|
dbrayack
Dec 21, 2006, 1:27 PM
Post #26 of 36
(960 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 1260
|
Yah....
"Lets bolt some cracks!"
Its a joke of course.
-Danno
|
|
|
|
|
brent_e
Dec 21, 2006, 1:53 PM
Post #27 of 36
(958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 15, 2004
Posts: 5111
|
maldaly wrote: There's sharpmess and then there's sharpness. piton, the sharpness I believe you're talking can be found looking at test pattern shots with a magnifying glass, and there's no doubt that there are sharper lenses than the 18-200 Zoom. But then there's real world sharpness. The kind that's important when you grab your camera off the table to shoot something that pops up unexpectedly. You don't have time to switch lenses, set up a tripod or ask the subject to re-pose. Here's a grab shot I made late in the evening in the open air pavilion at the end of the Triple Crown comp in Chatanooga. To my eye, the sky was almost dark. This shot was handheld at 200mm, 1/10 sec @f 5.6 off the meta-data on the file. That's right, I handheld this (no propped elbows) at 200mm (That's 300mm to you film guys) at 1/10 sec! It was shot in Program exposure mode, no sharpening was added either at the camera level or later in Photoshop. The quality setting on my D70s were set at Normal, Medium. I resized in Photoshop to make it web compatible. I love this lens and it has changed all the crap I have to carry when I shoot. Are there down-sides? Sure. The VR doesn not stop action--you can see the blurred head in the bottom of my photo. Also, it's expensive and it suffers from annoying lens creep. Don't bother setting it on a tripod and shooting down at the ground. Mal
and it's not just real world sharpness it's contrast and saturation - the aforementioned picture has both!
Chunky,
If your lense isn't focusing right there might be something wrong with it. If other lenses aren't working on your camera then problem solved (sort of!). see if you can try the lense on another camera.
good luck!
Brent
|
|
|
|
|
brent_e
Dec 21, 2006, 1:58 PM
Post #28 of 36
(956 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 15, 2004
Posts: 5111
|
dbrayack wrote: I have a 35 f2, 50F1.4, the 18-70 F3.5-5.6, the 10.5mm fisheye and am buying the Tokina 12-24mm F4. I canont really tell the difference in "sharpness" in my climbing photos. You mentioned that you like "sharp" lenses, but it seems that you're a canon guy, just curious to see if you were like...oh yah the 1x-YY FXX is a super sharp lens for Nikon etc. Thanks though. -Danno
you've got a 50 1.4! that is a really sharp lense.
the old school 50 f/2 is really sharp (manual focus). 180 f/2.8 AF and MF is sharp, too!
go to http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html and click "lenses" on the side if you want to read Bjorn's opinion. He seems to have tested most nikkors known to man, and some not known (ie 300mm f/2.0).
Brent
|
|
|
|
|
dbrayack
Dec 21, 2006, 2:10 PM
Post #29 of 36
(952 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 1260
|
Thanks man,
-Danno
|
|
|
|
|
chunky
Dec 21, 2006, 3:08 PM
Post #30 of 36
(950 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2005
Posts: 13
|
Everything people say here about the 18-200mm lens is true. It's slow, has a lot of fall off but the range is to die for. Despite the focusing hassles it's dreamy when you don't want to haul around a bag full of glass. Still I think I have a problem with mine and I'm going to send it in. I have abused it some so who knows. It just should work better than it does. I end up having to use it in manual focus mode half the time which just isn't what you want in a lens like this. The focus ring is small and more of an after thought than something you want to deal with. Auto focus needs to work better.
There was a question about the 85mm 1.4. This is the best lens I have in my bag. Razor sharp and fast. I had the non AF one for years and picked up a misindexed AF on ebay a few years ago for $300 - score.
A lens that I would recomend to people looking to venture into the super fast, fixed focal arena is the 50mm 1.4. You can pick them up cheap - as low as $100.
keep smiling,
Chunkmaster
|
|
|
|
|
chanceboarder
Dec 21, 2006, 5:56 PM
Post #31 of 36
(937 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 6, 2003
Posts: 1348
|
chunky wrote: A lens that I would recomend to people looking to venture into the super fast, fixed focal arena is the 50mm 1.4. You can pick them up cheap - as low as $100.
50mm is considered a "normal" or "standard" lens on a 35mm SLR system because it gives about the same perspective as the human eye and doesn't produce any wide angle or telephoto distortion when taking a photo. But is 50mm still considered a "normal" lens on a DSLR given the magnification factor or would say a 35mm be closer to a "normal" lens on a DSLR?
