Use small aperture

[showtime]

yep, a faster lens means a brighter viewfinder this same lights hits the af sensors thus better and faster af...

 

[chriszzz]

Good grief. Did I not anticipate this? Did I not state that I was posting in a personal capacity and not as a moderator, and also stress that CK and Ian were probably doing so in the same fashion? Did I not also state that this was specifically to pre-empt somebody coming out to criticise CK, Ian and, because I didn't know better and to just shut up instead of trying to play mediator, myself as well?

Firstly, this "personal capacity" thing does not wash with me. Under your username is a little word "Moderator", and it identifies you as such, and you will be perceived as such. This is the equivalent of sending a letter to the Straits Times Forum using your company letterhead.

Secondly, being moderators, you are held to a higher standard code of conduct then ordinary members. After all, you police the forums and hold the responsibility to moderate discussions.

Thirdly, if this discussion erupts into a flame war, how are the mods going to have the moral authority to intervene when it is the mods themselves that started the ball rolling ?

The best part of it all was, I read your post originally, thought it was brilliant, and thought about using it as an example to highlight to Clive exactly what a helpful response yours was, and one that wouldn't elicit sarcastic etc responses from people, be they moderators or not. And then an hour later you go and amend the post to include this little gem of a personal observation. And let me guess, you're probably going to give feedback about this post too. But before you do that, just take it as my feedback to you.

And what feedback would that be ? That I should mind my own business ? That I should not point out mistakes committed by moderators ? Please tell me what is the point you are trying to make.

Also, explain to me how I was sarcastic and stinging in my original response? Or did you exercise your own little bit of lack of tact in making a sweeping statement about the moderators in this thread? I'm not even sure CK doesn't have good reason to feel hard done as well.

You want to know how the mods were sarcastic ( though I did not mention you specifically. You should know who you are ) ? How about words like "What a load of bollocks... " ? How about a jab at how a fast lens works as a good paperweight ? These are not sarcasm ? In fact, it's downright rudeness, especially from the people who are supposed to moderate the discussion.


Like I said, it was feedback from me. Whether you like it or not, it's another story. Feel free to ignore feedback. There is no need to be so defensive. Take a step back and look again. Everything I said are facts that can be verified by just reading the posts. Was I being rude or was I wrong to even give negative feedback ?

 

[chriszzz]

Your observation is generally correct for short focal length lenses, however with large fast glass it's an entirely different kettle of fish as long fast glass (300/2.8 and longer/faster) is optimised for maximum performance wide open.
In the case of most 600mm and longer professional grade primes the image quality degrades once you stop the lens down more than one stop.

1. Very interesting. I have no experience with superteles at wide apertures, but the Canon MTF charts for their superteles still support the assertion that they perform better stopped down then at max. Check the MTF charts for,say, their 400/2.8, and their 500 and 600 lenses. However, the MTF for 300/2.8 does indicate better performance at wide open.

2. It's moot to talk about 600mm fast (2.8 or better) lenses since they don't exist. There are no 2.8 lenses for anything above 400mm in mainstream use as far as i know.

3. Could you point me to some references or sample images that support your point ? I would be very interested to learn something new.

At no point in the original post was any reference made to lenses being of the same 'series' or an equivalent series.

Lens performance between slower and faster glass doesn't actually equate to equal performance when stopped down, as the use of different optical designs has a major influence on how well a lens performs.

You are right.

Firstly let me stress my posts were not in my capacity as a moderator (see Nikon forum for examples of 'in moderator mode' .. and I stand by what I say that fast glass is not always good glass and that Clives comment is and was pure bollocks for that very reason alone.

OK, I've already explained why I thought the comment was inappropriate, so lets not dwell on it further.

Secondly I should at this point out that I own and use a massive collection of very fast lenses in focal lengths ranging from 6mm f2.8 to 800mm f5.6 (primes mostly but including a full set of f2.8 zooms)

Impressive. Do you do photography professionally ?

Finally wide open doesn't equate to decent performance especially where light fall off and corner illumination are concerned. If however you are shooting on an APS sized DSLR sensor like Jed does this loss of performance is less of a problem than if shooting on film.

