Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

4/3 is a noise box?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
February 15, 2005 2:34:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Just a sample for the people claiming these are USELESS in ambient lighting.
This was shot at ISO 800. I've been using mine at 400 ISO lately and it
seems fine. Maybe I'm missing something here?

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&m...
--

Stacey

More about : noise box

Anonymous
February 15, 2005 5:36:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Just a sample for the people claiming these are USELESS in ambient
lighting.
> This was shot at ISO 800. I've been using mine at 400 ISO lately and it
> seems fine. Maybe I'm missing something here?

You aren't missing anything at all. I just shot a friend's jazz group with
the 300D at ISO 1600 and the 50/1.4, and the results were fine (the lighting
was nuts (horrible colors) so I converted everything to B&W).

Since the E300's ISO 800 is the same noise level as the 300D's ISO 1600, ISO
800 shots with the E300 would be fine too.

The only differences would be that the E300 would have to use a 4 times
longer shutter speed to get the same image quality, since the fastest E300
lens is f/2.0.

Of course, that would have made the E300 useless for my application: I shot
at 1/40 in shutter priority mode. 1/10 would have meant problems with both
hand steadiness on my part and subject motion on the singer's part.

So the answer to the question actually is yes: you are missing the factor of
four shutter speed difference.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 5:36:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <cus1ps$rnq$1@nnrp.gol.com>,
David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>
>I just shot a friend's jazz group with
>the 300D at ISO 1600 and the 50/1.4, and the results were fine (the lighting
>was nuts (horrible colors) so I converted everything to B&W).

How are you finding the 50mm f/1.4? I think it has to rank as one of my
favourite lenses - has a really nice "dreamy" look when wide open, but still
delivers on the detail. My Voigtlander (nee Cosina) Color Skopar f/2.5 does
something similar, but to nothing like the same extent.
Related resources
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 5:39:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <37dce4F5ctsn3U1@individual.net>,
Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Just a sample for the people claiming these are USELESS in ambient lighting.
>This was shot at ISO 800. I've been using mine at 400 ISO lately and it
>seems fine. Maybe I'm missing something here?
>
>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&m...

Poor choice. This is not the kind of picture that shows noise. Noise
shows in shadows, and this picture is bright and black, with not much
in-between. Also, downsizing an image covers much of the noise.
Despite these things, the image still looks noisy to me; the black area
to the immediate left of the woman's face is slightly brighter than the
black to the extreme left, and is noisy.

I loaded this image into photoshop, and changed the gamma just a little
bit to expose it to a normal tone curve, and the whol image became a sea
of noise.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
February 15, 2005 11:20:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J. Littleboy wrote:

>
> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Just a sample for the people claiming these are USELESS in ambient
> lighting.
>> This was shot at ISO 800. I've been using mine at 400 ISO lately and it
>> seems fine. Maybe I'm missing something here?
>
> You aren't missing anything at all. I just shot a friend's jazz group with
> the 300D at ISO 1600 and the 50/1.4, and the results were fine (the
> lighting was nuts (horrible colors) so I converted everything to B&W).

Any maybe the E300 wouldn't have "fried" the colors? BTW where can I see
these, I'd like to see how sharp this lens is wide open. From my experience
most of the ultra fast "from 35mm days" normals aren't that great wide open
due to their 30+ year old designs made for a larger format.

>
> The only differences would be that the E300 would have to use a 4 times
> longer shutter speed to get the same image quality, since the fastest E300
> lens is f/2.0.
>

You are assuming every low light shot can be made with a 50mm 1.4 lens wide
open. This one posted couldn't have been, it was shot at equiv 200mm.


--

Stacey
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 11:50:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Chris Brown" <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
> David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
> >
> >I just shot a friend's jazz group with
> >the 300D at ISO 1600 and the 50/1.4, and the results were fine (the
lighting
> >was nuts (horrible colors) so I converted everything to B&W).
>
> How are you finding the 50mm f/1.4?

I like it a lot for what I've been using it for (low-light stuff), but I
really haven't used it to its full extent. The Tamron 28-75 is so good
stopped down that I don't use the 50/1.4 much other than very low light.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 12:07:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 20:20:52 -0500, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:


>Any maybe the E300 wouldn't have "fried" the colors? BTW where can I see
>these, I'd like to see how sharp this lens is wide open. From my experience
>most of the ultra fast "from 35mm days" normals aren't that great wide open
>due to their 30+ year old designs made for a larger format.


You used to brag that your 100 year old Tessars
were better than anything one might find on a
digicam. My, how you've changed your tune.

