[bigshot]

Quote:

 50mm prime lens was always sharper than the 50MM setting I used on the 18-55 when I had that lens and not by a little my 50MM 1.8G smoked it in resolution and vivid color and sharpness.

 
At what F/stop? The 18-55 is a remarkably sharp lens stopped down a stop or two. It's one of Nikon's sharpest. Its only limitation is that it is slow. In good light at f/8 it's doubtful you would notice any difference between the two at any focal length in the zoom range. The 18-55 might have a tiny bit more distortion, but it isn't much and it is easily corrected in PP.
 
Photozone sharpness tests... It's comparing DX to FX, so the resolution numbers don't apply, but you can get an idea from the chart. The irony is that the 18-55 is Nikon's cheapest kit lens!
 
 

 
 

 
If you can't get super sharp results with the 18-55 in good light, odds are it's your technique, not your lens. Perhaps the difference in sharpness you noticed was due to motion blur from having to shoot at too slow a shutter speed in low light. Upping the ISO a bit would fix that. With current camera bodies that can shoot in the dark, fast apertures are becoming only necessary for bokeh effects, not for speed as much.

 

[Frank I]

Quote:

 
At what F/stop? The 18-55 is a remarkably sharp lens stopped down a stop or two. It's one of Nikon's sharpest. Its only limitation is that it is slow. In good light at f/8 it's doubtful you would notice any difference between the two at any focal length in the zoom range. The 18-55 might have a tiny bit more distortion, but it isn't much and it is easily corrected in PP.
 
Photozone sharpness tests... It's comparing DX to FX, so the resolution numbers don't apply, but you can get an idea from the chart. The irony is that the 18-55 is Nikon's cheapest kit lens!
 
 

 
 

 
If you can't get super sharp results with the 18-55 in good light, odds are it's your technique, not your lens. Perhaps the difference in sharpness you noticed was due to motion blur from having to shoot at too slow a shutter speed in low light. Upping the ISO a bit would fix that. With current camera bodies that can shoot in the dark, fast apertures are becoming only necessary for bokeh effects, not for speed as much.

LMAO OK its my technique  

 

[Mr.Sneis]

I'll just flat out admit it, my technique sucks and I don't shoot enough, but I prefer primes and especially ones that autofocus and have instant mf override.  They say that with certain lenses like the 24-70 2.8 that it autofocuses noticeably faster than comparable primes; which I would believe.  My favorite time to shoot is when the sun is setting so the lighting is generally not that great but you get some great colors if you make the shots count; I like the look of the primes over the zooms in these situations but you can always make them both work. 
 
I believe bigshot is a huge proponent of having proper lighting and he's right; but I greatly appreciate it when I can get away with less "setup" when I can.  I think that we're all different in how we learn and utilize this stuff so I don't think there's going to be a right or wrong answer here any way we slice it.

 

[Mattimis]

Quote:

 
 
85mm isn't going to be close enough for weddings in a lot of situations is it.....  
 
Do you guys think cropping a high MP shot produces the same result?  (i understand the compression difference)
 
I've heard 35mm and 85mm are pretty ideal for weddings.  For now I'm going to be using 50mm + 85mm....perhaps I need to rethink getting an ultrawide......
 
maybe I need a 35, 85, and a 70-200 for long shots.  I was very close to pulling the trigger on the new Sigma 35 1.4.  I feel like 50mm is wide enough, though..

think about the size you'll be printing, you can crop massively if the internet is your source since its only 72ppi, but when printing you want to be about 240-300 (most go 300) dpi.
That means you should try not to crop beyond that point as you will start to have photoshop extrapolate data to fill in the blanks and this degrades an image.
 
Think about it like this, with a 24megapixel camera the resolution of an image is 6000x4000 which equates at 300 dpi to 13.33x20 inch print, so if you're only making a 5x7 you can crop the image down to under 40% of the original file and still produce a perfect print.
 
Judging a lens based off a print makes no sense at all, as printers have their own systems of dpi to make a print aswell as the paper,Print profile,etc.. so the printer is simply interfering (not to mention print is an art that almost no one does right), the way real professionals judge is with a 100% crop of an image...
 
As for everyone else it seems this thread has turned into most threads on Head-fi with people talking about things they know nothing about, and judging the difference between gear they have never used or even seen, so im just going to let everyone teach themselves since everyone has google and thus knows everything.
 
if anyone has any actual questions and isnt simply looking to flex their ego over the internet ill try and me helpful.
 
Happy imaging everyone!

