Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Night shooting lens
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2016 9:28 am    Post subject: Re: Night shooting lens Reply with quote

edri wrote:
Gerald wrote:

the more lenses you have, the less you use each of them.


Yes very real.


Most probably..... Wink



edri wrote:
Gerald wrote:

perhaps it is better to buy just that great e-mount lens for $800 than a dozen cheap M42 lenses for the same price. A lens that cost you little but you never use is the most expensive lens in the world! An expensive lens that you use all the time, and makes you proud of the results, is a long-term cheap lens.


Debatable.


That is certainly true. I definitely have far too many lenses (and cameras) I never use. I should really start selling them in favor of a new camera or any state of the art lens....
I should discuss this issue with myself. Wink


PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2016 9:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gerald wrote:
To whom still have a doubt about the capacity of the Sony Nex-5 to take 'brilliant photos" at ISO 3200, I suggest taking a look at the picture below from the Nex-5 review by dpreview.


I would rather call it acceptable instead of "brilliant". I NEVER shoot at high ISO but at the lowest possible setting in favor of really brilliant pictures. If in doubt, I would rather use a tripod to avoid camera shake. However, that's mainly a matter of personal preferences and taste. But low ISO pictures are ALWAYS better (more brilliant, sharper, less noisy) than high ISO ones, irrespective of camera used. I don't believe that this will ever change.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2016 1:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Gerald wrote:
To whom still have a doubt about the capacity of the Sony Nex-5 to take 'brilliant photos" at ISO 3200, I suggest taking a look at the picture below from the Nex-5 review by dpreview.


tb_a wrote:
I would rather call it acceptable instead of "brilliant". I NEVER shoot at high ISO but at the lowest possible setting in favor of really brilliant pictures. If in doubt, I would rather use a tripod to avoid camera shake. However, that's mainly a matter of personal preferences and taste. But low ISO pictures are ALWAYS better (more brilliant, sharper, less noisy) than high ISO ones, irrespective of camera used. I don't believe that this will ever change.


Thomas, I have noticed that most of your photos are landscape with abundant light. I assume you use a tripod for many of your shots, too. Under these conditions, no doubt that low ISO is always better. However, this topic is about "night shooting" (or "available light" photography as it was commonly called year ago). I'm also assuming the OP is thinking of handheld photography. Those are situations that usually require high ISO.

When I posted an ISO 3200 picture from dpreview and spoke of "brilliant photos" (words used by another poster) I did not mean the dpreview picture was "brilliant" in an artistic sense (after all, it was a test shot). I just wanted to say that the colors were brilliant and the level of noise at ISO 3200 was low, at least for my eyes. Besides, I was thinking of the photos posted just before my post in the same thread. These photos are much noisier than the dpreview test picture!


PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2016 2:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gerald wrote:

Thomas, I have noticed that most of your photos are landscape with abundant light. I assume you use a tripod for many of your shots, too. Under these conditions, no doubt that low ISO is always better. However, this topic is about "night shooting" (or "available light" photography as it was commonly called year ago). I'm also assuming the OP is thinking of handheld photography. Those are situations that usually require high ISO.


Gerald, of course it depends on the situation. However, I doubt that anybody is able to shoot pictures like these handheld:




Those pictures were shot at ISO 200 with the Color Skopar 21mm/F4 which I wouldn't consider as a typical available light lens.
Here is the typical outfit:



At least a tiny tripod to fit in my pocket (as shown here) is always with me to be on the safe side. Wink


PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2016 9:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice pictures, Thomas! You controlled very well the highlights. The star effects in the first picture reveal that you used a small aperture, despite the low light and low ISO setting. All possible thanks to your blessed tripod!

Make sure I am in the front line when it is to defend the use of low ISO, small apertures and tripod when the scenes are static and the goal is to obtain the highest technical quality, However, I do not hesitate to violate those guidelines when the situation demands. The true is, the digital camera widened extraordinarily the envelope of available light photography. Today you can take pictures in low light with quite satisfactory quality, using high ISO, moderate apertures and hand held camera.

The photo below was shot when it was completely dark. Despite the very high effective sensitivity, the dynamic range is good and the granulation and loss of definition are not significant, at least for the scale of the presented picture. The lens was a Tamron 28mm F2.8 working wide-open with a Sony A99.