Now, nothing will do but a lens expressly built
for your E300.

Of course, it's true that it might be easier
to design a good lens if one only needs to cover
a 13 x 17 mm sensor.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
February 16, 2005 4:17:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

rafe bustin wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 20:20:52 -0500, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Any maybe the E300 wouldn't have "fried" the colors? BTW where can I see
>>these, I'd like to see how sharp this lens is wide open. From my
>>experience most of the ultra fast "from 35mm days" normals aren't that
>>great wide open due to their 30+ year old designs made for a larger
>>format.
>
>
> You used to brag that your 100 year old Tessars
> were better than anything one might find on a
> digicam.

When they were 3-5MP with a 2/3 sensor and I'm using 6X9 film, yep that's
very true.

> My, how you've changed your tune.

Digicams are now much better? I'm glad I waited till now to start using
them.


>
> Now, nothing will do but a lens expressly built
> for your E300.

?? Just don't see this system being the huge "failure" you and David seem to
preach considering neither of you have used one and I HAVE used a 10D. I
posted a link to what I consider a nice low light shot and of course the
canonites start ranting how great their camera's are....

BTW y'all doing the tag team thing again? :-)

>
> Of course, it's true that it might be easier
> to design a good lens if one only needs to cover
> a 13 x 17 mm sensor.
>

Or at least using one designed to cover the sensor being used and not using
an old design one made to cover a much larger one. Would you use medium
format lenses on a 35mm camera? I know I wouldn't. Wonder why canon started
making digital lenses themselves?

And you really think 2mm is a big difference in size? :-)

--

Stacey
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 11:27:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 01:17:28 -0500, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>And you really think 2mm is a big difference in size? :-)


It's a huge difference in photosite (per pixel)
area. 2 to 1 in favor of the 10D (compared to
the E300.) The camera I really lust after has
only 30% more pixels than your Oly... but costs
300% more.

I don't think digicam tech has changed all that
much in the last year or two... aside from getting
cheaper and expanding the low end of the market.
Strangely enough, I'm not lusting after a 20D.

The technology was starting to saturate and level
off even a year or so back. The really desirable
advances (big sensors for cheap) remain elusive.

I'm not interested merely in more pixels. I've
been around the digital darkroom long enough to
know that pixel counts are only vaguely related
to sharpness and real resolution (as measured
by MTF.)


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 1:28:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <uea511d12hfgv1jq64sos4ft9tbehg218u@4ax.com>,
rafe bustin <rafeb@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 20:20:52 -0500, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Any maybe the E300 wouldn't have "fried" the colors? BTW where can I see
>>these, I'd like to see how sharp this lens is wide open. From my experience
>>most of the ultra fast "from 35mm days" normals aren't that great wide open
>>due to their 30+ year old designs made for a larger format.
>
>
>You used to brag that your 100 year old Tessars
>were better than anything one might find on a
>digicam. My, how you've changed your tune.

There's nothing quite like the zeal of a new convert.

BTW, you leave 100 year old Tessars alone - I really like mine, even if it
is only 70 years old. :-P
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 1:56:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
> > "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Just a sample for the people claiming these are USELESS in ambient
> > lighting.
> >> This was shot at ISO 800. I've been using mine at 400 ISO lately and it
> >> seems fine. Maybe I'm missing something here?
> >
> > You aren't missing anything at all. I just shot a friend's jazz group
with
> > the 300D at ISO 1600 and the 50/1.4, and the results were fine (the
> > lighting was nuts (horrible colors) so I converted everything to B&W).
>
> Any maybe the E300 wouldn't have "fried" the colors?

If it didn't "fry the colors", it would be rendering them incorrectly. The
color problem was the stage lighting.

> BTW where can I see
> these, I'd like to see how sharp this lens is wide open. From my
experience
> most of the ultra fast "from 35mm days" normals aren't that great wide
open
> due to their 30+ year old designs made for a larger format.

The performance of the 50/1.4 is well documented on the net. It's one of the
best lenses available (well, other than the barrel distortion: sharp, great
bokeh). When one is shooting in a jazz club and in other difficult
situations, getting an exposed shot with no subject motion and acceptable
noise is far more important than lp/mm. So it's perfect wide open. As will,
I expect, the Sigma 30/1.4.

> > The only differences would be that the E300 would have to use a 4 times
> > longer shutter speed to get the same image quality, since the fastest
E300
> > lens is f/2.0.
>
> You are assuming every low light shot can be made with a 50mm 1.4 lens
wide
> open.

