practical OR a waste?
- Thread starter pplneedthelord
- Start date
- Status
icelava
Senior Member
wouldn't a kiasu fella capture the same pic at all aperture settings? :-D
hmm .. perhaps you are using a ff high iso performer like the 5dmk2 or you shooting still objects? for me i would not be able to shoot at f8 - don't have this luxury.
the 24-85 is not a sharp lens to begin with so i would not use that with a ff cam if i had one.
thanks .. looks like this lens dims to f5 at 80mm and becomes f5.6 at 135mm - which is an issue for me as that would mean I would have problems focusing at the tele end
Anson
Senior Member
Only when you are doing lens test. :bsmilie:
Anson
Senior Member
Depending on the lighting condition, you can adjust your shutter or ISO to compensate. I always believe it is the element behind the camera (not the front) that is most important.
He's probably referring to the small max aperture affecting AF functions at the tele end.
Larger aperture does helps in AF (and MF). And unless the camera has a manual focusing screen, a PG, no matter how pro, will still depends a lot on the AF function of the camera for accurate focusing. No matter how good is the composition or exposure, the picture is worthless if the subject is not in focus (unless intended so). Even if the pro PG captures the "moment" with well executed pressing of the shutter, all is wasted if subject OOF. So equipment does play a very important part, "sometimes" more than the user.
Larger aperture does helps in AF (and MF). And unless the camera has a manual focusing screen, a PG, no matter how pro, will still depends a lot on the AF function of the camera for accurate focusing. No matter how good is the composition or exposure, the picture is worthless if the subject is not in focus (unless intended so). Even if the pro PG captures the "moment" with well executed pressing of the shutter, all is wasted if subject OOF. So equipment does play a very important part, "sometimes" more than the user.
18-135mm comes about to fill in the gap .. btw a 18-85 and a 18-200 ..
to some people, they would rather save $200 , save some weight, save on carry a larger lens ... so 18-135 might seem useless if u are non of the people feeling this way.. but some will find it ideal.. $200 can help to finance another good prime lens..
to some people, they would rather save $200 , save some weight, save on carry a larger lens ... so 18-135 might seem useless if u are non of the people feeling this way.. but some will find it ideal.. $200 can help to finance another good prime lens..
Anson
Senior Member
工欲善其事，必先利其器 ， I never said that equipment is not important.
Correct me if I am wrong but IMHO the pros who know how to yield the right equipment is more important than a beginner who have the top-end bodies & lenses. :think:
Hehe... if shoot at all aperture settings, I very busy leh... I shoot at F8 & above as this is the typical "sweet spot" of most lenses, i.e. most likely to render the sharpest image quality. Of course, that depends on the lighting conditions as well...
in low light, i'll switch to my primes =p
I'm using the 5dmk2... so far I'm quite happy with the results up to ISO 6400. 24-85 is quite a decent lens for general purpose photography. For more specialized photography, I normally switch to my primes.
You mentioned that the person "behind the camera (not the front) that is most important". Most important implies that it is more important.
I just wanna say it may not be always the case, althou in general it makes sense. consider the example that I mentioned, even the professionals may still require that the camera can properly AF for him to get the picture that he wants. A beginner, with top end gear, anyhow fires few thousand shots at 10fps at a sports event on Full Auto.. compare with a professional with many years experience, always at the right place at the right time who anticipate the moments with solid accuracy, armed with low-end gear and F5.6 lens, who captures the moments with 50% OOF pictures (mis-focus), or missed the moments due to shutter lag, or camera unable to lock focus hence never open shutter, or underexposed noisy pictures. Who will have a higher % of good pictures?
While there are certainly examples of award winning pictures taken with PnS, but it will depend on the situations. If the pro can take his time to compose and the PnS can lock focus and fires, sure, the person is more important.
But in cases where speed, accuracy of AF, response time, rate of fire, high ISO performance etc etc are critical, the equipment may actually matters more than the photographer.
And, as you have mentioned too, the "right" equipment. And the "right" equipment may mean high end gear, in examples like sports photography. So "right" equipment may still be more important than "pro" PG sometimes.
PS: Equipment is "more" important sometimes does not imply user is "not" important during those times. Just "less" important.
I just wanna say it may not be always the case, althou in general it makes sense. consider the example that I mentioned, even the professionals may still require that the camera can properly AF for him to get the picture that he wants. A beginner, with top end gear, anyhow fires few thousand shots at 10fps at a sports event on Full Auto.. compare with a professional with many years experience, always at the right place at the right time who anticipate the moments with solid accuracy, armed with low-end gear and F5.6 lens, who captures the moments with 50% OOF pictures (mis-focus), or missed the moments due to shutter lag, or camera unable to lock focus hence never open shutter, or underexposed noisy pictures. Who will have a higher % of good pictures?
While there are certainly examples of award winning pictures taken with PnS, but it will depend on the situations. If the pro can take his time to compose and the PnS can lock focus and fires, sure, the person is more important.
But in cases where speed, accuracy of AF, response time, rate of fire, high ISO performance etc etc are critical, the equipment may actually matters more than the photographer.
And, as you have mentioned too, the "right" equipment. And the "right" equipment may mean high end gear, in examples like sports photography. So "right" equipment may still be more important than "pro" PG sometimes.
PS: Equipment is "more" important sometimes does not imply user is "not" important during those times. Just "less" important.
Last edited:
whattokingu
New Member
I guess photography is the fusion of man and his equipment. If a person knows when the AF would not function properly and switch to MF, then he may be able to squeeze out higher % of shots. If that's the case, then maybe rangefinders is the better equipment since it is a breeze MFing. 
