Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Better lens?

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Hyderabad ,India
    Posts
    24
    Real Name
    KrishnaChaitanya

    Better lens?

    What are the advantages and the disadvantages of the Zeiss 24mm 1.8 for Nex cameras and the Olympus 12mm 2.0 for MFT's?

    Which is the better lens? In terms of sharpness and low-light photography.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    17,662
    Real Name
    Have a guess :)

    Re: Better lens?

    The disadvantage of both is that they're primes -- so you'll need a lot of them (at different focal lengths) to match the range of focal lengths of a zoom lens. Sharpness of any modern lens is pretty much a non-issue these days as an optimal sharpening workflow will have a FAR bigger impact on your images.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Hyderabad ,India
    Posts
    24
    Real Name
    KrishnaChaitanya

    Re: Better lens?

    Quote Originally Posted by Colin Southern View Post
    The disadvantage of both is that they're primes -- so you'll need a lot of them (at different focal lengths) to match the range of focal lengths of a zoom lens. Sharpness of any modern lens is pretty much a non-issue these days as an optimal sharpening workflow will have a FAR bigger impact on your images.
    Thanks Colin, finally can you tell me which is the better prime?..Or is the comparison possible?

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    17,662
    Real Name
    Have a guess :)

    Re: Better lens?

    Quote Originally Posted by boyyocool View Post
    Thanks Colin, finally can you tell me which is the better prime?..Or is the comparison possible?
    They're vastly different focal lengths - suitable for different things - so it's a bit like trying to compare a mini-van & a tractor.

    The point I'm really trying to make is "why consider a prime at all" - 99.9% of the time all a prime will do is severely limit the types of image that you're able to take. And from a sharpness perspective - will be indistinguishable from an image taken with a zoom lens.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Hyderabad ,India
    Posts
    24
    Real Name
    KrishnaChaitanya

    Re: Better lens?

    Quote Originally Posted by Colin Southern View Post
    They're vastly different focal lengths - suitable for different things - so it's a bit like trying to compare a mini-van & a tractor.

    The point I'm really trying to make is "why consider a prime at all" - 99.9% of the time all a prime will do is severely limit the types of image that you're able to take. And from a sharpness perspective - will be indistinguishable from an image taken with a zoom lens.
    Thanks for the advice Colin!

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    253
    Real Name
    Pete

    Re: Better lens?

    as Colin says the Olympus gives a field of view equivalent to 24mm where as the Zeiss give a field of 36mm so they have different purposes.

    I’m not going to get into an argument with Colin about Zooms vs Primes but…..

    Why would you buy a prime?

    They tend to have faster apertures than zooms. In the M4/3 and Sony Nex world nearly all zooms currently are f3.5-5.6 so a fast prime helps in low light. Also some of these primes (Panasonic 14f2.5 and 20f1.7) are so small that they make the cameras more compact.

    This will change in time and Panasonic have some fast zooms coming out….

    In the dSLR world it is different and for most of us a 17-55/24-70 f2.8 is fast enough. But for portraiture some photographers use say an 85 f1.4 to isolate background etc. Some photographer’s “need” faster than f2.8 hence they gravitate to primes. Also if you’re in to wildlife photography those huge primes are the rule.

    I tend to use zooms on a dSLR and primes on my m4/3
    Last edited by thequacksoflife; 23rd February 2012 at 01:55 PM.

  7. #7
    rpcrowe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    13,175
    Real Name
    Richard

    Re: Better lens?

    At the risk of beating a dead horse... I am not keen on the ultra-thin DOF of the Canon 85mm f/1.4 (along with it's marginal sharpness, slow focus and enormous weight). I don't like portraits in which the tip of the nose and eyes cannot be in focus at the same time. I find that my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens is capable of selective focus by knocking the background out of focus while still retaining focus for the entire face and head as in this image of Toby...

    Better lens?

    Yep! Hugh primes are the ticket for many professional wildlife photographers because they need focal lengths well in excess of 400mm and a relatively wide aperture.

    However, IMO, the new (AND VERY EXPENSIVE) Canon 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4x lens will probably become the most versatile wildlife lens ever produced. But, unfortunately it is priced out of the range of a majority of photographers who are not independently wealthy or are making a good living shooting nature.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    253
    Real Name
    Pete

    Re: Better lens?

    Quote Originally Posted by rpcrowe View Post
    At the risk of beating a dead horse... I am not keen on the ultra-thin DOF of the Canon 85mm f/1.4 (along with it's marginal sharpness, slow focus and enormous weight). I don't like portraits in which the tip of the nose and eyes cannot be in focus at the same time. I find that my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens is capable of selective focus by knocking the background out of focus while still retaining focus for the entire face and head as in this image of Toby...

    Better lens?

    Yep! Hugh primes are the ticket for many professional wildlife photographers because they need focal lengths well in excess of 400mm and a relatively wide aperture.

    However, IMO, the new (AND VERY EXPENSIVE) Canon 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4x lens will probably become the most versatile wildlife lens ever produced. But, unfortunately it is priced out of the range of a majority of photographers who are not independently wealthy or are making a good living shooting nature.
    ah Toby is a handsome fellow!

    and I tend to agree with you about some portraiture and f1.4. But there are people who like it. Vive le difference as they say

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •