Ugly Hedgehog - Photography
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Buying Lenses
Page <<first <prev 3 of 5 next> last>>
Jul 11, 2023 15:39:48   #
Architect1776 Loc: In my mind
 
rehess wrote:
At one time, essentially everyone used the M42-mount, but then each company started using their own mount. I’ve always felt that each company had their own priorities. For example, Canon went directly to the EF-mount in the late 1980’s; Nikon and Pentax got there eventually - just before Canon and Nikon released their MILC mounts - but Nikon maintained compatibility with their older mount by going to electronic control of aperture first, while Pentax maintained compatibility with their older mount by going to in-lens focus motors first.
At one time, essentially everyone used the M42-mou... (show quote)


PS, Canon went electronic 100% in 1987 with the EF. This translated to 100% compatibility with the RF.
Now all the R, FL, FD (Same EXACT "Mount") and M39 lenses work manually with metering and aperture priority Auto on EOS R cameras.
Not so with Nikon and the numerous mounts they went through over the years. See Ken Rockwell's compatibility chart.
https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/mirrorless/lenses/ftz.htm

Reply
Jul 11, 2023 16:54:55   #
selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA
 
jerryc41 wrote:
Right! That became obvious when high resolution cameras started appearing. They showed up the shortcomings of lenses.

A higher resolution camera will help you separate your sharper lenses from those that are not as sharp. For more on this see Photographic System Resolution and Photographic System Resolution (2) Understanding DXOMARK Perceptual Megapixels

But sharpness and resolution are ridiculously overrated contributors to image quality. We have all seen the evidence that 12MP iPhone can produce excellent images and that 16MP and 24MP sensors are more than enough to produce excellent images, especially when a significant portion of the image is beyond the DoF limits or contains little texture or detail.

Reply
Jul 11, 2023 17:10:40   #
SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA
 
gwilliams6 wrote:
nealbralley, actually the higher resolution sensors in cameras DOES show the shortcomings of lower resolving modern lenses, just a fact.

Modern lenses are built to different standards of resolution and you DO need to match the lens resolution to your camera's sensor resolution to get the best sharpness and detail in your images,, a fact of the physics of the higher pixel density of those higher megapixel sensors .

When I moved up from my 24mp fullframe sensor A7III and A9 cameras to my 61mp sensor A7RIV and 50mp sensor of my A1, I had current modern lenses that could resolve my previous 24mp sensors, but those lenses COULD NOT resolve that 61mp sensor of my A7RIV and 50mp sensor of my A1.

I sold those modern current lenses that could not resolve my 61mp A7RIV and 50mp A1. And now only use current modern lenses that can fully resolve those high megapixel sensors.

Here is SAB (SonyAlphaBlog) MTF-standard sharpness testing(tested on the 61mp A7RIV) that show which modern E-mount lenses can fully resolve that 61mp sensor of the A7RIV, A7RV, and the 50mp sensor of the A1.

Lenses that tested outstanding and excellent ARE good enough resolution for my high 50mp and 61 megapixel cameras. But those lenses that tested lower than that are better suited for lower megapixel cameras.

In reality an image made with say a lower 24mp sensor made with a modern current lens that tested only Very good or good in this SAB testing, will actually have better apparent sharpness than a image made with a 61mp sensor camera and a lens that tested only very good or good. Just a fact

https://sonyalpha.blog/2019/11/10/which-lenses-to-maximise-the-potential-of-the-sony-a7riv/

(quote from SAB)
"1.1 Getting the most of the sensor of the (61mp) A7RIV / RV
The Sony A7RIV & A7RV with their 61Mpix will not give you better results than the 42Mpix of the A7RIII or the 33Mpix of the A7IV or the 24Mpix of the A7III if your lenses can not resolve such a high pixel density

The resolving power of a lens is measured by its ability to differentiate two lines or points in an object. The greater the resolving power, the more details will be visible on your final image up to the number of Mpix of you sensor

This is summarized in the “Sharpness of the lens” with in general reach its max at Aperture around F5.6-F8 for any lens

Most lens have enough resolving power for the density of a 24Mpix full frame sensor but the A7RIV with is crazy high pixel density is torturing the lenses and there are very few that can reveal the full potential of the sensor

Also this full potential will only be achieved in ideal conditions with speed of min 1/250 handled and low ISO < 800 ISO

You can still take great photos at 1/60sec and 6400 ISO but this won’t be better than on a 24 Mpix camera

So before buying/upgrading to an (61mp) A7RIV check the lenses you have or should buy , for many people a (33mp) A7IV, (24mp) A7III or (42mp) A7RIII could be a better option. " (end quote)

This is the reality nealbralley.

