Lenses that function best wide open

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rich, Nov 26, 2006.

  1. Rich

    Rich Guest

    Has anyone ever run across any lens (outside of very long ones,
    exceeding f10 focal ratios) that performs best wide open? In other
    words, the residual aberrations don't decrease noticeably upon stopping
    the lens down.
    If so, what lens, and what camera was it used with?
     
    Rich, Nov 26, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Rich wrote:
    > Has anyone ever run across any lens (outside of very long ones,
    > exceeding f10 focal ratios) that performs best wide open? In other
    > words, the residual aberrations don't decrease noticeably upon stopping
    > the lens down.
    > If so, what lens, and what camera was it used with?
    >


    The super telephotos from Nikon and Canon work superbly
    wide open, and do not change much when stopped down.
    E.g. 500 mm f/4, 600 mm f/4.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Nov 26, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Rich

    Pete D Guest

    "Rich" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Has anyone ever run across any lens (outside of very long ones,
    > exceeding f10 focal ratios) that performs best wide open? In other
    > words, the residual aberrations don't decrease noticeably upon stopping
    > the lens down.
    > If so, what lens, and what camera was it used with?
    >


    85mm Pentax F1.4 is amazing and has been tested on a 5D and compared to the
    Canon 85mm F1.2 at F1.4, the Pentax was sharper, gotta be happy with that??
    I posted the link a week or two back.
     
    Pete D, Nov 26, 2006
    #3
  4. Pete D wrote:

    > 85mm Pentax F1.4 is amazing and has been tested on a 5D and compared
    > to the Canon 85mm F1.2 at F1.4, the Pentax was sharper, gotta be
    > happy with that?? I posted the link a week or two back.


    Don't forget the 85mm f/1.4 Nikkor, plus a few other Nikkors, that are sweet
    on the 5D.






    Rita
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Nov 26, 2006
    #4
  5. Rich wrote:
    > Has anyone ever run across any lens (outside of very long ones,
    > exceeding f10 focal ratios) that performs best wide open? In other
    > words, the residual aberrations don't decrease noticeably upon
    > stopping the lens down.
    > If so, what lens, and what camera was it used with?


    Most lenses are designed to work over a range of apertures. The
    designers work to provide the best overall image and they don't know what
    aperture they will be used at. So as a result they generally aim for a
    centralist approach. They work to have the center range the best and the
    extremes will be less so. That works both ways wider and stopped down.

    Special purpose lenses are likely to be optimized for their designed
    use. There were some lenses made that did not even have a method of
    stopping them down. You may own one. The mirror lenses that were popular
    30 years ago were like that. They were optimized for their max and only
    aperture.

    --
    Joseph Meehan

    Dia 's Muire duit
     
    Joseph Meehan, Nov 26, 2006
    #5
  6. "Rich" <> wrote in message news:...
    > Has anyone ever run across any lens (outside of very long ones,
    > exceeding f10 focal ratios) that performs best wide open? In other
    > words, the residual aberrations don't decrease noticeably upon stopping
    > the lens down.
    > If so, what lens, and what camera was it used with?


    Some micro lenses and special-use lenses (like the Nikkor
    55mm f1.2 for oscilloscopes) perform best (or nearly so)
    wide open (though these cannot be directly mounted to
    cameras without adapters and extensions). Teles are often
    fine wide-open (the 85mm f1.8AF, 135mm f2MF, and
    180mm f2.8AF Nikkors are really excellent wide open,
    as are most of the longer, fast Nikkors. The 16mm f3.5
    Nikkor fisheye is a great lens, nearly at its best wide open
    (amazing for a super-wide!). Many other Nikkors are
    excellent nearly wide open (most of these are non-zooms,
    though...). You may find my Nikkor list interesting, at --
    http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html
    --
    David Ruether


    http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
     
    David Ruether, Nov 26, 2006
    #6
  7. Rich

    Richard H. Guest

    Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
    > Don't forget the 85mm f/1.4 Nikkor, plus a few other Nikkors, that are
    > sweet
    > on the 5D.


    Hi, Rita.

    You've mentioned this a couple times, and I'm curious... I thought the
    focal planes couldn't align with an adapter ring, but maybe that's just
    with Canon lenses on Nikon bodies?

