View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
greg
Joined: 21 Mar 2009 Posts: 683
Expire: 2012-12-03
|
Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 5:58 pm Post subject: A question regarding fast glass. |
|
|
greg wrote:
If the same camera is used with the same setting, shooting the same subject under the same conditions -
Is there any benefit to having an f1.2 lens set at f4 compared to an f2.8 (or any other slower speed lens for that matter) lens set at f4(or any other lower f stop)? In other words, is the benefit of an f1.2 lens only that it can shoot at lower light levels, or does it actually perform better when stepped down to identical f stops? I am speaking in general terms, I am not looking for a Zeiss versus Tamron versus so forth answer. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
William
Joined: 26 Nov 2009 Posts: 489 Location: London
|
Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
William wrote:
I believe that it is usually the case that faster lenses perform slightly better in image quality when stopped down to the same f-stop that's used on another similar yet slower lens. It would be interesting to hear a more thorough explanation on the matter. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
hinnerker
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 Posts: 929 Location: Germany near Kiel
Expire: 2015-08-09
|
Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hinnerker wrote:
The 1.2 Lenses are mostly better corrected on the optical formula to bring useful results in low light conditions. Its a higher complexity to math an build such a lens.. so in most cases, the error correction is higher/better ..
So my fast lenses, especially the 1.2 are very soft wide open and hard to handle in sunlight.. better stop down 1 or 2 f/stopps.
If you stopped down the lens, for me it gives the same if not better results as a f/2 lens at the same f/stop..
As i did say.. mostly!! Not absolut each of the faster ones.
LG
Henry _________________ some light-painting lens stuff..
... and an EOS 5D MKII
www.digicamclub.de |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ManualFocus-G
Joined: 29 Dec 2008 Posts: 6622 Location: United Kingdom
Expire: 2014-11-24
|
Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ManualFocus-G wrote:
Remember though that a 50/2.8 might have smoother bokeh at f2.8 than a f1.2 or f1.4 lens stopped down, because of the rounder circle. This isn't always the case though. _________________ Graham - Moderator
Shooter of choice: Fujifilm X-T20 with M42, PB and C/Y lenses
See my Flickr photos at http://www.flickr.com/photos/manualfocus-g |
|
Back to top |
|
|
no-X
Joined: 19 Jul 2008 Posts: 2495 Location: Budejky, Czech Republic
|
Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
no-X wrote:
That depends really on many factors.
Faster lenses has typicaly more optical elements for corrections. But these corections sometimes aren't focused on sharpness/resolution - e.g. the 55/1.2 Tomioka. This lens was corrected for astro-photography, so primary target was reduction of optical aberrations like coma.
So, Tomioka 55/1.2 at f/4 isn't sharper than e.g. Tessar 50/2.8 at f/4. And S-M-C Takumar 50/1.4 at f/4 beats them both
Some slower short-tele lenses were built on Ernostar/Sonnar formula, which can offer better bokeh, than faster Planar-based tele-lenses.
With a bit of generalization, the sharpest M42 lenses are typically:
35mm: f/2.8-f/3.5
50mm: f/1.4-f/1.8
135mm: f/3.5 _________________ (almost) complete list of Helios lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
martinsmith99
Joined: 31 Aug 2008 Posts: 6950 Location: S Glos, UK
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
martinsmith99 wrote:
Way too many variables when making comparisons like that.
If you have 2 exact optical formulations, both built to the same standards with one lens being an F2 and the other being a a faster F1.4, then both when stopped down to F4 should be the same. _________________ Casual attendance these days |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
The premium f/1.2 lenses may perform better at f/4 than their more pedestrian counterparts, but this will be due to better correction of chromatic aberrations than "mere" f/1.4 through f/2 optics, for example. Otherwise, the slower optics will perhaps deliver better optical performance.
For many years the old Nikkor 50mm f/2 was considered Nikon's sharpest 50mm. The old pre-war Leitz 50mm f/3.5 Elmar is one of the sharpest 50mm lenses ever made, period. And with great contrast to boot.
In general terms, it is easier to correct for optical aberrations with a slower lens, so really it makes a certain amount of sense that, if anything, the slower optical formulas have a natural advantage. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ChrisLilley
Joined: 01 Jan 2008 Posts: 1767 Location: Nice, France
|
Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 7:51 pm Post subject: Re: A question regarding fast glass. |
|
|
ChrisLilley wrote:
greg wrote: |
If the same camera is used with the same setting, shooting the same subject under the same conditions -
Is there any benefit to having an f1.2 lens set at f4 compared to an f2.8 (or any other slower speed lens for that matter) lens set at f4(or any other lower f stop)? In other words, is the benefit of an f1.2 lens only that it can shoot at lower light levels, or does it actually perform better when stepped down to identical f stops? |
A benefit to having a faster lens is that the exposure and focusing takes place wide open, so the viewfinder is brighter; this is particularly helpful at lower light levels.
A benefit to a faster lens can be (depending on the lens) a sharper image, if the faster lens is closed two stops and performs better at that aperture while the slower lens is wide open or only one stop closed and has not reached peak performance. 2.8 to 4 is one stop.
A drawback to having a faster lens is that various aberrations may be greater, even stopped down; some lenses are mainly used wide open for a 'dreamy' look (i.e. heavily artefacted, but the artefacts chosen carefully for effect) and are either much the same as, or even worse than, a slower lens. Especially if we are comparing a good, fast lens and a good, slower lens. Obviously if we are comparing a fast good lens with a slow crappy zoom then we get a different result.
A drawback to a faster lens is that it tends to be larger and heavier, so is more tiring to carry and use and takes more room in the bag.
