I love my 600mm prime. I can add a 1.4 extender and still get sharp photos in lower light. I am considering Olympus for size and weight, they have some nice zoom lenses.
Prime lenses also tend to hold their value.
Photolady2014 wrote:
You are very right!
Expense and happiness. Everything has a price but happiness is priceless.
Some Sony DXO results for FE mount lenses: (E mount are sub standard)
70- 200 zoom score 41, 24-70 zoom score 39. 85 prime score 49, 90 prime score 47, 50 prime score 45.
Although good scores, not as good as prime test results.
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/
zarathu wrote:
yep. Doesn’t have to be DXO. Several other organizations measure lines per inch at different sensor resolutions. It's the reason for my critical work in macro, I use an Irix 150 mm manual macro. My manual 800mm f/11 is also pretty sharp, and actually sharp enough to still get a sharp shot with with a 1.4 tele extender on it. I have three specialties: macro and close up, and dead flowers, and hummingbirds. For all of them, I use primes.
You could not be more correct about lines per inch. That is why a sensor is only as good as the lens in front of it. It is impossible to get all of the resolution out of a high megapixel sensor without the ability of the lens to capture all of the information.
Zoom lenses are improving with technology, but not by that much. Many of the new zoom lenses rate the same or sometimes less than previous mount versions if you go through the lists and compare.
My Canon TSE lenses are my main automotive glass because the line resolution is superior to all other Canon primes. I print and publish monthly.
imagextrordinair wrote:
Some Sony DXO results for FE mount lenses: (E mount are sub standard)
70- 200 zoom score 41, 24-70 zoom score 39. 85 prime score 49, 90 prime score 47, 50 prime score 45.
Although good scores, not as good as prime test results.
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Those are NOT my results ....
Clearly, this Dox Mark "expert" doesnt really know, or do, actual photography.
imagextrordinair wrote:
You could not be more correct about lines per inch. That is why a sensor is only as good as the lens in front of it. It is impossible to get all of the resolution out of a high megapixel sensor without the ability of the lens to capture all of the information.
Zoom lenses are improving with technology, but not by that much. Many of the new zoom lenses rate the same or sometimes less than previous mount versions if you go through the lists and compare.
My Canon TSE lenses are my main automotive glass because the line resolution is superior to all other Canon primes. I print and publish monthly.
You could not be more correct about lines per inch... (
show quote)
As someone who has worked mainly for publication, I know bullshidt when I see it ... and I see right through you.
No
But... what is this thing "need" you speak of?
User ID wrote:
As someone who has worked mainly for publication, I know bullshidt when I see it ... and I see right through you.
?
Line resolution is as important as the sensors ability to capture detail.
imagextrordinair wrote:
?
Line resolution is as important as the sensors ability to capture detail.
I know publication reproduction upside down inside out and backwards. Its an essential job skill.
Therefor I see through you.
User ID wrote:
I know publication reproduction upside down inside out and backwards. Its an essential job skill.
Therefor I see through you.
Some information for ID or anyone thinking a zoom is equal to a prime resolution...
"It’s worth noting that for lenses with a wide zoom range the differences between sharpness at different focal lengths can be quite significant. For most lenses, sharpness in P-Mpix is typically between 50% and 100% of the sensor pixel count, and differences smaller than 1 P-MPix are usually not noticeable. The best resolutions are usually achieved by prime lenses at apertures between f/2.8 and f/8".
Source:
https://www.dxomark.com/dxomark-lens-camera-sensor-testing-protocol/ (read more)
"Lens Spatial resolution is typically expressed in line pairs per millimeter (lppmm), lines (of resolution, mostly for analog video), contrast vs. cycles/mm, or MTF (the modulus of OTF). The MTF may be found by taking the two-dimensional Fourier transform of the spatial sampling function. Smaller pixels result in wider MTF curves and thus better detection of higher frequency energy.
This is analogous to taking the Fourier transform of a signal sampling function; as in that case, the dominant factor is the sampling period, which is analogous to the size of the picture element (pixel). Other factors include pixel noise, pixel cross-talk, substrate penetration, and fill factor.
"A common problem among non-technicians is the use of the number of pixels on the detector to describe the resolution. If all sensors were the same size, this would be acceptable. Since they are not, the use of the number of pixels can be misleading. For example, a 2-megapixel camera of 20-micrometre-square pixels will have worse resolution than a 1-megapixel camera with 8-micrometre pixels, all else being equal".
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_resolution (read more)
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.