 

[bigshot]

I have a Nikon 18-55 VR and a Nikon 55mm 1.2. I also have a Sigma 30 and 50 1.4, Tamron 17-50 2.8, Nikon 18-200 VR, Tokina 100 2.8 macro, 11-16 2.8 and a 7mm Vivitar fish. (This isn't even mentioning the lenses in my medium format rig or retired with my film kit.) I've shot a lot with all of these, and I'm perfectly able to get razor sharp images out of all of these, printable as large as digital printing can go.
 
Sharpness is really not an issue. With the ability to shoot at super high ISO speed of lenses isn't even an issue. Chromatic aberration isn't a problem any more with my D7000, and distortion is correctable in Photoshop. Usability of equipment is number one. Can you control everything you need to without lowering the camera from your eye? Is the lens able to frame the shots I need it to in the lighting situations I'm going to be working with?
 
I've been shooting since I was a kid. I had an F2 and a bag full of glass and I got great shots, even with slower than sludge apertures and ASA ratings that make even the cheapest digital camera seem fast. I figured out how to properly expose in the camera, so I wouldn't have to push the latitude to its limit in the darkroom, and I learned how to deal with low light and grain. Compared to all of that, my iPhone is a walk in the park. Really, it isn't hard to make well exposed, in focus, sharp, clear, vibrant pictures. If you aren't, it isn't your lens or your camera body that is causing the problem. It's your technique.

 

[Mattimis]

Quote:

I have a Nikon 18-55 VR and a Nikon 55mm 1.2. I also have a Sigma 30 and 50 1.4, Tamron 17-50 2.8, Nikon 18-200 VR, Tokina 100 2.8 macro, 11-16 2.8 and a 7mm Vivitar fish. (This isn't even mentioning the lenses in my medium format rig or retired with my film kit.) I've shot a lot with all of these, and I'm perfectly able to get razor sharp images out of all of these, printable as large as digital printing can go.
 
Sharpness is really not an issue. With the ability to shoot at super high ISO speed of lenses isn't even an issue. Chromatic aberration isn't a problem any more with my D7000, and distortion is correctable in Photoshop. Usability of equipment is number one. Can you control everything you need to without lowering the camera from your eye? Is the lens able to frame the shots I need it to in the lighting situations I'm going to be working with?
 
I've been shooting since I was a kid. I had an F2 and a bag full of glass and I got great shots, even with slower than sludge apertures and ASA ratings that make even the cheapest digital camera seem fast. I figured out how to properly expose in the camera, so I wouldn't have to push the latitude to its limit in the darkroom, and I learned how to deal with low light and grain. Compared to all of that, my iPhone is a walk in the park. Really, it isn't hard to make well exposed, in focus, sharp, clear, vibrant pictures. If you aren't, it isn't your lens or your camera body that is causing the problem. It's your technique.

The lenses you listed may be fun and great for you, but this was a discussion about optimal lens quality. Comparing your mixed assortment of consumer lenses isnt nearly the same as say the top end glass out there. When I said I compared lenses I meant I compared all of canons main production line of L glass and nearly all the main line of Nikkor lenses. Speak in terms of quality of primes vs zoom, there is a difference however obviously they all are capable of professional results. Which is what I meant by saying people are talking about things they dont understand. I would never compare a low end schiit amp with a low in burson and then talk about what is the best amp available... because I have no experience with top tier amps.
 
 
Im not talking about you looking at a a print and thinking its nice, understand that when people say they hate "pixel peepers" they are say this is a hobby. I am sure your images are beautiful to you, but talking about which lens is best goes into details beyond what you presume to be sharp prints. Thats like saying my headphones sound good on all the amps I have used, so discussing better amps is pointless because mine already sounds good... Sure you may think so, but not everyone else does and even if they did they would still debate which amp is best at what.
 
Sharpness will always be ALWAYS an issue when comparing lenses
Iso speed has nothing to do with the lens you are using, aperture isnt meant to be used for exposure anymore.
chromatic aberrations is caused by the lens not the camera so saying your d7000 stops is is kinda silly.
and controlling everything without lowering it from your eye really makes no sense in a professional world, no one is timing you haha its about sculpting pictures with light, and you cant move your lights with your camera on your eye.
 
sorry to be harsh but you shouldnt tell people that they are wrong when you clearly are not in a place to say.

 

[bigshot]

Do you shoot pictures? Or is it a gear thing?
 
Because I listen to music and I make photographs. The content is what matters, and anything beyond properly presenting the content is overkill to me. I don't need to blow a picture up to the size of a mac truck on my monitor and look at one leaf on a tree a mile away. And I don't need to worry about inaudible levels of distortion in my music. I don't think anyone really does, unless the pursuit of the gear is all that's important.
 
