Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 09 Aug 2010 (Monday) 23:18
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Are you serious?

 
JonK
Goldmember
Avatar
2,161 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2004
Location: PA USA
     
Aug 10, 2010 08:11 |  #31

Krapo wrote in post #10693472 (external link)
So?

My point was that a great prime lens such as the 135 f/2 is (also) meant to be used wide open. If you are considering buying such a lens, chances are that you are interested in its low light / nice bokeh abilities.
Its primary purpose is not necessarily to be sharper than another lens at the same focal length.

If you find a lens sharp enough, why bother comparing it to another lens?
I think I just don't understand why there are so many pixel peepers! :)

Right but realistically, I view super fast lenses not as wide open shooters, but as exceptionally sharp almost wide open shooters. 85L is great at 1.2 if you have something to take a picture of at that aperture. But, other than being able to do that, shooting it at ƒ/2 makes it that much amazingly sharp. So, really, in my mindset, I view the 135L not as a ƒ/2 cannon, but as a very sharp ƒ/2.8, which when compared to a 70-200 II @ 135mm, is about the same in sharpness. See where I am coming from at least? Its great to be able to shoot in super low light. But we all know 135mm and low light means difficult to hold. I think of the super big aperture lenses as "able to get that shot if you had to, maybe" but more as "when stopped down a few clicks on the wheel... they're absolutely awesomely sharp", and a few clicks down from 1.2 is only 2.0, and from 2.0 is only 2.8.


7NE | 7D | 5DII | 16-35/2.8L II | 24/1.4L II | TS-E 24/3.5L II | 50/1.4 | 85/1.2L II | 100/2.8L IS | 70-200/2.8L IS II | 400/5.6L | PIXMA Pro 9500 Mark II
check my blog:
www.jonkensy.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
ScatterCr
Senior Member
Avatar
384 posts
Joined May 2010
Location: Pacific Northwest
     
Aug 10, 2010 08:46 |  #32

I think of the super big aperture lenses as "able to get that shot if you had to, maybe" but more as "when stopped down a few clicks on the wheel... they're absolutely awesomely sharp"

Plus 1


Erik
Gear | flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pixelmangler
Member
134 posts
Joined Aug 2010
     
Aug 10, 2010 09:39 |  #33

JonK wrote in post #10693549 (external link)
Right but realistically, I view super fast lenses not as wide open shooters, but as exceptionally sharp almost wide open shooters.

It's a valid point of view but your stating of your viewpoint does not negate the notion that being able to shoot wide open is in and of itself very useful and it is the main reason why many people buy wide aperture glass. I might want to capture an ultra-sharp portrait image of a model with an 85mm f/1.2 lens but she wont be happy with me if I stop it down to f/2.0 or beyond, just to ensure the kind of sharpness that is unkind to a female complexion. If I shoot at f/1.2 and have razor thin depth of field and a softer look, the model will thank me for it and I get to reduce the time spent in post.

The truth is many quite average lenses are capable of delivering awesome sharpness when stopped down to their optimum f stop, where the image is on-axis and possibly being shot with a lens designed for 35mm film but being used on an APSc or APSh sensor. Under these conditions, most average lenses will perform very well indeed and they are easily suitable for a 300dpi print. Where that does not suit is when the photographer requires a narrow depth of field or some additional light-gathering capability so that one can work in conditions with reduced lighting. That's surely the reason why the fastest lenses are computed to provide their best sharpness at or as near to the maximum available aperture as possible.

I see no point in buying ultra-expensive wide aperture lenses, if you never intend to use the widest aperture for the benefits it offers. If your 'exceptional sharpness' terminology is based upon a few more line pairs per millimetre than another lens, I don't think that is a realistic way to measure the effectiveness of the lens. All of my fast lenses offer an excellent (frequently exceptional) performance at maximum aperture, which is what I would expect from any lens intended to do a particular job at its maximum aperture.


if you keep on doing what you have been doing, you're going to keep on getting the same result

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JonK
Goldmember
Avatar
2,161 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2004
Location: PA USA
     
Aug 10, 2010 10:22 |  #34

It depends on the situation. An 85mm 1.2 is a great lens I enjoy mine, but I don't often shoot it at 1.2. Not because its not sharp, but because the depth of field isn't what I am after. It has the effect of miniaturizing subjects due to such isolation. That, and it's not as sharp at 1.2 as it is at 1.6 or so.


