Lens for travel
- Thread starter enyu
- Start date
- Status
still new in DSLR, will hang on to D70 1st until i can handle it than consider pro body.. tks
just curious... why does the f-stop of a lens makes so much diff in the price, eg a f2.8 is so much more EX than a f3.5. how does f-stop play a part in the quality of a picture in DSLR ? :embrass:
just curious... why does the f-stop of a lens makes so much diff in the price, eg a f2.8 is so much more EX than a f3.5. how does f-stop play a part in the quality of a picture in DSLR ? :embrass:Yatlapball
Senior Member
to be more precise... how does aperture size play an important role.
In short.. given the same conditions (i.e. amount of light) bigger apertures allow faster shutter speed combinations to be used.
Bigger apertures = shallower Depth of Field. Search the internet or even this forum for the numerous discussion/articles on Depth of Field
In short.. given the same conditions (i.e. amount of light) bigger apertures allow faster shutter speed combinations to be used.
Bigger apertures = shallower Depth of Field. Search the internet or even this forum for the numerous discussion/articles on Depth of Field
Yatlapball said:to be more precise... how does aperture size play an important role.
In short.. given the same conditions (i.e. amount of light) bigger apertures allow faster shutter speed combinations to be used.
Bigger apertures = shallower Depth of Field. Search the internet or even this forum for the numerous discussion/articles on Depth of Field
Lemme see if I have the energy to retype what I did a few years ago... hee.
You're right in what the aperture does, but it also signifies quality when you buy a f/2.8.
Do note that f/2.8 wide open means that image quality must maintain at a reasonable standard when shot at f/2.8, production and polishing of the glass elements must be very high and tight. Across the entire zoom range, quality must maintain at f/2.8 optimised even further mostly at f/5.6~8. If a consumer glass achieves optimal sharpness at f/8, expensive f/2.8s will largely and far-ly outperform the consumsers at f/8. Probably at f/4 it already outperforms most (I know AF-S 17-35 does).
f/2.8 will be the hardest to maintain quality at wide open across the zoom, thus you can imagine the price. Aperture stepped down, is concentrating the light rays towards the middle of the glass, which is always the sweetest location across the glass.
Again, for a f/2.8 wide open glass, image quality is constant and very acceptable at f/2.8, the accuracy of the glass through out the range, is kept at very high standards. Aperture is the hole opening. Look through the glass at f/2.8 and see how large the hole is, that's how much quality must be maintained when taking the shot. Phyiscs will come into place here.
f/2.8 allows a lot of light to be used, when stepping down, the light is concentrated towards the middle of the glass, thus the image quality is very further optimised as compared to f/2.8. So comparing a f/2.8 with any variable-zoom glass (ie f/3.5-4.5) is stupid because the aperture is already tattletale of it's glass element's sharpness, colors, distortion control and others.
Don't forget elements produced for f/2.8 must maintain strict quality from the middle of the glass to the outer portions. Variable-aperture zoom glasses must step down the aperture when zooming so that the imperfections of the glass is minimised. Yes, variable-aperture zooms has imperfect glass at the outer areas of the elements so stepping down is necessary to achieve optimal quality when zooming. Why do you think variable-aperture glasses are so cheap? Heh...
So now hopefully, you'll understand why a 70-200 f/2.8VR is so much more expensive than a 18-200 f/3.5-5.6VR. Aperture, glass quality, build is what that makes the difference.
Finale, f/2.8s will definitely be EX as compared to those f/x.x~x.x.
ernest_ted
Senior Member
yyD70S said:
Actually i needed the 70-200mm and i added TC1.7. Needed the reach to take my son on the parasailing. Anyway the shots came out crap as I was against the sun most of the time.
The 70-200mm came in handly @ Coral Island beach where there were tons of Korean/Jap/Chinese tourist....who,as if, had never been to a beach.