A drawback to a faster lens may be that it has a larger front element and is more susceptible to flare. _________________ Camera (ˈkæ mə rə), n. Device for taking pictures in bright light
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don’t. Key: Ai-P, Ai, Ai'ed, AiS
Camera: Nikon D90, D40, DK-21M eyepiece, ML-3 remote MF lenses: Nikkor 20mm f/4 K, AI'ed | N.K. Nikkor-N 24mm f/2.8 | Nikkor-N.C 24mm f/2.8 | Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 AiS late model | Арсенал (Arsenal) Мир-24Н (Mir-24N) 35mm f/2 | Cosina Voigtländer Ultron SL II 40mm f/2.0 | Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 AiS | Zoom-Nikkor 80-200 f/4.5 Ai | ЛЗОС (LZOS) Юпитер-9 (Jupiter-9) 85mm f/2 | Cosina Voigtländer APO-Lanthar 90mm f/3.5 SL | Nikkor-P 105mm f/2.5 pre-Ai, Ai'ed | Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/4 | Schneider Kreuznach Componon 105mm f/5.6 | Nikkor 135mm f/2.8, Ai'ed 1976 model | Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 ED AiS | Арсенал (Arsenal) ТЕЛЕАР-Н (Telear-n) 200mm f/3.5 | Nikkor 300 mm f/4.5 Ai (full equipment list) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ManualFocus-G
Joined: 29 Dec 2008 Posts: 6622 Location: United Kingdom
Expire: 2014-11-24
|
Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 12:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ManualFocus-G wrote:
Relayer wrote: |
Shrek wrote: |
Remember though that a 50/2.8 might have smoother bokeh at f2.8 than a f1.2 or f1.4 lens stopped down, because of the rounder circle. This isn't always the case though. |
I don't agree with you. see my last test series here: http://forum.mflenses.com/haiou-64-2-58-chinese-biotar-t22830.html
rokkor 1.4/58 at @2 have more smooth bokeh and more sharp than any of 2/58 at wide open. usually this rule applicable for any lenses - when you close apperture by 1 stop - you obtain more smooth bokeh, less CA, more sharpness. |
I did say "this isn't always the case" though Another point, what about night shots? A stopped down lens is going to have hexagonal highlights, not everyone's taste. Just playing devil's advocate _________________ Graham - Moderator
Shooter of choice: Fujifilm X-T20 with M42, PB and C/Y lenses
See my Flickr photos at http://www.flickr.com/photos/manualfocus-g |
|
Back to top |
|
|
no-X
Joined: 19 Jul 2008 Posts: 2495 Location: Budejky, Czech Republic
|
Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 12:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
no-X wrote:
Relayer wrote: |
I don't agree with you. see my last test series here: http://forum.mflenses.com/haiou-64-2-58-chinese-biotar-t22830.html
rokkor 1.4/58 at @2 have more smooth bokeh and more sharp than any of 2/58 at wide open. usually this rule applicable for any lenses - when you close apperture by 1 stop - you obtain more smooth bokeh, less CA, more sharpness. |
wide-opened Volna-9 has better bokeh than any other lens - stopped down or at wide-open Meyer Helioplan 40/4.5 is similar example.
I think all lenses using optical design suitable for much faster lenses (Volna-9 / Ultron is typical for f/1.8 lenses and Helioplan / Ernostar is typical for f/2.8 lenses) have good bokeh and OOF lights. _________________ (almost) complete list of Helios lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
Okay, here's a specific example: a Canon FL 55mm f/1.2 vs a Canon FD 50mm f/3.5 Macro. Which do you think will be sharper at f/4?
It's rather obvious, isn't it? So it really depends a LOT on the optical formulas of the two lenses being compared.
Now, if I were to compare an FL 55mm f/1.2 against an FL 50mm f/1.8, the results might not be as clear-cut. I own an FL 55/1.2, and while I don't own an FL 50/1.8, I do own an FD 50/1.8. So I would be able to make this comparison test, if only I had my DSLR -- which is STILL at Canon being repaired . . . <sigh>.
But I have done some testing of the 55 FL not too long ago, and it behaves probably like most "ultra fast" lenses of its era (mid-to-late 1960s), in that it is rather soft wide open, and improves to acceptable levels beginning at f/4, but isn't really what I'd call sharp until about f/8.
So using the early 1.2s like the FL Canons and probably the Minolta Rokkors and maybe even the pre-AI Nikkors as examples, I would suspect that a pedestrian f/1.8 or f/2 normal lens would outperform them at f/4, both in terms of sharpness and contrast. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 29545 Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
I add +1 to what Chris said. _________________ Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
francotirador
Joined: 17 Sep 2009 Posts: 894
|
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
francotirador wrote:
It depends on the lens and I think the main advantage is to shoot in low light ..
One example, the super Takumar f3.5 is sharper than the F2.5.
Talking superficially.
The objectives are optimized to sharpen or faster. But I prefer the Rokkor 58 1.2 to 1.4 by the Bokeh.
Another example is the Micro Nikkor lens
Each objective should be studied to know where their strengths are.
I think many members have already written something.
Greetings. _________________ Canon 5D II-Sony nex 6
Canon L 80-200 f 2.8 - Canon L 135 f2 - Canon FD 135/2.5 convert to EOS - Yashica 50 1.4 ML - Canon FD 50 1.2 - Distagon 35mm 2.8 T AEJ - Minolta MC 24mm f 2.8 - Canon LTM 85 1.9- Canon LTM 85mm 1.9 convert to EOS - Rodenstock Heligon 50 1.9 - Color Skopar 50 2.8 & MAte Box & filters 4X4
Contax RTS II y Minolta SRT 303 - 28-135 3.6 Tokina - Minolta MD 45 f2.0 - Minolta Zoom 80 200 4.5 (Leica)
www.isgleasphoto.com
The life is more easy with this forum .... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|