March
21
What makes a good lens good?
I'm sure that one of my next purchases will be another lens. I have thoughts that I would like a zoom in the 100-200mm range. I'm never close to anything, it seems, and I like the framing (fill the picture with what I want) control of a zoom. I believe that most of my shots will be of my animals and local wildlife, with the occasional bug, flower, or distant mountain thrown in. Yeah, I know I'll really need 3 lenses by the time I'm done. Can I get something decent for $200? Something good for $300?
Thanks for any tips, suggestions, or pointers.
Indeed you can see the image quality of different lenses in your prints. Depends on your standards...
What makes a good lens? basically a combination of good glass, built quality and speed which is represented in f-stops (aperture). Rule of thumb: the faster the lens, the better it is overall...
Canon's L glass is state of the art for their cameras, horribly expensive though. You can find good lenses with 3rd party manufacturers like Sigma, Tamron etc.
I use three lenses for my 10D, a Sigma 15-30mm, a Canon 50mm f1.8, and a Sigma 28-135mm. The Canon is the fastest lens, has the best image quality... but the zooms are sooo much more flexible, most of the time I use the 28-135mm.
Canon and Nikon (and probably a lot of other manufacturers) have thrown quality control out the window. I worked in a camera shop for 3.5 years and I was amazed at the range of quality differences between lenses that were all the same model. A buddy of mine had a Canon 50mm that was razor sharp. He sold it thinking he'd just get another if he needed to. He has since gone through 3 of the same model lenses; none are as sharp as that first one.
When I worked at the store I often had people ask about the differences between the Vivitar fisheye, at around $200, and the Canon fisheye, at over $1000. They felt that since it's so much cheaper it must suck. I took both out and shot a roll of film each. The Canon lens rocked, but so did the Vivitar; both were very sharp. Were there differences? Sure, but $800 worth of difference?
If you look at the lens tests in Pop Photog mag, etc..., you will usually see that almost all lenses, even the super-cheapies, get grade "A" and "B" at 8"x12" enlargements, at all apertures except wide open and all the way closed down.
"In earlier years some lenses were definately superior to others. More recently, the computer has moved into the industry, and practically all lenses made within the last decade or two are excellent-often more precise than even the most exacting practical photographer requires. They are, in fact, usually better in their capacity for preserving fine detail than our standard contemporary films and papers can record." Ansel Adams from The Camera.
Are the colors richly saturated, or washed out looking? Is it easy to focus and/or zoom? Is it heavy? Is the image sharp (or evenly) focused all the way to the edges? Is there light fall-off toward the corners of the frame? Is the viewfinder bright enough to see properly when using it?
As you can see, what defines a "good" lens can be interpreted many ways. Pick what's important to you and go find lenses that fit your needs.
Being crazy, I decided Zeiss T* lenses in Contax/Yashica mount (all manual) were the optics I wanted. They're ungodly expensive new, not much better used, but they do take a nice pic! :wink:
Jim
#If you have any other info about this subject , Please add it free.# |
Posted by webmaster under portal.hznp.com | |