Tamron 28mm F2.8 wide-open on Sony A99 hand-held, ISO 12800, 1/30s


PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2016 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gerald, thanks for the compliment.

Well, it's certainly a trade off to either make a picture at very high ISO and other compromises like a wide open aperture for certain situations or no picture at all. I personally prefer the use of a tripod whenever possible for optimal quality most of the times. Wink

However, even in film times low light handheld shots have been possible (with a little bit of luck):



Picture taken with Minolta X-500 / MD 200/4 on Ilford FP4 (slightly pushed) fully open.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 29, 2016 6:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tb_a wrote:

But low ISO pictures are ALWAYS better (more brilliant, sharper, less noisy) than high ISO ones, irrespective of camera used. I don't believe that this will ever change.


Well, I did an initial comment on the opportunity of using a tripod for night photography, but has been overwhelmed by a number of suggestions for large aperture lenses. Of course f/1.5 may help with some night picture, but not for any. And shooting wide open will provide a number of out of focus pictures (depending on technique, but also on focus aids in the camera), which is worst than noisy.
(This is to say: I agree with both you and Gerald - tripod first, high ISO then, because both let you choose the depth of field you want). I normally do not fear some noise (matter of taste), but again, it depends on the picture.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 29, 2016 6:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A compact/lightweight tripod will always help(especially if you want to take photos without the help of others) if you don't mind to bring it out and spent time on setting it up. Otherwise, a fast lenswith optical image stabilizer(and a kit lens/small flash) should work well in many situations.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 29, 2016 5:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Back to two points I left behind. The first is about the old controversy quantity x quality.

Someone accused me of having advised the OP to invest $800 in a good lens. Well, I did not actually advise him to buy an expensive lens. I just put in doubt the wisdom of buying a dozen cheap used lenses instead of a single high-quality lens.

Buying used lenses is always a risk. Suppose you buy a lens on eBay, but you notice already in the first test that the quality of the photos is a bit short of expectations. What to do? Unless you are very experienced, it is hard to know if you bought a "lemon" from a dishonest seller, or simply the lens is mediocre from the design. There are people who buy multiple units of the same lens with the hope of finding a really good unit. The "keeper", they like to say. What is the point of buying three second-hand lenses just to discover that two are terrible and only one is passable? When this happens, people put the bad lens back on the market, which certainly is not an ethically correct attitude. One result from this unethical practice is that the market of second-hand lenses is plenty of bad lenses floating around. In contrast, when you buy a brand new lens, you have the manufacturer's warranty, and you know that the optical surfaces are clean, lubricants are new, and the lens was not tampered by someone.

My advice to the OP was that instead of buying an old lens for "night shooting", he should develop more his photographic skills with the lens he already own, which is probably the kit lens that came with the camera. Yes, there is a lot of prejudice against kit lenses, but in general they are very capable. Nonetheless, if he really wants to invest in a faster lens for his Nex-5, I think a good option is the Sony E 50mm f/1.8 OSS lens, which costs new about $300 and does not need an adapter. This Sony lens has image stabilization, can be manual focused, and has an optical design much more elaborate than most classic 50mm lens. I doubt any legacy lens would outperform that Sony lens. And no legacy lens adapted to the Nex-5 would have auto-iris, auto-focus, and image stabilization.

From a purely economic standpoint, buying a legacy lens can also be a questionable deal. Consider, for example, a Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50mm F1.8, which costs today around $150. Add the cost of shipping and adapter and the total price could exceed $200. Remember that a typical Pancolar was manufactured more than 30 years ago. Is a 30 years old lens still within factory specifications? Does the buyer get a lens with minimal wear? Does the lens have hidden defects? These are complicated questions to answer. If I had to opt between a Sony and a Pancolar 50mm F1.8 lens, I would not hesitate to buy the Sony E.

The second point I left behind is picture noise, which I'll comment later.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 29, 2016 9:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you like the fast easy way : take the fastest lens AF with image stabilisation : for example the 1,8/35 mm Sony or , if you afford , Zeiss 24/1,8 both stabilised . Less good in this situation are the non stabilised lenses in my oppinion ,like the Sigma 30/2,8 ,19/2,8 or any of the unstabilised Sony/Zeisses. In third place, any good f2 , f2,8 , or less ...
If you like the long hard way : any good lens (MF or AF) and a good tripod (as small and light as you find)


PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A point I left behind is picture noise, which I'll comment now.

