focal length, offer the same DOF at the same aperture and magnification.
-
Just like to point out that perspective is determined by where your feet are; not what focal length you use, zoom or otherwise. ;D
I believe that’s exactly what I said, no?
“The perspective needed dictates where I stand...”
-
I can’t argue with the perspective versus the positioning of your feet. However, it’s good to stand still (pun intended!) by the fact what it not only means in a 2D plane but in 3D space as well.
Have a look at the attached overview that I grabbed somewhere from the Interweb (don’t know where I got it from, kudos go to the creator of this overview, not to me).
Regards,
Jaap
-
The best lens is the one makes best the camera ready.
Prime is usually more camera ready under challenging (low light) lighting conditions.
Zoom is usually more camera ready under challenging composition conditions.
Choosing one or the other is choosing the opportunity. Can't say which is always better.
-
I see some replies here are of a pretty special photographic point of view.
In case you are looking for allround lenses for general purposes, i.e. for stills and video, preferably with the same body, I found the smaller and lighter options of MFT a big relief.
After having carried around 400/2.8 and 4.0/600 primes for years (wildlife stills & video) I am enjoying (as an example) the combination of a quality body like the Pana GH5 with the Pana/Leica Vario-Elmar 100-400mm/4.0-6.3 fully satisfiying.
The weight being almost a 1/10 of the former and the picture quality, especially video quality matching the heavy full frame equipment in most (95%) cases.