By the way, 200 dpi is plenty for most printing applications- including a lot of publishing, exposure is all about balancing shutter speed and aperture against ISO, recent Nikon bodies correct for chromatic aberration automatically, and one of the main differences between pro bodies and low end consumer bodies is that you have to go through nested menus to adjust things manually with a low end consumer body.
 
Sorry to disagree with you, but you seem more focused on owning expensive chunks of glass and metal than actually going out in the street and using your camera to make images that look incredible. If it's really all about equipment fetish, that is perfectly fine. There are a lot of collectors of camera equipment that don't shoot much... particularly in the Leica camp. But I'm talking about photography here.
 
If you're a pro, you need equipment that is built rugged. If you're doing studio work, you probably need medium format. That makes total sense. But worrying about how sharp a modern lens is at 100% on a 24 MP camera is absurd for the applications discussed in this forum. You could cut that image in half and still be able to print it clearly at any normal size you want. A 24 MP image full frame could fill the wall of a small room and not exceed the resolution of the digital printer printing it. I've actually done this. One wall of my living room is a mural that I had digitally printed. They asked for a file that was 175 dpi. It looks good and sharp. You can walk right up to it, and not notice any problem with the image.
 
Sharpness is not the problem. Incorrect application of technique and lack of compositional skills are the most common ones.

 

[Mattimis]

Ill just go ahead and addres this statement in pieces
 

Because I listen to music and I make photographs. The content is what matters, and anything beyond properly presenting the content is overkill to me.

Properly to you and me is clearly different. I prefer the best and you are clearly content with the average.

I don't need to blow a picture up to the size of a mac truck on my monitor and look at one leaf on a tree a mile away. And I don't need to worry about inaudible levels of distortion in my music. I don't think anyone really does, unless the pursuit of the gear is all that's important.

Sharpness of a lens as well as quality of music has not reached an immeasurable limit.. which is why EVERYONE is making better and better cameras, lenses, amps, headphones, dacs.... The pursuit of perfection is ongoing for those not too ignorant or close minded to search for it. This as you must know is a forum of audiophile, people who strive for the best quality audio and listening experience possible so your statement has no place here.
 

By the way, 200 dpi is plenty for most printing

no national magazine today uses anything lower than 240, most use 300dpi (maybe dont spread incorrect information)

exposure is all about balancing shutter speed and aperture against ISO

This seems like a silly thing to point out but shutter speed and aperture do not work in cohesion against ISO for exposure. They all carry the same weight and work independent to adjust exposure. Frankly if you are adjusting your aperture to obtain a correct exposure you really dont know your way around light.
 

recent Nikon bodies correct for chromatic aberration automatically

 
 
 
 
 
haha do you seriously do this? common you cant really think this is the best method.
 
 

and one of the main differences between pro bodies and low end consumer bodies is that you have to go through nested menus to adjust things manually with a low end consumer body.

This is complete **** haha pro bodies and consumer bodies differ in components and features (all the features need to be turned on the same) and honestly the only settings you should have setup on your camera like color space file size etc.. need to be done in all modern DSLR's
 

Sorry to disagree with you, but you seem more focused on owning expensive chunks of glass and metal than actually going out in the street and using your camera to make images that look incredible. If it's really all about equipment fetish, that is perfectly fine. There are a lot of collectors of camera equipment that don't shoot much... particularly in the Leica camp. But I'm talking about photography here.

Not sure if you missed it but not only am I only months away from my MFA, I actually make a living as a photographer.. I have a degree for it, I pay my bills with it, and honestly make a great living. im not a hobbyist who thinks they know what they are talking about even though I have no real experience in the professional world. I understand that you think your gear is good enough, and it may be for you.. but being a professional means I have the funds to afford high quality gear that produce BETTER quality images. They are not simply designed for vanity although it seems you think that. I think calling it a gear fetish simply because you're gear is poor quality compared to mine is a sad attack to make yourself feel adequate. Professionals use professional gear because they make money using it, and hobbyist use hobbyist gear which is fine, but dont presume that your gear is on the same par as professional gear when it is not.
 
 

A 24 MP image full frame could fill the wall of a small room and not exceed the resolution of the digital printer printing it. I've actually done this. One wall of my living room is a mural that I had digitally printed. They asked for a file that was 175 dpi. It looks good and sharp. You can walk right up to it, and not notice any problem with the image

This seems silly to point out, but as I stated before print has NOTHING to do with image capture... next time you see a billboard go look at it.. often times they are less than 70 dpi, so please stop comparing image quality to prints because it make no sense.
 

worrying about how sharp a modern lens is at 100% on a 24 MP camera is absurd for the applications discussed in this forum.