In the era of film, shooting in low light was ever a challenge because film had/has much lower sensitivity than a digital sensor. Suffice it to say that the ISO 400 Tri-X was considered a high-speed film and was for long time the workhorse of journalists who needed to shoot in difficult light conditions. Many used to "push" the revelation, gaining maybe 1 or 2 stops of sensitivity. Sadly, a Tri-X pushed to ISO 1600 turned into a sea of grain. Pushing a film didn't benefit much shadow details, too, but increased the contrast of the negative, making it difficult to print. A point worth mention is that in the age of film, there were no practical methods to reduce visibility of grain. You accepted grain as something inevitable, and moved on.

It was the need to collect and conduct more light to the emulsion, not any artistic considerations that led to the development of "super-fast" lenses with apertures equal or larger than F2. That was the situation of photography for more than a century until the digital sensor came along…

The big jump in available light photography came with the development of electronic sensors with sensitivity 50-100 times higher than a typical photographic film. Many today's cameras can take decent pictures with ISO 10000, so lack of sensitivity is no longer a problem for taking pictures in poor light. The need for super fast lenses for available light photography is much less today. A relatively slow F3.5 or F5.6 lens is no longer an impediment for shooting at night, for example. One of the few advantage is left to fast super lenses is they allow capture of photos with a bit less noise. However, even image noise is no longer the problem it was in the era of film because noise can be greatly reduced through post-processing.

I want to make clear here that I am not advocating image noise as a good thing, although in some cases, noise may indeed have artistic value. Proof of this is that most software for image editing allow deliberate introduction of noise in otherwise noise-free pictures. My point is another. I think that noise does not make or break a picture. What destroys a picture is the lack of an interesting main subject and bad composition. The best way to understand what makes a good photograph is by studying photographs taken by the great masters. Take a look, for example, at this photograph by Henri Cartier-Bresson in 1963:


The Berlin Wall - 1963 - Henri Cartier Bresson:

high-definition original picture here: http://i.imgur.com/3XCL36J.jpg


100% crop from the picture up-scaled to 24 MP:



Everything is in focus, so you won't see in this picture any "creamy", "whirl" or "soap bubble" bokeh, or any lens "character". Moreover, as you can see in the 100% crop, there is plenty of noise, and definition is poor by modern standards. Nonetheless, this picture is artistically exceptional. Why? First, it is a strong portrait of an era when the world was in great political and military tension (Cold War, the Berlin wall, threat of nuclear war, etc.). From an artistic point of view, a photograph is a visual message that provokes an emotion. This means that a picture can have journalistic and artistic value at the same time.

As said before, a good photo must have a subject that strongly attracts the viewer's attention. In Cartier Bresson's picture, the main subject is the three men standing over an electrical box. They are almost surreal figures; you cannot see their faces, but clearly they are watching something very interesting we cannot see.

Notice now how almost all main lines of the composition converge toward the three men, reinforcing their importance.The exception is the line of the curb, which leads the viewer's attention to the pole on the right, which directs the view to the plates with the names of the streets, which directs the view to the cement blocks, whose lines turn back the attention to the three men, coming full circle.

Many photos fail precisely in the composition. There is an excessively large number of boring landscape photos that are nothing more than a collection of hundreds of stones, trees, houses, buildings, lights, etc. with no interesting subject that could capture the viewer's attention. A bad composition is much more harmful to a photograph than a little of noise.

And here I return to the question raised by the OP. To take good pictures in low light, it is more important to develop a photographic eye than buying a super fast lens.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 5:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

WOW Gerald, this was well spoken!! And a lot truth is in that actually. All that pixel racing,
CA obsession, lens and gear addiction is purely in vain if the ability to be a good photographer
is lacking indeed. Look here, how much is about gear and how little about photoghraphy and
good images?? .... Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil


PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 6:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Be aware that not every lens which works well in the daytime will work well at night-time.