I agree. As I said, max aperture is usually a lens' worse image quality aperture. This is mitigated by the FOV crop on DSLRs.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but if you aren't composing and focusing when using an ND or PL with the lens stopped down to the desired working aperture then you will have no chance of ever making great landscape photographs. This is one of the first things you learn (usually the hard way) when you take landscape shots for publication and or profit and is one of the fundamentals of using any filter except colour conversion and correction filters.

In general terms for landscape work stop down to f11~f16 (135 format) to obtain maximum DOF and in 8x10 format you should be shooting at around f64 (yes you read right, f64).

Finally, why you should focus at your chosen aperture. With the lens stopped down you get to see what is actually going to happen with a filter, where the exact region of focus lies etc, sure it may be dim, but it's something you get used to.

One can do this just by using DOF preview. There is no need to do stopped down focussing. Focussing is done at max aperture, which is what swingoutsister is trying to point out. Composition and checking of DOF can be done later using the DOF preview feature on many SLRs.

 

[meng]

Guys, I feel we are off the topic of the original post by the thread starter. His/her comments about using small apertures are dead right I feel, at least most of the photographers will feel that the few points made by smallaperture are valid and justifiable to a large extent.

And to whether fast lenses are better, it'll be better to discuss it in another thread. Moderators, perhaps splitting this thread will be better.

 

[Ian]

1. Very interesting. I have no experience with superteles at wide apertures, but the Canon MTF charts for their superteles still support the assertion that they perform better stopped down then at max. Check the MTF charts for,say, their 400/2.8, and their 500 and 600 lenses. However, the MTF for 300/2.8 does indicate better performance at wide open.

Firstly MTF charts are mostly meaningless as they don't give an accurate picture of how a lens performs in the real world as many factors such as optical abberations (coma, chromatic abberation etc) are not measurable by the MTF methodology.

2. It's moot to talk about 600mm fast (2.8 or better) lenses since they don't exist. There are no 2.8 lenses for anything above 400mm in mainstream use as far as i know.

Did I say f2.8 for 600mm plus, no I did not, what I said was 'fast glass' that means 600/4. 800/5.6, 1200/11 etc or in the case of one 'lens' I own 1600/6.3

3. Could you point me to some references or sample images that support your point ? I would be very interested to learn something new.

Sure, I'd be happy to sell you some sample images at my normal commercial rates

You'll find plenty of reviews online by professional photographers who use long glass for a living and most concur that image quality drops off noticably with most superteles (not just Kwanon). With some superteles you can get 1-2 stops of useable range, and in a few instances even a bit more, or less. It varies with the exact lens. For example, one of my early 1970s vintage Nikkor 600s is horrible at f5.6 and further down, while the later model is quite reasonable at f5.6~8

Impressive. Do you do photography professionally ?

Yes and have been doing so for nearly 25 years.

One can do this just by using DOF preview. There is no need to do stopped down focussing. Focussing is done at max aperture, which is what swingoutsister is trying to point out. Composition and checking of DOF can be done later using the DOF preview feature on many SLRs.

A nice idea in theory, however try it with a large format camera (view camera) sometime and find out what the word 'mess' means.

Sure you can use DOF preview and many do use it to make final adjustments as necessary, and it's the method I've been using for over 30 years. However most landscape and architectural professionals prefer to stop down manually when using filters and manual focusing for the final take and then use mirror lockup to further reduce any camera induced vibration. Try using a ND grad or reverse grad with DOF preview and you'll soon understand where I'm coming from.

Firstly, this "personal capacity" thing does not wash with me. Under your username is a little word "Moderator", and it identifies you as such, and you will be perceived as such. This is the equivalent of sending a letter to the Straits Times Forum using your company letterhead.

Actually those of us who are moderators have no choice in having the 'moderator' tag under our names regardless of which forum we post in.

I should explain that on ClubSnap almost all moderators are appointed to specific forums, in my case it's Photojournalism and Sports plus the Nikon Forum. Outside of those forums I have NO Moderator access and thus no 'power' as a moderator. It's a shame that the forum software doesn't allow the removal of the moterator tag when posting to other forums but that's how it goes.

Secondly, being moderators, you are held to a higher standard code of conduct then ordinary members. After all, you police the forums and hold the responsibility to moderate discussions.

We are also human beings with large targets on our backs all to frequently, in particular those of us who are professional photographers and those of us who have been around the SG based forums for a number of years as we tend to 'collect' fanclubs of users who like to do nothing more than have a slanging match where possible. As luck would have it such eruptions are fairly infrequent these days but were far more commonplace in the early months of this sites existance.