No, only the shots that I actually take. The 75 or 80mm equivalent focal
length is one of my favorite focal lengths, so the 50/1.4 is a seriously
useful lens.

But if you don't like that length, there are two other (US$1200 used) f/1.4
lenses and a silly f/1.2 lens (not quite as silly as the Oly f/2.0
telephoto, but close). So if one wants, one can cover 40 to 135mm at f/1.4
in the Canon system. The 135/2.0 is US$700 used, and with a 1.4x TC, would
be a 300 f/2.8.

So if one has a bit of money, one can do very nicely. If one can put up with
f/2.0, one's options increase a lot.

> This one posted couldn't have been, it was shot at equiv 200mm.

Since there are no fast lenses in the 4/3 system in the 135 to 200 range,
the 300D's advantage is ever greater: 85/1.8, 100/2.0, and 135/2.0. The
135/2.0 is one of the sharpest lenses ever made, and it's available for
US$700 used (here in Tokyo).

Toss in the clunker Sigma 20/1.8, and one has 32 to 200mm covered at f/2.0
or faster.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
February 16, 2005 1:56:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J. Littleboy wrote:

>
> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Any maybe the E300 wouldn't have "fried" the colors?
>
> If it didn't "fry the colors", it would be rendering them incorrectly. The
> color problem was the stage lighting.

You say..

>
>> BTW where can I see
>> these, I'd like to see how sharp this lens is wide open. From my
> experience
>> most of the ultra fast "from 35mm days" normals aren't that great wide
> open
>> due to their 30+ year old designs made for a larger format.
>
> The performance of the 50/1.4 is well documented on the net.

Then lets see these great shots? Obviously these are digitized, lets see how
sharp they are wide open.

What I've seen "documented" is at F2 or F2.8 (depending on who you ask) down
it's a great lens. Wide open it's just OK like most of the old skool 35m
optics from 30 years ago. I suppose people that are comparing it to the
canon kit lens are blown away? That's not saying much....


> When one is shooting in a jazz club and in other difficult
> situations, getting an exposed shot with no subject motion and acceptable
> noise is far more important than lp/mm.

Oh so now image sharpness and lens lpmm have no bearing on image quality?
Since your camera is better on noise, that's now ALL that matters? :-)

And if one needs a 50mm F1.4 lens on 4/3, they can always use an adapter and
use one of those same type of "old skool" 35mm optics of their choice.
Since you're shooting wide open, no loss of function, unless you don't know
how to focus a camera.


> So it's perfect wide open

"Perfect" wide open? Maybe only because it's your lens owned by you, used on
your camera!? :-)

> . As
> will, I expect, the Sigma 30/1.4.

Why would you expect that? Maybe if you're lucky enough to get a good one
and even then, sigmas aren't known for being sharp wide open.


>
> So if one has a bit of money, one can do very nicely. If one can put up
> with f/2.0, one's options increase a lot.

But you just said f/2.0 isn't acceptable? Or that only if it's not a canon
f2 lens?

>
>> This one posted couldn't have been, it was shot at equiv 200mm.
>
> Since there are no fast lenses in the 4/3 system in the 135 to 200 range,
> the 300D's advantage is ever greater: 85/1.8, 100/2.0, and 135/2.0. The
> 135/2.0 is one of the sharpest lenses ever made, and it's available for
> US$700 used (here in Tokyo).
>

If one wants to carry a bunch of prime lenses. And how many of these
=really= work good on a dSLR wide open considering they were designed for
35mm?

--

Stacey
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 2:08:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"rafe bustin" <rafeb@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 20:20:52 -0500, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >And maybe the E300 wouldn't have "fried" the colors? BTW where can I see
> >these, I'd like to see how sharp this lens is wide open. From my
experience
> >most of the ultra fast "from 35mm days" normals aren't that great wide
open
> >due to their 30+ year old designs made for a larger format.
>
> You used to brag that your 100 year old Tessars
> were better than anything one might find on a
> digicam. My, how you've changed your tune.
>
> Now, nothing will do but a lens expressly built
> for your E300.
>
> Of course, it's true that it might be easier
> to design a good lens if one only needs to cover
> a 13 x 17 mm sensor.

These cameras resolve something like 1650 lines per height (per the dpreview
tests), which is 55 lp/mm on the 20D and 64 lp/mm on the E300. Providing
decent contrast at 55 lp/mm is all that is required on the 20D. So the
better 35mm lenses are fine on the 20D. (My cheap consumer zoom (Tamron
28-75) produces as sharp images as I've seen from any other lens on the
300D, and that's a full-frame lens. (OK, I'm sleazing here: it's the only
cheap consumer zoom that gets decent reviews) But the point remains:
Stacey's dead wrong here.