I have a Helios 44M-4 which is quite pleasant for daytime photography, but completely unusable at night: every point light source in the frame causes horrible flaring and coma (or some other abberation... I think that's the one), and in a city at night, there are a lot of those (street lights, car lights, ...). When I took the Helios for a bit of nighttime shooting, out of a hundred or two photographs, there were only two of them that were acceptable. I only made that mistake once.

I suspect if you restrict your search to less-old lenses which are multicoated (my Helios was single coated), most of those will probably be acceptable for nighttime photography, although that's just a hunch.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 9:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kds315* wrote:
WOW Gerald, this was well spoken!! And a lot truth is in that actually. All that pixel racing,
CA obsession, lens and gear addiction is purely in vain if the ability to be a good photographer
is lacking indeed. Look here, how much is about gear and how little about photoghraphy and
good images?? .... Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil


Thanks, Klaus!
I think that good photography is a balance between technique and talent. I also feel that there is some distortion here. There are a lot of people thinking that equipment can replace talent. Equipment you can buy on eBay or in stores. Talent is different, you cannot buy it; each one has to develop his own.

Photography is about the moment of capture; lights, shadows and colors; perspective, framing and composition; lines and textures; sharpness and softness. The control of these photographic elements basically depends on the photographer, not the equipment he owns.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 9:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What else can you expect form a forum devoted to equipments? Laughing

If you want something else then it is up to you to create it.

Oh, somebody already has done it! Take a look at the galleries, for example, where you will find many many examples of real photography.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

glaebhoerl wrote:
I have a Helios 44M-4 which is quite pleasant for daytime photography, but completely unusable at night: every point light source in the frame causes horrible flaring and coma (or some other abberation... I think that's the one), and in a city at night, there are a lot of those (street lights, car lights, ...). When I took the Helios for a bit of nighttime shooting, out of a hundred or two photographs, there were only two of them that were acceptable.


The Helios 44 is a clone of Zeiss Biotar, one of the best lenses of its time. With the exception of very expensive lenses of modern designs such as the Zeiss Otus, any fast F1.4 or F1.2 lens suffers from even more severe coma than the Helios 44. Take a look at this article:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50mm-f12-coma.htm

If you have had a success rate of only 2%, you may have an exaggerated expectation or, sorry to say, you are simply using incorrectly your lens.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2016 1:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In a forum devoted to photographic lenses, it is no surprise that most discussions revolve around technical issues. However, if you forget that a photographic lens is a tool for taking photographs, a lens can easily become a fetish. I see no contradiction in discussing the impact of the technical characteristics of a lens on the artistic quality of the photos this lens produces. What I tried to emphasize before in this topic was that the quality of a photograph depends more on the photographer's skills than the equipment. A photographer should always ask himself what he can do with a lens, not what a lens can do for him. A photographer should be the master, not the slave of his equipment.

Of course, there is a limit to what a photographer can do with certain photographic equipment. The great photographers always worked with good equipment. However, the concept of good equipment is relative. The Leica camera that Henri Cartier-Bresson used cannot hold a candle to the current cameras that any amateur can buy.

Barry Lyndon, a film directed by Stanley Kubrick in 1975, is one of the best examples to show the impact of the technology of the time on available light photography. Kubrick is considered one of the greatest directors of all time, but he was also an exceptional photographer. Kubrick used an ultra fast lens, the Zeiss Planar 50mm F0.7, to shoot the famous scenes lit only by candlelight. Today, these scenes could be shot with a F3.5 or F5.6 lens...

Here are some images from the film:

Coma in candle flames:


Idem:


Chromatic aberration in candle flames:


Lack of resolution due to spherical and chromatic aberrations:



The Zeiss Planar 50mm F0.7 was quite an achievement, but from an image quality standpoint, that lens was a dog. Tons of coma, spherical and chromatic aberrations. The film grain is quite visible as well. But Kubrick had no choice, did he have? It was the technology of the time. Someone may claim that Kubrick wanted to use a lens with "character", aka, "loads of aberration", to introduce an "artistic effect" to the scenes. I doubt it. A true artist can create a masterpiece despite the limitations of the equipment, not because of the limitations of the equipment.

NOTE
pictures extracted from http://www.marcocavina.com/omaggio_a_kubrick.htm
You can also find there an excellent discussion of the Zeiss Planar 50mm F0.7 lens