Thirdly, if this discussion erupts into a flame war, how are the mods going to have the moral authority to intervene when it is the mods themselves that started the ball rolling ?

If it erupts in to a real flame war the moderators for this forum (General, Reviews, Tech talk) will step in in their offical capacity and all of us will obey their directives regardless of our alleged status.

Ian

 

[swingoutsister]

One can do this just by using DOF preview. There is no need to do stopped down focussing. Focussing is done at max aperture, which is what swingoutsister is trying to point out. Composition and checking of DOF can be done later using the DOF preview feature on many SLRs.

true..that is what i meant exactly. in photography, there is really no right or wrong way to make a picture. for me, it just makes better sense to manual focus wide open, so i can make sure my focus is really accurate. for checking effects of filter/stopping down, can just press the 'magic button' haha! to be double sure, can always manual calculate DOF, using the distance scale on the lens. but i really can't imagine focussing stopped down at f16 during the evening....

 

[clive]

sorry to all members and mods for all the unnecessary misunderstandings.
yes it can be at times quite disappointing to see quite a few of people disagree with what my own hard-earned-self-taught learning experiences. in my eagerness to share my experiences with our friend smallaperture, i got carried away with the integrity of my own principles/believes/perceptions about glass, thats why i felt i should justify my views in greater detail, which i did, albeit in a much much more solemn manner. having being past the initial dissapointment, i can see that the other side of the coin also has its true merits. given a chance i would possibly have offerred to study the rationale behind the other point of view but because i didnt really want to spend the extra effort into details, thus i will hold on to my views. ie ultimately i prefer to stay with the rather unorthodox fuss-free-yet-proven methods i admit we will always have extremely different opinions on soem topics...then we will just happily let it be as such. to borrow some mediaval fantasy analogy, its just like when 2 highly skilled swordsmen from 2 different kingdoms encounter each other but rather than engage in a seriously detrimental duel, they shake hands and acknowledge each other and move on, each in search of its own higher plane. also kudos to our friend jed for being on the ball and doing his duty to clarify misconceptions and calm the environment. to the other party; as i stand by my experience that fast glass is better, i offer to make peace rather than war. this is another bad case of a serious opinion disagreement almost gone awry, but nonetheless thankyou for the intellectual challenge and also for a rather rare chance for me to engage in some seriour grammatical word processing. i see the merit in your viewpoint as applies to your own experiences, thus cherish your views and may we all practice our art in the fashion most suited to our inherent style. meanwhile, let the technical discussions come forth with all intellectual insight and dexterility...but as always, unorthodox/unconventional/maverick/ suggestions will still come forth from me


[OT: is my english okiez? last time cant compose essay 4 nutzl ah..long time never type so cheemz cheemz liaoz :bsmilie: ]

 

[waisj]

Good on you guys for handling this misunderstanding like Mature adults.
:thumbsup: Proud of you guys, clive, chriszzz, Ian, Jed

 

[ckiang]

Wow, I had never expected a tongue-in-cheek reply to clive's post to generate to much heat here. If I offended anyone, then I apologise. But like Jed and Ian said, (due to the things work here) most moderators are not posting as capacity of a moderator unless signed off as so. There really isn't a reason to doubt that.

You want to know how the mods were sarcastic ( though I did not mention you specifically. You should know who you are ) ? How about words like "What a load of bollocks... " ? How about a jab at how a fast lens works as a good paperweight ? These are not sarcasm ? In fact, it's downright rudeness, especially from the people who are supposed to moderate the discussion.

You guys really got to learn to relax and lighten up a bit, when I posted that, I never meant it to be sarcastic. It was just a tongue-in-cheek comment, no reason to feel offended. I did not add a cute smiley behind for nothing.

Regards
CK

Disclaimer : The above post is made in my personal capacity and does not reflect ClubSNAP's point of view nor does it from from my moderator designation.

 

[chriszzz]

Firstly MTF charts are mostly meaningless as they don't give an accurate picture of how a lens performs in the real world as many factors such as optical abberations (coma, chromatic abberation etc) are not measurable by the MTF methodology.

As I said, I have no experience in this area since I am a hobbyist, and have no access to such big guns. So it's inevitable I have to refer to paper specs instead of real world performance. I'll take what you say as a fact, since you obviously know more about big lenses then I do.