As JPS has pointed out, the Canon telephoto primes provide enough resolution
that they can be used with 2x teleconverters and still get sharp images.

And then there's the problem that Stacey's blind faith in Oly lenses has
never been tested<g>.

35mm lenses would be a bust on the consumer cameras, though.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
February 16, 2005 2:08:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J. Littleboy wrote:


> So the better 35mm lenses are fine on the 20D. (My cheap consumer zoom
> (Tamron 28-75) produces as sharp images as I've seen from any other lens
> on the 300D, and that's a full-frame lens. (OK, I'm sleazing here: it's
> the only cheap consumer zoom that gets decent reviews) But the point
> remains: Stacey's dead wrong here.

Yea, that's why luminous landscapes found the 100-400=L= lens to be soft on
the 20D compared to some others and you're going to claim a Tamron zoom is
plenty good enough? ;-/ If you can't see the difference between that
cheap zoom and other "good" lenses, there isn't much point in even
discussing this!

These cameras are getting sensor density where many of the old skool 35mm
lenses just aren't good enough. When using a crop size of 8X10, the sensor
size from a 20D and a 4/3 camera isn't much different and I can see a big
difference in wide open performance from the new ZD lenses and the older OM
lenses.

Stopped down the old lenses are OK but their wide open performance just
isn't that great on a digital body compared to the new -good- stuff. I've
shot with canon 35mm gear and know their lenses are real close to the same
image quality as an OM's, but I'm sure you can convince yourself that that
tamron zoom is sharper than a zuiko prime.. Canon mount -anything- rules
right?

I do know several people who shoot regulaly with the 10D and all said they
had to upgrade their lenses to the L glass to get the best quality the
camera can deliver and I'm sure a 20D is even "worse" in this regard. You
can pretend that that old tamron or other old 35mm consumer glass is "good
enough" if you'd like. Doesn't mean I'm "dead wrong" that you think this.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 2:08:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 01:30:49 -0500, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:


>I do know several people who shoot regulaly with the 10D and all said they
>had to upgrade their lenses to the L glass to get the best quality the
>camera can deliver and I'm sure a 20D is even "worse" in this regard. You
>can pretend that that old tamron or other old 35mm consumer glass is "good
>enough" if you'd like. Doesn't mean I'm "dead wrong" that you think this.


I think you've got most of this right.

I initially bought a Tokina zoom lens with
my 10D and it went back to BH about two
days later, replaced by a Canon L.
Huge difference. I'm not usually snooty
about off-brand lenses.. I have several
in my Nikon kit, and many of my best 35 mm
shots are with a no-name 28-70/2.8 zoom.

I've also tried a few of my Nikon lenses
(using a Novoflex adapter) on the 10D. This
is far from optimal, since focus and aperture
are now all-manual, and the 10D viewfinder
isn't all that great for manual focusing.

From what I can tell, there's no Nikon lens
in my kit that can touch that Canon L zoom.
But I'm not sure the latter is "made for
digital."

As far as I can tell, the only thing
different about these "made for digital"
lenses is that they're being optimized
for a smaller image circle.

Luminous Landscape compared two Canon
L zooms .. the older 16-35/2.8 and the
newer 17-40/4 (which I have.) They tested
each on a Canon 1Ds.

They found the newer one better at center
frame.. the older one better at the edges.
Surprise, surprise.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 6:40:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
> > "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Any maybe the E300 wouldn't have "fried" the colors?
> >
> > If it didn't "fry the colors", it would be rendering them incorrectly.
The
> > color problem was the stage lighting.
>
> You say..

I was there. The lighting was ugly. The camera got the colors right. So I
converted to B&W. Is that so hard to understand???

> > The performance of the 50/1.4 is well documented on the net.
>
> Then lets see these great shots? Obviously these are digitized, lets see
how
> sharp they are wide open.

If you want to know how good the 50/1.4 is, you can look up the reviews.
It's wonderful for portraits wide open, especially on a 1.6x camera.

> What I've seen "documented" is at F2 or F2.8 (depending on who you ask)
down
> it's a great lens. Wide open it's just OK like most of the old skool 35m
> optics from 30 years ago. I suppose people that are comparing it to the
> canon kit lens are blown away? That's not saying much....

At least it's an f/1.4 lens. There isn't one for the 4/3 system.