    Are you using an adapter, or can Nikon F-mount lenses mate directly to
    the EF body? What are the tradeoffs? (manual focus / aperture /
    metering? No lens data in EXIF?)

    Cheers,
    Richard
     
    Richard H., Nov 26, 2006
    #7
  8. Rich

    Rich Guest

    Joseph Meehan wrote:
    > Rich wrote:
    > > Has anyone ever run across any lens (outside of very long ones,
    > > exceeding f10 focal ratios) that performs best wide open? In other
    > > words, the residual aberrations don't decrease noticeably upon
    > > stopping the lens down.
    > > If so, what lens, and what camera was it used with?

    >
    > Most lenses are designed to work over a range of apertures. The
    > designers work to provide the best overall image and they don't know what
    > aperture they will be used at. So as a result they generally aim for a
    > centralist approach. They work to have the center range the best and the
    > extremes will be less so. That works both ways wider and stopped down.
    >
    > Special purpose lenses are likely to be optimized for their designed
    > use. There were some lenses made that did not even have a method of
    > stopping them down. You may own one. The mirror lenses that were popular
    > 30 years ago were like that. They were optimized for their max and only
    > aperture.
    >
    > --
    > Joseph Meehan
    >
    > Dia 's Muire duit


    This is kind of interesting. Right now, you can buy a hyperbolic
    astrograph (a mirror lens) with a 500mm focal length and an f2.8
    aperture. It costs about $4,500 and will support up to a 35mm image
    size. I would like to compare that to a fast refractive optic to see
    which would yield the best results. The astrograph would not suffer
    from any CA or related aberrations. Both lenses however are likely
    made to operate best at infinity with close distances (under 100 feet)
    causing increasing spherical aberration to been seen.
    In that case, you'd stop them down to improve it.
     
    Rich, Nov 26, 2006
    #8
  9. Richard H. wrote:

    > You've mentioned this a couple times, and I'm curious... I thought the
    > focal planes couldn't align with an adapter ring, but maybe that's
    > just with Canon lenses on Nikon bodies?


    Nikon lenses to Canon body.

    > Are you using an adapter, or can Nikon F-mount lenses mate directly to
    > the EF body? What are the tradeoffs? (manual focus / aperture /
    > metering? No lens data in EXIF?)


    http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/nikcan.htm

    http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-manual-lenses/






    Rita
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Nov 26, 2006
    #9
  10. "Rich" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Has anyone ever run across any lens (outside of very long ones,
    > exceeding f10 focal ratios) that performs best wide open? In
    > other words, the residual aberrations don't decrease noticeably
    > upon stopping the lens down.


    Well, actually the residual aberrations continue to improve (as more
    edge rays are excluded from 'contributing'), but they will get
    overwhelmed by diffraction.

    > If so, what lens, and what camera was it used with?


    Besides the longer focal lengths, and assuming lenses capable of
    relatively wide apertures like f/2.8, my T/S-E 45mm f/2.8 already
    peaks af f/4.0 and gradually drops in peak MTF response in the optical
    center when used on a Canon 1Ds Mark II body.

    I'd have to test it further for corner performance, which would
    involve shifting to the extremes of its image circle range. I assume
    it will peak in the extreme corners where diffraction will overtake
    residual lateral chromatic aberrations at approx. f/11.0 .

    --
    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Nov 26, 2006
    #10
  11. Rich

    Mark² Guest

    Rich wrote:
    > Joseph Meehan wrote:
    >> Rich wrote:
    >>> Has anyone ever run across any lens (outside of very long ones,
    >>> exceeding f10 focal ratios) that performs best wide open? In other
    >>> words, the residual aberrations don't decrease noticeably upon
    >>> stopping the lens down.
    >>> If so, what lens, and what camera was it used with?