7NE | 7D | 5DII | 16-35/2.8L II | 24/1.4L II | TS-E 24/3.5L II | 50/1.4 | 85/1.2L II | 100/2.8L IS | 70-200/2.8L IS II | 400/5.6L | PIXMA Pro 9500 Mark II
check my blog:
www.jonkensy.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bohdank
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,060 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
     
Aug 10, 2010 11:05 |  #35

Which brings up the subject... why the 1.2 over the 1.8 in your case ?

I have some decent glass and all of them are usually used wide open due to the type of shooting I, mostly, do. If they do not perform to some minimum standard, wide open, I would replace them. One reason why I never bought the 70-200 F2.8 IS. At 200mm, from what I have seen over the years it does not produce, what I thought, was adequate sharpness. This is just my opinion so please do not feel you have to defend the lens.

With the MKII I feel I can now replace the F4 IS version plus another lens that I have, to give me that extra stop of light, which I could certainly use.

With that said, not all my lenses are equal but all are more than adequate to me and I AM a pixel peeper.


Bohdan - I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
Gear List

Montreal Concert, Event and Portrait Photographer (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JonK
Goldmember
Avatar
2,161 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2004
Location: PA USA
     
Aug 10, 2010 11:23 |  #36

bohdank wrote in post #10694550 (external link)
Which brings up the subject... why the 1.2 over the 1.8 in your case ?

I have some decent glass and all of them are usually used wide open due to the type of shooting I, mostly, do. If they do not perform to some minimum standard, wide open, I would replace them. One reason why I never bought the 70-200 F2.8 IS. At 200mm, from what I have seen over the years it does not produce, what I thought, was adequate sharpness. This is just my opinion so please do not feel you have to defend the lens.

With the MKII I feel I can now replace the F4 IS version plus another lens that I have, to give me that extra stop of light, which I could certainly use.

With that said, not all my lenses are equal but all are more than adequate to me and I AM a pixel peeper.

Are you asking me?


7NE | 7D | 5DII | 16-35/2.8L II | 24/1.4L II | TS-E 24/3.5L II | 50/1.4 | 85/1.2L II | 100/2.8L IS | 70-200/2.8L IS II | 400/5.6L | PIXMA Pro 9500 Mark II
check my blog:
www.jonkensy.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
malla1962
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,714 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jul 2004
Location: Walney Island,cumbria,uk
     
Aug 10, 2010 11:34 |  #37

aaronmd wrote in post #10693284 (external link)
If you pixel peep then of course the 135 is going to be superior. I LOVE mine at F2. I also adore my 70-200 2.8 IS II as well though. When it comes to final output...I don't think anyone will be able to tell the difference.

I have had the 135f2 and the 200f2.8 but find the new 70-200 a lot more usefull and as far as IQ goes theres nothing in it.


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lankforddl
Senior Member
Avatar
747 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 5
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Minnesota
     
Aug 10, 2010 11:37 as a reply to  @ post 10692955 |  #38

To the original post'r. I completely disagree! When tested in a correct and controlled manner the 135L is just phenomenal and will always beat a zoom (any zoom)


5DIICAN17-40CAN50CAN85CAN100CAN135CAN70-200

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,778 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2560
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Aug 10, 2010 11:47 |  #39

lankforddl wrote in post #10694765 (external link)
To the original post'r. I completely disagree! When tested in a correct and controlled manner the 135L is just phenomenal and will always beat a zoom (any zoom)

Time for a rethink, after reading the links in Post #8


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
malla1962
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,714 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jul 2004
Location: Walney Island,cumbria,uk
     
Aug 10, 2010 11:48 |  #40

Wilt wrote in post #10694827 (external link)
Time for a rethink, after reading the links in Post #8

Just what I was thinking.;)


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,778 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2560
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Aug 10, 2010 11:54 |  #41