Anson
Senior Member
Like I mention before you need to have the right equipment for the right situation, but does not necessary means that you need the best equip in the market.
Does all Pros always use the best in the market? I don't think so. They used the right equip (most economical to them) that get the job done.
Does owning the best equip in the market automatic make you a Pro? My response is NO. Be it a dslr or lens is just a tool, its how you use it that matter.
Seem like we OT too much on this thread, it reminded me of a similar thread :http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=564801 that is inviting a heated discussion. :bsmilie:
What I'm saying is the comment of user (experience/skill) being more important factor in your original post is "not always" true. In some situations, owning better equipment can potentially affect the resulting picture more than the experience of the user.
In post #24, goering mentioned that the small max aperture could affect his focusing at the tele-end. In post #26, you mentioned that the user is more important because he can decide the correct shutter or ISO to get the correct exposure.
I just want to point out that, no matter how skillful or experienced is the user in setting the correct exposure, it is useless if the picture cannot be properly taken if AF or MF cannot be achieved due to equipment limitation. In this case, it is more important to have a lens that can correctly focus rather than a user that can decide the correct exposure. So in certain situations, the equipment can be more important and your belief is not always correct.
This has got nothing to do with whether having pro equipment makes one a pro. That argument is totally irrelevant to the original intention of my post.
In post #24, goering mentioned that the small max aperture could affect his focusing at the tele-end. In post #26, you mentioned that the user is more important because he can decide the correct shutter or ISO to get the correct exposure.
I just want to point out that, no matter how skillful or experienced is the user in setting the correct exposure, it is useless if the picture cannot be properly taken if AF or MF cannot be achieved due to equipment limitation. In this case, it is more important to have a lens that can correctly focus rather than a user that can decide the correct exposure. So in certain situations, the equipment can be more important and your belief is not always correct.
This has got nothing to do with whether having pro equipment makes one a pro. That argument is totally irrelevant to the original intention of my post.
Like I mention before you need to have the right equipment for the right situation, but does not necessary means that you need the best equip in the market.
Does all Pros always use the best in the market? I don't think so. They used the right equip (most economical to them) that get the job done.
Does owning the best equip in the market automatic make you a Pro? My response is NO. Be it a dslr or lens is just a tool, its how you use it that matter.
Seem like we OT too much on this thread, it reminded me of a similar thread :http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=564801 that is inviting a heated discussion. :bsmilie:
Last edited:
Anson
Senior Member
I was puzzled when you say "AF or MF cannot be achieved due to equipment limitation" & "more important to have a lens that can correctly focus"?
Manual Focusing depend mainly on the user's eye & hand accuracy & coordination and not the lens. If you are using MF instead of AF and the picture is still OOF, I believe the problem due mostly to the PG and not the lens.
The original intention for this thread is for the discussion of whether the new 18-135mm "duplicate" the 18-200mm lens. I think I have OT enough on this thread, if you wish to debate/discuss on this topic further I would suggest that a separate thread could be created instead.
If the max aperture is small, the VF maybe too dark, and hence MF (using focusing screen) may not be possible. This is not in general but when it is relatively dark. In some cases, it is possible to MF with F1.4 lens but not F5.6 lens.
And, in relation to the topic, the 18-135 is F5.6 at tele end? so AF maybe affected slightly.
In this aspect, the 18-200 might have a bigger aperture at 135 than the 18-135, and AF ability might differ a little..? So maybe this could bring the post back to the topic..
I don't intend to bring this further but since you raised a doubt about the statement in my post I had to clarify it.
And, in relation to the topic, the 18-135 is F5.6 at tele end? so AF maybe affected slightly.
In this aspect, the 18-200 might have a bigger aperture at 135 than the 18-135, and AF ability might differ a little..? So maybe this could bring the post back to the topic..
I don't intend to bring this further but since you raised a doubt about the statement in my post I had to clarify it.
Last edited:
Anson
Senior Member
FYI the brightness of the viewfinder when you are using MF depend mainly on the body, and not the aperture being used (unless you are using the "DoF button"). :bsmilie:
If you are talking about pitch-dark condition, unless you are using flash/long shutter speed/high iso I believe even a F1.2 L lens would be dark too.
pplneedthelord
Senior Member
its alright to OT i guess, i just wanted to know what your views are
flipfreak
Senior Member
i think the topic is going off the track already. if u are using f/5.6 lens, your camera will still be able to autofocus. it may not be as fast or hunt at low light, but it will still autofocus. only if u add a teleconverter to it and the max aperture goes below f/5.6 will the body stop autofocusing.
having said that, i do think it is very tough to try to achieve sharp focus with manual focusing if you are doing it with the stock focusing screen and APS-C body. i believe most bodies nowadays come with liveview and you can easily replace the screen with one meant for manual focusing if that is what you do often.
sorry if i sound snobbish or elitist but if someone is serious about landing great images with photography, he should know the lens is one of the crucial element of it. if you are willing to forgo good IQ for convenience, don't complain about anything.
having said that, i do think it is very tough to try to achieve sharp focus with manual focusing if you are doing it with the stock focusing screen and APS-C body. i believe most bodies nowadays come with liveview and you can easily replace the screen with one meant for manual focusing if that is what you do often.
sorry if i sound snobbish or elitist but if someone is serious about landing great images with photography, he should know the lens is one of the crucial element of it. if you are willing to forgo good IQ for convenience, don't complain about anything.
- Status
Similar threads