Clearly.. as people like you are so unwilling to be given knowledge from a working professional. I think you could have simply not joined the conversation if you didnt see the need, rather than trolling and disagreeing with information you dont have in-depth knowledge on.
 
 
Either way I got a good laugh out of all this. Makes me value my education so much more to see how people fair with only the internet to teach them.

 

[bigshot]

I'm not going to bother plowing through a line by line post. You have to actually say something, not just contradict. I won't be trolled.
 
For the benefit of the rest of the people reading, I'll point out that just about every DSLR body is capable of making great photographs. The newest ones have a higher megapixel count than anyone would ever require unless they plan to create murals or billboards. The resolution of most modern lenses stopped down a bit out resolve the sensor. The reason to buy primes is for size/weight considerations, exotic focal lengths (fisheyes and very long telephotos in particular), and for speed (zooms are generally f/2.8 at the fastest, while primes go up to f/1.2. However the latest camera bodies have sensors capable of shooting as high as ISO 3200 without excessive noise, which makes even f/4 lenses as fast as the fastest lenses on a D200 or D50 just a few years ago.
 
The most important aspect in choosing equipment is to look for the least expensive camera body that does what you want to do, so you can afford to get a range of lenses that cover all the kinds of shooting you plan on doing. A variety of lenses is much more useful than a high end camera body. For most non professional photographers, the lower end Nikon DX bodies paired with two kit lenses that span 18mm to 200mm and a 35mm f/1.8 prime will do everything most advanced amateurs would ever need to do.
 
The exceptions are specialized applications... low light sports or concert photography, formal studio portraits or product shots, photographing birds in flight and landscape or architectural photography that needs to be printed larger than the standard print sizes. All of these require specialized tools that are different than the average photographer would need.
 
Just like with audiophile overkill, it is way too easy to spend more than you need to on camera equipment. There are always people happy to give you expensive advice. It's not their money! The truth is that reasonably priced equipment, intelligently chosen will perform just as well for the average photographer as someone who throws money indiscriminately at the most expensive camera bodies and glass. It's stupid to chase specifications that you can't see without pulling out a microscope.
 
A camera is a tool, not an extension of one's ego.

 

[chrislangley4253]

You guys just have different methods.. I would like to see some pics from you both!

I bet you both take some great pictures given how passionately you feel for your respective methods


Just wanted to throw some positive energy at the thread.. Apologies if this is seen as off topic.

 

[Mattimis]

haha its not worth beating a dead horse anymore.
The facts are out there for those who strive to improve in every way possible, and just like with most things you get what you pay for.
A magni will never out preform  a mjolnir if you get what im saying.
 
I guess ill have to start shooting with a d200 instead of the H5D-50

 

[Mattimis]

Quote:

You guys just have different methods.. I would like to see some pics from you both!

I bet you both take some great pictures given how passionately you feel for your respective methods


Just wanted to throw some positive energy at the thread.. Apologies if this is seen as off topic.

ill stop haha
 
Ill take some fun stuff just for the forums on here at some point. Not going to put any portfolio work, because I dont want someone to find my website and then be known for  bashing people about photo nonsense on an audio forum haha
 
speaking of which someone should make a photo contest thread and do a monthly contest that people can vote on for fun
it would be a good way for everyone to get some positive feedback

 

[Frank I]

Gotta Love it Big Shot fighting with a pro. Thats why I tend to believe my teacher the 40 year Pro also. Enough said I am still learning and happy to be doing so.

 

[bigshot]

 A good way to learn is to question and find out for yourself, not just take someone's word for it. I studied to become a photographer in college, but I ended up in the film business The one thing I've learned in my 40 years of amateur photography is that the quality of a photographer is not determined by the price of the camera hanging around his neck. When someone tries to convince me that they know what they're talking about because they happen to have (rented) a very expensive camera, I'm not surprised when they're afraid to show their work.
 
Here are a couple of my photos. These were particular shots were taken with the camera in my iPhone.
 
 
 
 

 

 

[musubi1000]

the

how big are you printing?

I have a normal range 1.2 prime. I rarely use it because it's so foggy open wide. My Sigma 50 1.4 is better. But for sharpness, all my lenses are sharp as a tack in good light. Even the 18-55 kit lens.

I remember back in my F2 days. I had a 43-86. If you want soft, that was it. But I still managed to get great pictures with it. Lenses today are all good.

the 43-86 was Nikons first zoom. We used to joke that the only way to make it sharp was to break the glass out of the lens and now you had sharp glass. lol