Jason
|
|
|
|
|
brent_e
Dec 21, 2006, 9:56 PM
Post #32 of 36
(923 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 15, 2004
Posts: 5111
|
chanceboarder wrote: chunky wrote: A lens that I would recomend to people looking to venture into the super fast, fixed focal arena is the 50mm 1.4. You can pick them up cheap - as low as $100. Yup agreed, they're great lenses to have and you can find them cheap. Here is a question though. 50mm is considered a "normal" or "standard" lens on a 35mm SLR system because it gives about the same perspective as the human eye and doesn't produce any wide angle or telephoto distortion when taking a photo. But is 50mm still considered a "normal" lens on a DSLR given the magnification factor or would say a 35mm be closer to a "normal" lens on a DSLR? Jason
I think the 50mm being a normal humans view is a misconception. I think perspective can change a bit depending on your eyes and i've heard a well regarded photographer say that 24 mm (on film) feels more "normal" to him.
So, i skirted your question, i suppose. Sorry Jason. 
Brent
|
|
|
|
|
trenchdigger
Dec 21, 2006, 10:38 PM
Post #33 of 36
(916 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2003
Posts: 1447
|
chanceboarder wrote: chunky wrote: A lens that I would recomend to people looking to venture into the super fast, fixed focal arena is the 50mm 1.4. You can pick them up cheap - as low as $100. Yup agreed, they're great lenses to have and you can find them cheap. Here is a question though. 50mm is considered a "normal" or "standard" lens on a 35mm SLR system because it gives about the same perspective as the human eye and doesn't produce any wide angle or telephoto distortion when taking a photo. But is 50mm still considered a "normal" lens on a DSLR given the magnification factor or would say a 35mm be closer to a "normal" lens on a DSLR? Jason
As Brent_e mentioned, "normal" is actually a bit shorter than 50mm on a 35mm camera. From what I've read, it's closer to 35-40mm (on a 35mm camera) . With the 1.6 crop factor of most digital SLRs we're using, the 50mm shoots like an 80mm lens. That puts it in the "short telephoto" or "portrait" category.
As a side note, I have found my 50mm 1.4 to by my favorite lens for climbing photography on my digital SLR.
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Jan 10, 2007, 11:59 AM
Post #34 of 36
(857 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
It's hard to go wrong with such a sharp and fast lense. the 50mm is reliable.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Jan 11, 2007, 12:54 AM
Post #35 of 36
(846 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
trenchdigger wrote: chanceboarder wrote: chunky wrote: A lens that I would recomend to people looking to venture into the super fast, fixed focal arena is the 50mm 1.4. You can pick them up cheap - as low as $100. Yup agreed, they're great lenses to have and you can find them cheap. Here is a question though. 50mm is considered a "normal" or "standard" lens on a 35mm SLR system because it gives about the same perspective as the human eye and doesn't produce any wide angle or telephoto distortion when taking a photo. But is 50mm still considered a "normal" lens on a DSLR given the magnification factor or would say a 35mm be closer to a "normal" lens on a DSLR? Jason As Brent_e mentioned, "normal" is actually a bit shorter than 50mm on a 35mm camera. From what I've read, it's closer to 35-40mm (on a 35mm camera) . With the 1.6 crop factor of most digital SLRs we're using, the 50mm shoots like an 80mm lens. That puts it in the "short telephoto" or "portrait" category. As a side note, I have found my 50mm 1.4 to by my favorite lens for climbing photography on my digital SLR.
The field of view of an average humans eyes are about the same as a 43mm lens, close enough to 50mm to be called normal. Definitely anything in the 35-50mm range would fit into the normal range. Really, IMO, wide angle doesn't start till below 28mm. And Tele starts at 85+.
On a DSLR with 1.5x crop factor (canon uses 1.6, sigma 2.0, Oly 2.0, the other brands use 1.5x). That puts the 50mm on a digital in the short tele range.
Everyone has their favorite focal lengths. Whatever, seems comfortable to you will enable you to produce better shots. Thats why primes have an advantage in teaching, because you learn what a perspective looks like before even taking the camera out.
The 50mm prime is a great lens on a 1.5x+ crop camera. Sharp, fast, distortion free and 25mm longer for a lot less money then a F1.4 75-85mm lens.
|
|
|
|
|
kevinheiss
Jan 30, 2007, 1:31 PM
Post #36 of 36
(808 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 26, 2004
Posts: 272
|
Just so you know a 200mm is NOT a 300mm on film. If you don'T already know thatm the you should be the last person to put comments about lenses and cameras.
What you get on your digital camera is pretty much a cropped version of what a film would capture. If I had a picture on film, I would just crop about 1/4inch of my film picture and that is what you would on a digital camera (numbers not exact. This is because your sensor in your digital is not exacly 35mm like a film.
How can your 200mm lense be a 300mm lens if you don't have the optical for it?? People refer to it as it looks like a 300mm because the way it is cropped but you don't actually get the closeness of a 300mm. Put a 300mm on your camera and a 300mm on a film camera, you will get the same picture except the digital will have a minor crop factor on his picture from his sensor in his camera.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