Computer aided optical design has turned the world on its head for conventional thinking about fixed focal length vs. zoom performance. Even the Canon 100-400 can rival the Canon 400mm for MTF scores.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pixelmangler
Member
134 posts
Joined Aug 2010
     
Aug 10, 2010 11:58 |  #42

JonK wrote in post #10694230 (external link)
It depends on the situation.

aint that the truth :)

JonK wrote in post #10694230 (external link)
An 85mm 1.2 is a great lens I enjoy mine, but I don't often shoot it at 1.2. Not because its not sharp, but because the depth of field isn't what I am after. It has the effect of miniaturizing subjects due to such isolation. That, and it's not as sharp at 1.2 as it is at 1.6 or so.

If the depth of field is too narrow, then there is nothing for it but to stop down, which you are right to do. It is commonly thought that isolation of subjects is the primary reason for wanting to restrict the depth of field and I tend to agree with this notion. Desired sharpness is a combination of the function of the viewing conditions and what you actually want to do with the final output. There have been several instances where I have seen photographers evaluating image sharpness of 16 or 32 bit images, on monitor screens which can only display 8bits of colour depth information, and yet they are using a restrictive colour gamut such as sRGB. Images are viewed by transilluminated light (display screens) when they are ultimately going to be viewed by reflected light (printed) within the smallest colour space... CMYK unless printing is going to be done using the six colour hexachrome process.

We all know about circles of confusion and eye to print distances and yet we are caught up in a concept of sharpness that is little more than theoretical... when we eventually send our image files for final output. If I supply a local newspaper with sports or hard news images, they want me to give them medium quality jpeg files sized for output at 75 lines per inch and converted to the CMYK gamut. This is approximately half of the resolution with which I would normally want to supply my client. (what price the difference between f/1.2 and f/1.6 here?) The only benefit to stopping down in this case is not one of sharpness but, primarily, one of depth of field and I doubt that such a small adjustment would be noticeable at 75lpi on newsprint. Secondarily, exposure adjustment could be cited as a reason for making the small adjustment but once again, I don't feel it would be noticeable on rough newsprint.

Does printed output require the perceived sharpness of a well-calibrated display? Likely it doesn't but when I prepare pre-press work for long-run printing on fine art paper which is intended to be printed by a photogravure printing process, I will take any help I can get and I use high resolution image files tied to very big colour spaces. The perceived sharpness on display screens is quite likely to be illusory and derives from the previously mentioned transillumination which, like the Kodachrome transparencies of old, appears to increase the sharpness of an image because of the apparent high contrast of the image on screen, leading to an edge effect that causes the observer to see an apparent increase in sharpness.

Once again, it is the real world everyday uses that determine what we need to do to increase our image sharpness. Photographers may realise that absolute sharpness is a theoretical construct and what we see with our eyes depends entirely on the conditions which obtain when we are viewing the image. A change in measured values of a couple of line pairs per millimetre is unlikely to be detectable by the human eye. All of the foregoing is apropos nothing other than to say that you should try to have fun and do what you think is best for your images.

:D


if you keep on doing what you have been doing, you're going to keep on getting the same result

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
13,092 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 615
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
     
Aug 10, 2010 12:04 as a reply to  @ pixelmangler's post |  #43

How's the IQ of the 135 at 70mm?


TANSTAAFL--The Only Unbreakable Rule in Photography

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pixelmangler
Member
134 posts
Joined Aug 2010
     
Aug 10, 2010 12:07 |  #44

RDKirk wrote in post #10694945 (external link)
How's the IQ of the 135 at 70mm?


Terrible! :lol:

Your contribution fits the thread title well. :p


if you keep on doing what you have been doing, you're going to keep on getting the same result

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,778 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2560
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Aug 10, 2010 12:09 |  #45

RDKirk wrote in post #10694945 (external link)
How's the IQ of the 135 at 70mm?

pixelmangler wrote in post #10694965 (external link)
Terrible! :lol:

Your contribution fits the thread title well. :p

...or perhaps 'so extraordinary as to not be quantifiable'


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

5,454 views & 0 likes for this thread
Are you serious?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is sageybadegey
870 guests, 318 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.