Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > A Lens cannot be good and bad.

Reply
Thread Tools

A Lens cannot be good and bad.

 
 
tomm42
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-25-2006
There are some trulyt great lenses, that every one agrees on like the
70-200 f2.8 VR Nikon and 80-200 f2.8 IS Canon. Now I didn't buy one of
those because of 1) cost 2)weight. What I bought was a 70-210 f4 Nikon,
an older lens, 2nd hand, cost 1/10 of the f2.8s. I feel it is a very
good lens, read a review of it yesterday that said it was an amateur
lens at best. I know mine is better than that, I have some photos from
it that have stopped people in their tracks, wow, how clear and sharp.
I read another rating of the lens that puts it just below the f2.8s. So
go figure if reviewers can't agree, what are you going to get from news
groups.
Certain lenses do have QC problems, folks get a fantastic one others
get mush. If you buy a 70-200 Nikon and it isn't really good send it to
Nikon and they will put it in specs, will they do the same for a 18-55
kit lens, probably not, though if it is really bad they may replace it.
Watch out for 3rd party lenses, here is where you find the most
variation.
Some large format camera makers certify lenses, you pay a +50%-+100%
cost factor for these lenses. Having accidently come into owning a
couple of Linhof certified lenses I can say yes there is a difference.
Leitz is the only company that comes close to this in 35mm.

Tom

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jeremy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-25-2006
"Denny B" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:Xo9dg.19404

> Is it only the latest and most expensive D-slr bodies and lenses
> and their owners that can take good pictures?
>


You ARE trolling, aren't you?


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mike
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-25-2006

"Jeremy" <(E-Mail Removed)> a écrit dans le message de news:
toidg.10245$kR6.6232@trnddc05...
> "Denny B" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:Xo9dg.19404
>
>> Is it only the latest and most expensive D-slr bodies and lenses
>> and their owners that can take good pictures?
>>

>
> You ARE trolling, aren't you?
>


Maybe he was trolling (in those 2 lines only), but this induced a bunch of
very good, wise and detailed answers!
Thanks to all, it was refreshing reading!

Mike


 
Reply With Quote
 
Don Stauffer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-25-2006
Having at one time done a bit of lens design in my career, I would say
that, yes, it is possible for a lens to be both good and bad at the same
time.

Lens design is not an exact science. To those aware of the math problem
of solving N differential equations in M unknowns, where M is greater
than N, you should understand the problem.

There are many criteria that say whether a particular lens design is
good or bad. Because most lenses do not have enough degrees of freedom,
one must make compromises, and allow certain aberrations to be larger
while minimizing others.

Which aberrations are more concern to you is a very individualistic
thing among photographers. Don't do much in dim light? Then growth of
aberrations with aperture is of less bother. Hardly ever shoot extreme
wide angle? Then you'll accept loss of sharpness at edges of field at
short focal length to get stellar performance at max focal length.

Don't care about flare? You'll accept lenses that really bother people
who don't like flare.

Distortion at wide angle? Some folks don't care, others never shoot
much at extremely short focal length. But such distortion drives some
people up a wall.

There is NO perfect lens, especially zoom lenses. They are ALL compromises.


Denny B wrote:
> Many times in this newsgroup a question will be asked
> about a particular lens for a Nikon or Canon or Pentax
> or Olympus and other brand name cameras.
>
> Most times a group of answers will be it is a very good
> or good lens, in the same thread others will answer it is a poor
> lens.
>
> How can this be? This is confusing and just plain stupid.
> Assuming the picture takers know how to use their respective
> cameras, light metering, focusing, hold camera steady or on
> a tripod, use a flash if necessary etc. How can you have conflicting
> answers. This cannot be, something is wrong.
> Is it because some posters want to knock others. Or the Canons
> want to belittle the Nikons. Or is it just to give a foolish answer?
>
> A particular lens CANNOT be good and bad. Most people have
> the ability to tell if a picture is good or bad.
> Is it only the latest and most expensive D-slr bodies and lenses
> and their owners that can take good pictures?
>
> Denny B
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-25-2006

? "Don Stauffer" <(E-Mail Removed)> ?????? ??? ??????
news:i8jdg.66$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Having at one time done a bit of lens design in my career, I would say
> that, yes, it is possible for a lens to be both good and bad at the same
> time.
>
> Lens design is not an exact science. To those aware of the math problem
> of solving N differential equations in M unknowns, where M is greater
> than N, you should understand the problem.
>
> There are many criteria that say whether a particular lens design is
> good or bad. Because most lenses do not have enough degrees of freedom,
> one must make compromises, and allow certain aberrations to be larger
> while minimizing others.
>
> Which aberrations are more concern to you is a very individualistic
> thing among photographers. Don't do much in dim light? Then growth of
> aberrations with aperture is of less bother. Hardly ever shoot extreme
> wide angle? Then you'll accept loss of sharpness at edges of field at
> short focal length to get stellar performance at max focal length.
>
> Don't care about flare? You'll accept lenses that really bother people
> who don't like flare.
>
> Distortion at wide angle? Some folks don't care, others never shoot
> much at extremely short focal length. But such distortion drives some
> people up a wall.
>
> There is NO perfect lens, especially zoom lenses. They are ALL

compromises.
>

Yeah, I agree.Say you 're shooting portraits outdoors.A 200 mm telephoto on
a tripod would be a good bet for you.A 24 mm f2.5 horrible (never mind the
300 euros it would cost you).You would like the 24 mm however, if you were
shooting landscapes.You're an amateur and you just want one lens, that would
cover most of your needs, then a kit lens like 70-210 f4.0 will be a wise
choice.But if you mind the extra weight and slow f-number of a zoom lens,
and want to take indoor shots at ISO 400 max. without flash then a 50 mm
f1.4 normal lens is a good choice.(etc.etc.)


n this newsgroup a question will be asked
> > about a particular lens for a Nikon or Canon or Pentax
> > or Olympus and other brand name cameras.
> >
> > Most times a group of answers will be it is a very good
> > or good lens, in the same thread others will answer it is a poor
> > lens.
> >
> > How can this be? This is confusing and just plain stupid.
> > Assuming the picture takers know how to use their respective
> > cameras, light metering, focusing, hold camera steady or on
> > a tripod, use a flash if necessary etc. How can you have conflicting
> > answers. This cannot be, something is wrong.
> > Is it because some posters want to knock others. Or the Canons
> > want to belittle the Nikons. Or is it just to give a foolish answer?
> >
> > A particular lens CANNOT be good and bad. Most people have
> > the ability to tell if a picture is good or bad.
> > Is it only the latest and most expensive D-slr bodies and lenses
> > and their owners that can take good pictures?
> >


--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering,freelance electrician
542nd mechanized infantry batallion
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Good Lens/Bad Lens? the_niner_nation Digital Photography 6 06-29-2007 10:55 PM
FS: Canon G2 Tele Lens and Lens adaptor Molly Digital Photography 0 02-18-2005 10:49 AM
FS: Canon G2 Tele Lens and Lens adaptor Josie Digital Photography 0 02-18-2005 12:00 AM
Anyone use the Kodak DX6340 Lens Adapter and Telephoto Lens? Amyotte Digital Photography 3 02-11-2004 10:25 PM
Good everyday lens for Digital Rebel -- kit lens, 17-40mm f/4L, or...? Mike Kozlowski Digital Photography 5 12-30-2003 08:04 AM



Advertisments