Anyway 2 pics for viewing
taken with 70-200mm @ Coral Island beach
taken with 50mm f1.8 + SB800
ernest_ted
Senior Member
espn said:
:kok:
ESPN
U is CBD :sticktong
Yatlapball
Senior Member
:thumbsup: for espn's explaination on other aspects of a f/2.8 glass
any opinion between
(1) sigma APO 70-200mm f2.8 EX ~ $1868 and a Nikkor AFS VR 70-200mm f2.8G IF-ED ~ $3800 diff almost $2K++ ...
(2) sigma APO 70-200mm f2.8 EX ~ $1868 Nikkor 80-200mm f2.8D ED ~ $1980 almost same price.
by the way what is the diff detween IF-ED & ED in Nikkor Lens ??
(1) sigma APO 70-200mm f2.8 EX ~ $1868 and a Nikkor AFS VR 70-200mm f2.8G IF-ED ~ $3800 diff almost $2K++ ...
(2) sigma APO 70-200mm f2.8 EX ~ $1868 Nikkor 80-200mm f2.8D ED ~ $1980 almost same price.
by the way what is the diff detween IF-ED & ED in Nikkor Lens ??
Ogenkidesu
Member
Get the 18-200mm VR. First, it is relatively cheaper than the expensive f2.8ers and lighter (very impt when travelling). Unless you are looking for very good bokeh and brighter lens, 18-200 should serve well for travel photography. You would not need to switch lens - no dust - no elephants in the CCD. One lens = no need to wait to change lens - can capture faster the special moments..enyu said:anyone can recommend a lens that is good for travel, that covers from landscape to portrait with a reasonable price, actually I'm considering Nikon VR 18-200mm. CP selling $1250. I own a D70 (with kit lens) & sigma 28-200mm f5.6, but quality of pic not that good.
I quote ken rockwell "My 18 - 200 VR is more than just a new lens. It's changed the way I live and make photos.".. Hmm... that statement means something... (those with f2.8 lens have other particular requirements; personally, it suffice)
Ogenkidesu said:
Thks... actually I've bought myself a Tokina 12-24mm f/4 & Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 alrdy. but will consider a 18-200 VR for travel in the near future (must save 1st of course). I sold my Sigma 18-200 recently due too much hand shake... 18-200 VR shld me my next travel lens to consider...
Cheesecake
Senior Member
among all, i miss my AF24-85 f2.8-4D alot. its a very handy lens to haf in the DSLR range and the performance far exceeds the price paid....
its a smashing lens, fast AF, good sharpness all round...
mainly i missed the 24mm range becos it can be so handy to be able to shoot at that range sometimes.
:thumbsup:
its a smashing lens, fast AF, good sharpness all round...
mainly i missed the 24mm range becos it can be so handy to be able to shoot at that range sometimes.
:thumbsup:
Cheesecake
Senior Member
Ogenkidesu said:I quote ken rockwell "My 18 - 200 VR is more than just a new lens. It's changed the way I live and make photos.".. Hmm... that statement means something... (those with f2.8 lens have other particular requirements; personally, it suffice)
yes, a nice quote from the great man. :thumbsup:
*** changed the way i take and look at fotos. :thumbsup:
sf_kang
Senior Member
I recommend the Nikon 18-200mm VR also.....bringing it to HK tomorrow....hehe
I second Stanly... the 18-200mm VR is the lens to take for travel. I recently travel to Western Australia [Perth, Margaret River, Busselton, Albany, Walpole, Denmark]. Took every shot using this lens. No need to change lens. No risk of getting dust onto sensor.
br/porcupine
I second Stanly... the 18-200mm VR is the lens to take for travel. I recently travel to Western Australia [Perth, Margaret River, Busselton, Albany, Walpole, Denmark]. Took every shot using this lens. No need to change lens. No risk of getting dust onto sensor.
br/porcupine
espn said:
ya lor..... moreover they didn't do a good job the 1st time, still spotted few elephants.... it was lucky that i checked B4 leaving, asked them to clean again & finally stepped out NSC with satisfaction.
But i like the new NSC, very nice, too bad its within ERP area.
- Status
Similar threads
