Does the 50mm f.14 give you wider dynamic range?

[Ayahuasca]

Does the 50mm 1.4 actually give you better dynamic
range, or is it just my impression that it does? I just
got one last month, and the shadow detail seems
much richer, with fewer blown highlights. Can this be
measured, or it's all in my head?

[robertwgross]

Better dynamic range, compared to what?

---Bob Gross---

[Ayahuasca]

Better dynamic range, compared to what?

---Bob Gross---

Compared to, well, camera performance using
other lens I own: Tamron 28-75; 17-40f4L; 70-200f4L, etc.

[Persian-Rice]

No, the body is what makes a differnce. 1 Series cameras have more dynamic range then D series cameras.

Contrast is better in some lenses, you Canon L's have better contrast then your Tamron and the 50 1.4 will also be better. But in terms of DR, no, you need to upgrade to a better body to notice anything............thats unless you already have a 1 series.

[robertwgross]

Contrast is better in some lenses ...

That is supposed to be true, but I don't know why. What is it in a lens that makes it high contrast or low contrast? Is it just the quality of the glass in the lens elements?

Most of the dynamic range of the whole thing is accomplished by the sensor and the image processor behind it. Accurate metering probably helps it somewhat.

---Bob Gross---

[timmyquest]

That is supposed to be true, but I don't know why. What is it in a lens that makes it high contrast or low contrast? Is it just the quality of the glass in the lens elements?

Most of the dynamic range of the whole thing is accomplished by the sensor and the image processor behind it. Accurate metering probably helps it somewhat.

---Bob Gross---

I think it's important though to make the distinction between dynamic range and contrast. They are after all...two very different things.

I look at dynamic range as the cameras ability, where as contrast is a lenses ability.

If a camera is capable of "x" dynamic range, then only the best lens will allow you to see it.

I know darn well that i get more contrast out of my 70-200 (canon) then i ever did out of my 70-300 (sigma). It had nothing to do with my camera. The potential was always there.

[griff2]

If a camera is capable of "x" dynamic range, then only the best lens will allow you to see it.
I agree entirely. Dynamic range is a function of the weakest component.

[roanjohn]

I don't think there is anybody who has actually found a scientific way to measure DR. Even Fuji's extended dynamic range sensor leaves some users questioning if it really DOES extend dynamic range.

I thought the 20D gave me a greater DR than the Rebel, but that was just based on my eyes.............could have something to do with metering too.

WHo knows??

But the lens does not determine DR, its the sensor.

Ro1

[Persian-Rice]

I once saw a little scale with rating on DR from Canon posted on this forum, a long time ago.

All the D series cameras are fairly low on the scale, the rebel and x0D cameras pretty much all have the same DR, maybe a very very slight increment of change up or down. But the 1D, old and new, were rated considerably higher, and the 1Ds, is slightly higher then the 1D cameras, almost no change. Its all in the range in the sensor, the higher end sensors are more sensitive.

In terms of contrast, I dont understand the science behind it, but I assume its based on the quality of the elements and their placement. On the same camera, I noticed very big difference between my Tamron and my L lenses. My 24-70 and 70-200 have very awesome contrast, as in brightness and strength of colors. The Tamron is very neutral.

However I have also come across another idea, and that is in the metering/WB. My only problems come with the Tamron, but its not the case 100% of the time, sometimes the images are perfectly fine, sometimes they suck. I think that under certain conditions, the design of the Tamron is confusing the metering and WB system inside the camera, but I would like to test things out before I make a conclusion on that.

An actual example is, indoors, the Tamron seems to be somewhat consistent, sometimes dull sometimes nice and contrasty. On the other hand, when shooting outdoors, I notice that the Tamron is very neutral almost 90% of the time, while for example the 70-200 always looks right.