Cheers and best to you.
nealbralley, actually the higher resolution sensor... (show quote)


Mostly correct, but I would dispute the “fact” that higher resolution sensor reveal the shortcomings of lesser lenses. Yes, to get the most out of those sensors will require better lenses. if you were getting good images from a lower resolution sensor the images you’ll get from the high res sensor will be just as good, just not as good as you’ll get with good glass.

Reply
 
 
Jul 11, 2023 17:18:06   #
SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA
 
Merlin1300 wrote:
Lenses ?? You want LENSES ??
Not ME, any more. I want ONE package that does 90% of what I need.
I found that in a used Sony DSC-RX10 iii - with an excellent Zeiss 24 - 600 lens.
I'm DONE. Selling my Canon 7D on eBay, a 100mm f/2.8L IS USM lens.
Keeping my 80D and some assorted Canon and Tamron lenses.
But I'm DONE toting a camera and a bag full of lenses when I go on vacation.


I have an RX10MIV and it’s a fine camera for what I use it for. But if it’s doing everything you need then your needs are much less than mine.

Reply
Jul 11, 2023 17:20:33   #
SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA
 
larryepage wrote:
I have found that less than stellar lenses create better images on a camera with high resolution than they did on any lower resolution camera, if good technique is used. Of course better lenses will produce better results. Otherwise there would not be any reason to buy a premium lens.

But the lore that says lower quality lenses have to go into the garbage as soon as one buys a high resolution camera is just idiotic babbling, whether here on UHH or on other alledged photographic sources.
I have found that less than stellar lenses create ... (show quote)


Exactly. While you can certainly get better results on a high res sensor with better glass the results you get with lesser glass will be at least as good as you were getting with a lower res sensor.

Reply
Jul 11, 2023 17:21:04   #
Jim Bianco
 
jerryc41 wrote:
The general advice is to spend your money buying good lenses and use them on whatever camera you have. Buying a cheap lens just to cover a focal length is not a smart move. That's good advice.

I've generally heeded that advice. I don't buy lenses "just because." I've always bought a certain lens because I've wanted a particular focal length. I'm covered from fisheye to 300mm with a 1.4 extender. With all the online reviews of new Nikon lenses, I haven't had even a twinge of temptation to buy one. It was just the opposite with then Zfc, Z6II, and Z8. As each one was introduced, and I watched the endless reviews online, I couldn't resist. Reading all the positive comments here added to my "need" to have one. When Nikon introduced the DSLR that looked like the Nikon F, I was tempted, so I had the get the fc. I think I favor bodies over lenses because lenses are like tires on a car, and cameras are like the car itself. I've never gotten excited about buying a new set of tires. How about you?
The general advice is to spend your money buying g... (show quote)

All I have to say is GLASS, GLASS, GLASS.

Reply
Jul 11, 2023 17:51:06   #
gwilliams6
 
larryepage wrote:
I have found that less than stellar lenses create better images on a camera with high resolution than they did on any lower resolution camera, if good technique is used. Of course better lenses will produce better results. Otherwise there would not be any reason to buy a premium lens.

But the lore that says lower quality lenses have to go into the garbage as soon as one buys a high resolution camera is just idiotic babbling, whether here on UHH or on other alledged photographic sources.
I have found that less than stellar lenses create ... (show quote)


Larryepage the science just doesn't agree with your assumption, do better research into this please. You really do need to match your lens resolution with the image sensor resolution to get the better image quality, resolution and detail. That is just a fact, whether or not you believe it, sorry.

Of course you can still make decent photos with a lower resolving lens on a high megapixel camera, but the greater pixel density of that higher megapixel sensor will strain that lower resolving lens to resolve enough for that greater pixel density, and the result will be worse apparent sharpness and resolution in that image.

The key is I said "lower resolving" lenses, not less expensive lenses. There are many affordable and less expensive lenses on the market that still have enough resolving ability for those high megapixel sensor cameras.

