Quote:
Originally Posted by skyline889 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
There are a host of problems with these shots: tripod not used, AE used for one and manual for the other on subjects 2 &3, differing EVs for exposure compensation on subjects 2 & 3, etc. I assume this is the original 18-55 and not the newer 18-55mm II or the 18-55mm VR as well. Bottom line for me, the 35mm excels in DOF and bokeh, which is of course expected. Contrast and saturation problems I chalk partially up to the user because of different settings. Is there a difference? Yes. As significant as shown? Not imo. No one here denied that the prime is the better lens but imo, the prime doesn't offer a significant enough difference to negate the lost flexibility and added price when compared to a properly used zoom. The prime to me is a supplement not a primary lens. This is of course all subjective and YMMV.
@Bigshot-I assume the milkiness is partly caused by veiled flaring which can of course could have been avoided by the OP if he so chose. Another difference seems to be that the 35mm in question seems to overexpose (Look at the highlights of the two) consistently relative to the 18-55mm, which of course affects the overall effect of brightness and contrast on the image.
I also don't mean to be a wet blanket but frankly, while that first shot looks good, if that's exactly how it came off the camera, I'm stunned. It seems overcontrasted; shadow detail is completely gone. I like contrasty images but I like to be able to add it at my discretion, not be stuck with it. Idk, maybe it's just that one shot.
|
Hi Skyline. Thanks for the comments.
I did indeed use a tripod! I'm guessing the slight shift in the photos made you think otherwise. It's a tricky business, because the 35mm is not as long as the 18-55mm, so that will shift the perspective a tiny bit. Also, I set the 18-55mm so that 35mm was selected, and that it displayed 35mm in my on camera display, but some shots were slightly different, such as 35.6mm.
I tried my best.
I see you also noticed that I used one mode for the 18-55mm (aperture priority), and another for the 35mm (manual). I did my first photo with the 18-55mm. I recorded the shutter speed, switched lenses, and then put my 35mm on. To make sure I reproduced the shutter speed, I set it to manual. This will have no difference. You have to remember, the only thing that will determine exposure is the shutter speed, aperture, and ISO. ISO was fixed, aperture was fixed, and shutter speed was fixed between comparison photos. The differences we are seeing are from the lenses, not the different modes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyline
the prime doesn't offer a significant enough difference to negate the lost flexibility and added price when compared to a properly used zoom.
|
Speak for yourself, but for me, the prime does indeed over a significant enough difference. ^_^
Chalk that up to personal preference I guess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyline
if that's exactly how it came off the camera, I'm stunned. It seems overcontrasted; shadow detail is completely gone. I like contrasty images but ...
|
This is simply the contrast setting I had set in the camera. The big thing here is that this setting was the same for all 6 shots. Looking at the photo data, I had my camera set to 0 contrast (neutral). My camera goes from -2 (low contrast) to +2 (high contrast). I
usually shoot in neutral contrast, unless I need more detail in the extremes in which case I'll change it to -1 or -2.
PS: Go easy on me. You are so quick to blame me (I'm really not a bad person). I kid you not, I simply took 3 test photos. One of a backyard, the other two which interested me personally. I did not spend my afternoon seeking out photos that would particularly make the 18-55mm look bad. I also tried my best to create similar shots between the two lenses.