> > When one is shooting in a jazz club and in other difficult
> > situations, getting an exposed shot with no subject motion and
acceptable
> > noise is far more important than lp/mm.
>
> Oh so now image sharpness and lens lpmm have no bearing on image quality?
> Since your camera is better on noise, that's now ALL that matters? :-)

When the problem is to get the shot at all, one accepts the softness
associated with wide lenses. You know that as well as anyone.

> And if one needs a 50mm F1.4 lens on 4/3, they can always use an adapter
and
> use one of those same type of "old skool" 35mm optics of their choice.

Not with AF.

> Since you're shooting wide open, no loss of function, unless you don't
know
> how to focus a camera.

I can't focus as well or as fast as the 300D's AF can. And the 20D does even
better. Chasing a moving subject with MF gets really old really fast.

> > So it's perfect wide open
>
> "Perfect" wide open? Maybe only because it's your lens owned by you, used
on
> your camera!? :-)

Perfect because it solves a problem that's not solved by any other lens. It
gets shots that make very nice A4 prints.

> > . As will, I expect, the Sigma 30/1.4.
>
> Why would you expect that?

The Sigma f/1.8 primes are widely regarded as useful tools.

There's never been a fast lens that's as good wide open as it is at f/8. The
wider the lens, the worse the performance. It's the way things work in
optics. You know that.

> > So if one has a bit of money, one can do very nicely. If one can put up
> > with f/2.0, one's options increase a lot.
>
> But you just said f/2.0 isn't acceptable? Or that only if it's not a canon
> f2 lens?

If the alternative is f/2.8 or slower, f/2.0 looks pretty good. The 4/3
system only offers f/2.0 in one focal length. Everything else affordable is
f/2.8 or slower.

> >> This one posted couldn't have been, it was shot at equiv 200mm.
> >
> > Since there are no fast lenses in the 4/3 system in the 135 to 200
range,
> > the 300D's advantage is ever greater: 85/1.8, 100/2.0, and 135/2.0. The
> > 135/2.0 is one of the sharpest lenses ever made, and it's available for
> > US$700 used (here in Tokyo).
>
> If one wants to carry a bunch of prime lenses. And how many of these
> =really= work good on a dSLR wide open considering they were designed for
> 35mm?

The Canon primes work very well wide open on a dSLR. Many of the telephotot
lenses work very well wide open _with a 2x TC_ in place.

If you'd done your homework, you'd know all this. It's been well known for
several years now.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 2:32:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <cuu980$a8g$1@nnrp.gol.com>,
"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

>
> Since there are no fast lenses in the 4/3 system in the 135 to 200 range,

hmm... the Zuiko Digital 150mm f/2 was elected "high end lens of the
year" in 2004. The results I have seen so far (not that many yet) were
pretty impressive.

http://www.olympusamerica.com/e1/sys_lens_150mm.asp

It's either expensive or cheap depending how you look at it ;-) a 135mm
f/2 is a bit cheaper, but to get a similar angle of view you'd need for
example the new 200mm f/2 Nikkor and this one is about twice the
price...

some PR-blurb:

> TIPA Award 2004
> ZUIKO DIGITAL 150mm f2.0: Best High-End Lens
> The latest addition to the range of Olympus ZUIKO DIGITAL lenses has received
> the highly-coveted TIPA Award in the category Best High-End Lens. The TIPA
> jury said: This E-System lens exploits the advantages of the FourThirds
> System, giving photographers a combination of telephoto power and wide
> aperture that is not available from 35mm-based systems. With an optical
> design optimised for the unique demands of digital capture, this lens
> continues the commitment by Olympus to exploit the advantages of digital
> capture ... Each year, the Technical Image Press Association (TIPA) confers
> awards to products and technologies of special distinction across a number of
> areas in the field of photography. The association membership currently
> comprises 31 publications across 12 countries.

;-)
Lourens
February 17, 2005 3:46:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J. Littleboy wrote:

>
> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > The performance of the 50/1.4 is well documented on the net.
>>
>> Then lets see these great shots? Obviously these are digitized, lets see
> how
>> sharp they are wide open.
>
> If you want to know how good the 50/1.4 is, you can look up the reviews.

So these shot must not be too good huh?

> It's wonderful for portraits wide open, especially on a 1.6x camera.

Who said anything about "portraits"? I though we were talking about shooting
in nightclubs. They use soft focus lenses for "great portraits" all the
time.