I saw all this firsthand when shooting my lower resolving lens that were fine on my 24mp A7III and A9 and then tried them on my 61mp A7RIV and 50mp A1.

Why pay for those high megapixel cameras and all their ultimate resolution and detail possible with their greater pixel density, and then totally throw that away by using lenses that CAN NOT resolve those sensors that you paid for. You were better off sticking with your lower megapixel cameras in that case.

I never said throw away those lower resolving lenses if you move to high megapixel cameras. I didn't throw mine away, I sold and traded them in on buying better resolving lenses. No wasted value.

The science and reality is clear here, even if stubborn UHHers refuse to accept the reality and the science. LOL

From GadgetMomentum: Feb. 2023:
(quote) " Both lens resolution and sensor megapixel count matter similarly for your photo quality.

A high-megapixel sensor won’t improve your photo quality if you only have low-resolution lenses. Similarly, high-resolution lenses won’t significantly improve your photo quality if your camera only has a low-megapixel sensor." (end quote)

Cheers and best to you.

Reply
 
 
Jul 11, 2023 18:12:27   #
selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA
 
SuperflyTNT wrote:
Mostly correct, but I would dispute the “fact” that higher resolution sensor reveal the shortcomings of lesser lenses.

It is a fact that I have already examined at length.

When I got my A7 II I was able to review the performance of all of my Nikon, Leica, Voigtlander, Tamron and Zeiss lenses on the same 24MP sensor. I sold a couple of the lenses to KEH because they did not perform as well from corner to corner as others.

Then I got the Z7 and repeated the test on all of those lenses plus a couple of additional Sony lenses at 45.7MP. A couple more went to KEH.

Finally I had the Bayer array removed from the A7 II and compared it to the Z7 using the same lens. This confirmed that the monochrome 24MP sensor produces about the same sharpness (by skipping the demosaicing step during the raw conversion) as the 45.7MP sensor that still has its Bayer array.

These are not just opinions. Anyone who understands the underlying principles and looks objectively will get the same result.

Reply
Jul 11, 2023 19:28:09   #
larryepage Loc: North Texas area
 
gwilliams6 wrote:
Larryepage the science just doesn't agree with your assumption, do better research into this please. You really do need to match your lens resolution with the image sensor resolution to get the better image quality, resolution and detail. That is just a fact, whether or not you believe it, sorry.

Of course you can still make decent photos with a lower resolving lens on a high megapixel camera, but the greater pixel density of that higher megapixel sensor will strain that lower resolving lens to resolve enough for that greater pixel density, and the result will be worse apparent sharpness and resolution in that image.

The key is I said "lower resolving" lenses, not less expensive lenses. There are many affordable and less expensive lenses on the market that still have enough resolving ability for those high megapixel sensor cameras.

I saw all this firsthand when shooting my lower resolving lens that were fine on my 24mp A7III and A9 and then tried them on my 61mp A7RIV and 50mp A1.

Why pay for those high megapixel cameras and all their ultimate resolution and detail possible with their greater pixel density, and then totally throw that away by using lenses that CAN NOT resolve those sensors that you paid for. You were better off sticking with your lower megapixel cameras in that case.

I never said throw away those lower resolving lenses if you move to high megapixel cameras. I didn't throw mine away, I sold and traded them in on buying better resolving lenses. No wasted value.

The science and reality is clear here, even if stubborn UHHers refuse to accept the reality and the science. LOL

From GadgetMomentum: Feb. 2023:
(quote) " Both lens resolution and sensor megapixel count matter similarly for your photo quality.

A high-megapixel sensor won’t improve your photo quality if you only have low-resolution lenses. Similarly, high-resolution lenses won’t significantly improve your photo quality if your camera only has a low-megapixel sensor." (end quote)

Cheers and best to you.
Larryepage the science just doesn't agree with you... (show quote)


Please read again what I wrote. Take two deep breaths and think about it. I did not say anything in conflict with what you have written here.