    >>
    >> Most lenses are designed to work over a range of apertures. The
    >> designers work to provide the best overall image and they don't know
    >> what aperture they will be used at. So as a result they generally
    >> aim for a centralist approach. They work to have the center range
    >> the best and the extremes will be less so. That works both ways
    >> wider and stopped down.
    >>
    >> Special purpose lenses are likely to be optimized for their
    >> designed use. There were some lenses made that did not even have a
    >> method of stopping them down. You may own one. The mirror lenses
    >> that were popular 30 years ago were like that. They were optimized
    >> for their max and only aperture.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Joseph Meehan
    >>
    >> Dia 's Muire duit

    >
    > This is kind of interesting. Right now, you can buy a hyperbolic
    > astrograph (a mirror lens) with a 500mm focal length and an f2.8
    > aperture. It costs about $4,500 and will support up to a 35mm image
    > size. I would like to compare that to a fast refractive optic to see
    > which would yield the best results. The astrograph would not suffer
    > from any CA or related aberrations. Both lenses however are likely
    > made to operate best at infinity with close distances (under 100 feet)
    > causing increasing spherical aberration to been seen.
    > In that case, you'd stop them down to improve it.


    But mirror lenses have a constant aperture (can't be adjusted)...

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
     
    Mark², Nov 27, 2006
    #11
  12. Rich

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 16:41:46 -0800, "Mark²" who knows not how to
    squint <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:

    >> This is kind of interesting. Right now, you can buy a hyperbolic
    >> astrograph (a mirror lens) with a 500mm focal length and an f2.8
    >> aperture. It costs about $4,500 and will support up to a 35mm image
    >> size. I would like to compare that to a fast refractive optic to see
    >> which would yield the best results. The astrograph would not suffer
    >> from any CA or related aberrations. Both lenses however are likely
    >> made to operate best at infinity with close distances (under 100 feet)
    >> causing increasing spherical aberration to been seen.
    >> In that case, you'd stop them down to improve it.

    >
    > But mirror lenses have a constant aperture (can't be adjusted)...


    Same with LensBabies. But they have a method of reducing aperture
    that with a little adapting could also work for mirror lenses.
     
    ASAAR, Nov 27, 2006
    #12
  13. "Rich" <> writes:

    >This is kind of interesting. Right now, you can buy a hyperbolic
    >astrograph (a mirror lens) with a 500mm focal length and an f2.8
    >aperture. It costs about $4,500 and will support up to a 35mm image
    >size.


    Does it have a flat focal plane? Sky surveys are usually done with
    Schmidt cameras with very fast f-numbers, but the focal plane is curved
    and cannot be made flat. Gelatin emulsion on film can be stretched
    slightly into the curved surface required, but you can't do that with a
    CCD.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Nov 28, 2006
    #13
  14. "Rich" <> writes:
    >Has anyone ever run across any lens (outside of very long ones,
    >exceeding f10 focal ratios) that performs best wide open? In other
    >words, the residual aberrations don't decrease noticeably upon stopping
    >the lens down.
    >If so, what lens, and what camera was it used with?


    I once saw the results of optical tests performed on the Nikon 120 mm
    f/5.6 macro lens. This is a view camera lens intended for 1:1 work (it
    looks internally symmetric). Its resolution was best wide open (I don't
    remember if that was on-axis resolution or over the whole field) though
    it vignetted a fair bit wide open.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Nov 28, 2006
    #14
  15. [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
    Rich
    <>], who wrote in article <>:
    > Has anyone ever run across any lens (outside of very long ones,
    > exceeding f10 focal ratios) that performs best wide open? In other
    > words, the residual aberrations don't decrease noticeably upon stopping
    > the lens down.


    IMO, as stated, this does not make a lot of sense. You should specify
    in which part of image circle you are interested, and whether sagittal
    or tangential aberration is important.

    It is not impossible to believe in f/2.8 lens which performs best wide
    open IN CENTER. On the edge - almost improbable; especically for
    sagittal aberration...

    Hoep this helps,
    Ilya
     
    Ilya Zakharevich, Dec 1, 2006
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Dauphin de Viennois

    Re: DSLR lenses not good wide open at wide angle?

    Dauphin de Viennois, Jul 16, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    527
    Roy Smith
    Jul 16, 2008
  2. Martin Brown

    Re: Why are lenses unsharp wide open?

    Martin Brown, Jul 31, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    611
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Aug 8, 2011
  3. Bruce

    Re: Why are lenses unsharp wide open?

    Bruce, Jul 31, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    458
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Aug 8, 2011
  4. Anthony Polson
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    274
    Martin Brown
    Nov 9, 2012
  5. Martin Brown
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    270
    Martin Brown
    Nov 10, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page