>
>> What I've seen "documented" is at F2 or F2.8 (depending on who you ask)
> down
>> it's a great lens. Wide open it's just OK like most of the old skool 35m
>> optics from 30 years ago. I suppose people that are comparing it to the
>> canon kit lens are blown away? That's not saying much....
>
> At least it's an f/1.4 lens. There isn't one for the 4/3 system.

So what? If it's soft wide open, how useful is that? And yes there is a
50mm f1.2 for the 4/3 if you want to use old skool 35mm lenses.

>
> When the problem is to get the shot at all, one accepts the softness
> associated with wide lenses. You know that as well as anyone.

Interesting the f2 ZD lenses are tack sharp wide open.

>
>> And if one needs a 50mm F1.4 lens on 4/3, they can always use an adapter
> and
>> use one of those same type of "old skool" 35mm optics of their choice.
>
> Not with AF.

So?

>
> If the alternative is f/2.8 or slower, f/2.0 looks pretty good. The 4/3
> system only offers f/2.0 in one focal length. Everything else affordable
> is f/2.8 or slower.

LOL, in one breath you are talking about F2 135mm, f2 100mm and f1.8 85 to
cover the same range as one $800 ZD zoom and then talk about "affordable"?
Just that one f2 135 is more than the ZD lens and then you're lens
swapping, wait can't risk that in a nightclub and get dust all over the
sensor...


>>
>> If one wants to carry a bunch of prime lenses. And how many of these
>> =really= work good on a dSLR wide open considering they were designed for
>> 35mm?
>
> The Canon primes work very well wide open on a dSLR. Many of the
> telephotot lenses work very well wide open _with a 2x TC_ in place.
>
> If you'd done your homework, you'd know all this. It's been well known for
> several years now.
>


Yep and like I said, I didn't want to have to spend THOUSANDS and carry a
dozen prime lenses to get good performance.
--

Stacey
February 17, 2005 3:50:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

rafe bustin wrote:

>
> As far as I can tell, the only thing
> different about these "made for digital"
> lenses is that they're being optimized
> for a smaller image circle.

Depends on whose you're talking about. I've found comparing the ZD lenses to
the OM lenses they are MUCH sharper wide open. It's really hard to see any
difference in sharpness at all from wide open to f8.


>
> Luminous Landscape compared two Canon
> L zooms .. the older 16-35/2.8 and the
> newer 17-40/4 (which I have.) They tested
> each on a Canon 1Ds.
>
> They found the newer one better at center
> frame.. the older one better at the edges.
> Surprise, surprise.


Exactly. With a lens made for 35mm, the edges have to be good which limits
the designers ability to get good center sharpness. See this with lots of
medium format lenses.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 11:53:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Lourens Smak" <smak@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
> >
> > Since there are no fast lenses in the 4/3 system in the 135 to 200
range,
>
> hmm... the Zuiko Digital 150mm f/2 was elected "high end lens of the
> year" in 2004. The results I have seen so far (not that many yet) were
> pretty impressive.

That's a 300mm lens, not a 135 to 200. And it's insanely heavy and
expensive. The Canon 200/2.8 will provide _identical image quality_* at the
same shutter speeds on the 20D (just use one ISO higher: the noise will be
the same). At a tiny fraction of the weight and price.

*: Even the DOF will be almost identical (15% deeper at f/2.8 on the 20D
than at f/2.0 on the 4/3; a tiny difference).

> http://www.olympusamerica.com/e1/sys_lens_150mm.asp
>
> It's either expensive or cheap depending how you look at it ;-) a 135mm
> f/2 is a bit cheaper, but to get a similar angle of view you'd need for
> example the new 200mm f/2 Nikkor and this one is about twice the
> price...

Again, the higher noise in the E300/E-1 means that you waste a whole stop
compensating for that. There's no practical meaning to being f/2.0 if the
sensor is noisier and you have to use a slower ISO to get the same image
quality.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
February 17, 2005 11:53:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J. Littleboy wrote:

>
> The Canon 200/2.8 will provide _identical image quality_*

You keep claiming "Identical image quality" yet when I shot with 4
different dSLR's on the same CF card of the same scene, they sure didn't
look "identical" to me.

Each dSLR sensor has it's own look and claiming they have "Identical image
quality" is absurd. Maybe using your narrowly focused "high ISO noise" that
seems to be your only criteria, they are the same? I tend to look at the
whole image for quality rather than this one specific point. Is it that you
can only "see" something that's graphable? That subjective qualities like
color rendition etc are beyond you being able to see because it is
subjective?

--

Stacey
!