The whole discipline of resolution, sharpness, and acuity has been overblown and distorted to the point that almost "no truth remains in it." I have been doing some informal investigation, just for fun, with my 55" TV. Not 8k, not 4k, just 1080P. That's a little less than 1 MP, for anyone who is counting. I am not at the point of publishing any result, but I do plan to sponsor a capstone project during the next school year during which a student will look at the problem a little more objectively and a little more quantitatively. Preliminary results suggest that 1 MP device can display all the detail that a viewer would want to see at any "functional" viewing distance. Remember...the initial digital cinemas were essentially 1080P environments. (I know this for fact, because my brother was an engineer in the department at Texas Instruments that made the projection engines. At one time, I had the data sheets.) I watched numerous movies in that environment and clearly remember the experience.

We live, as both my current and previous ophthalmologist will tell you, "in a 20/40 world." A big block of the population does not see at the "normal" level of 20/20. Most states will issue an unrestricted driver's license to candidates with 20/40 vision, if their doctor provides a note saying that is the maximum correction achievable. My friends who are art teachers laugh at our insatiable quest for resolution and sharpness. They suggest that photographers could get a lot better a lot quicker by looking at improvements that could be gained while spending a lot less money.

So yes, I understand the science. My degrees are in physics, math, and engineering. I also understand the point of diminishing returns. And I know that sometimes, it just doesn't matter.

Reply
Jul 11, 2023 20:25:29   #
Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX
 
SuperflyTNT wrote:
I have an RX10MIV and it’s a fine camera for what I use it for. But if it’s doing everything you need then your needs are much less than mine.
I have a Canon 80D with several EF equivalent lenses covering 10mm - 200mm.
So - Yeah - I can cover the contingencies.
But I've never done birds before. A neighbor has the RX10 iii and takes incredible bird photos at 600mm.
So - the RX10 loses a little at the wide end - BUT - when I go to Oshkosh this month - -
I expect incredible aircraft photos at 400 - 600mm. Just how much more do you need than that ?? And Why ??

Reply
Jul 11, 2023 22:20:31   #
Felixgrundy
 
New tires and windshield wipers are so comforting to me. Simple pleasure is key.

Reply
 
 
Jul 11, 2023 22:22:25   #
SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA
 
selmslie wrote:
It is a fact that I have already examined at length.

When I got my A7 II I was able to review the performance of all of my Nikon, Leica, Voigtlander, Tamron and Zeiss lenses on the same 24MP sensor. I sold a couple of the lenses to KEH because they did not perform as well from corner to corner as others.

Then I got the Z7 and repeated the test on all of those lenses plus a couple of additional Sony lenses at 45.7MP. A couple more went to KEH.

Finally I had the Bayer array removed from the A7 II and compared it to the Z7 using the same lens. This confirmed that the monochrome 24MP sensor produces about the same sharpness (by skipping the demosaicing step during the raw conversion) as the 45.7MP sensor that still has its Bayer array.

These are not just opinions. Anyone who understands the underlying principles and looks objectively will get the same result.
It is a b fact /b that I have already examined a... (show quote)


And that proves nothing. Those are exactly the kind of results I would expect if you were testing lenses on the same sensor. As the resolution increased some lenses didn’t fare as well as others, even though they did on lower resolution sensors. But at no point did you mention comparing the same lens on different sensor resolutions. If you had we would have seen that those lenses performed just as well on the higher resolution sensors.

Reply
Jul 11, 2023 23:24:07   #
uhaas2009
 
I guess I have a bad lens my old silver 28-80 3.3-5.6 on a 810…….lol…..

Reply
Jul 11, 2023 23:34:59   #
Grant79 Loc: Lincoln City Or.
 
I purchased a Nikon Z6ll with the f to z adapter. I have 8 Nikon lens, all but 2 are older AI lens or older that are 30 to 40 years old and 2 are auto focus. All 8 lens work perfectly on the Z6ll and have outlasted a Nikon F a Nikon F2 a Fuji S2 digital and a Nikon D700.

Reply
Jul 12, 2023 00:57:02   #
Harry13
 
[quote=jerryc41]The general advice is to spend your money buying good lenses and use them on whatever camera you have. Buying a cheap lens just to cover a focal length is not a smart move. That's good advice.

If I had it to do over, I;d buy a normal lens (50/55 mm), a 180 or 200 (Canon has a great 200mm) and a 70-300 plus an extender. Oh, and maybe a 24 or 28mm. Those and a backup body would do me. Harry PS My old friend pro Charlie Harbutt had one normal lens. Everything else, he used his feet, or sometimes a canoe or a tree or a tall building.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 5 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.