Did I say f2.8 for 600mm plus, no I did not, what I said was 'fast glass' that means 600/4. 800/5.6, 1200/11 etc or in the case of one 'lens' I own 1600/6.3

I see. Is your 1600 a real camera lens or some kind of telescope ?

Sure, I'd be happy to sell you some sample images at my normal commercial rates

You'll find plenty of reviews online by professional photographers who use long glass for a living and most concur that image quality drops off noticably with most superteles (not just Kwanon). With some superteles you can get 1-2 stops of useable range, and in a few instances even a bit more, or less. It varies with the exact lens. For example, one of my early 1970s vintage Nikkor 600s is horrible at f5.6 and further down, while the later model is quite reasonable at f5.6~8

Sorry, it will be beyond me to buy your commercial stuff. No dough. But I'll be happy to read any reference materials you might know about on the web. Actually, I did look around but those few sites I found only mentioned this so-and-so lens is fabulous, works great, focuses fast, balances well, etc, but none talk about how his lens performs stopped down vs wide open. I'll look around further. I'm very interested because this behavior seems to contradict every shred of common knowledge about normal lens performance.

Yes and have been doing so for nearly 25 years.

Whoa... I'm impressed. Do you have a website showcasing some of your photos ?

A nice idea in theory, however try it with a large format camera (view camera) sometime and find out what the word 'mess' means.

Sure you can use DOF preview and many do use it to make final adjustments as necessary, and it's the method I've been using for over 30 years. However most landscape and architectural professionals prefer to stop down manually when using filters and manual focusing for the final take and then use mirror lockup to further reduce any camera induced vibration. Try using a ND grad or reverse grad with DOF preview and you'll soon understand where I'm coming from.

I understand the DOF preview and mirror lock up bit, but I can't see why they would do stopped down focusing. What does it buy you that a plain DOF preview doesn't ? And modern AF cameras normally do not allow stopped down AF, which means it'll have to be done manually.


(Forums mod system deleted for brevity)

Thanks for the explanation. All I was trying to do was to give some feedback as a member of this forum, based on my perception. Now if this is my perception as a ordinary member without the internal knowledge of how Clubsnap forums operate, then its a good bet that other readers will perceive the same. I tried to give the feedback in the most tactful way that I could using my limited command of the English language, and avoided any words that might be hostile or offensive. It's too bad that it did not go down well. I think we all have to understand that members who bother to give feedback are doing so because they like the forums and want it to improve. Why else would they spend time and effort to write something that is potentially explosive ? In any case, I will continue to participate in the forums and give feedback whenever I feel it is due. And yes, I welcome feedback from you guys if you think I went overboard.

 

[Jed]

Forget this Chriszzz gents. Look what I just came across in another thread, here, post 13. Talk about pot calling the kettle, and I haven't even been looking out for his posts, it just happened to be in that thread I was reading.

 

[Ian]

I see. Is your 1600 a real camera lens or some kind of telescope ?.

It's a catadioptric lens system :devil:

Sorry, it will be beyond me to buy your commercial stuff. No dough. But I'll be happy to read any reference materials you might know about on the web. Actually, I did look around but those few sites I found only mentioned this so-and-so lens is fabulous, works great, focuses fast, balances well, etc, but none talk about how his lens performs stopped down vs wide open. I'll look around further. I'm very interested because this behavior seems to contradict every shred of common knowledge about normal lens performance.

A good starting place is the now out of print Ilford Manual of Photography.

Whoa... I'm impressed. Do you have a website showcasing some of your photos ?

Yes I do, however it's only for my clients. You may find a few of my fun shots posted in the galleries but as I seldom post shots.....

I understand the DOF preview and mirror lock up bit, but I can't see why they would do stopped down focusing. What does it buy you that a plain DOF preview doesn't ? And modern AF cameras normally do not allow stopped down AF, which means it'll have to be done manually.

Okay, firstly, no self respecting landscape (or commercial, architectural or aerial) photographer uses AF anything, it's entirely done manually because the current AF accuracy is not good enough for critical work.

ND grads and reverse grads require adjustment to place the transition point of the filter correctly in the composed image. This requires the use of BOTH hands to manipulate the filter holder and filter to the correct location. Try doing that while holding down the DOF preview lever/button.

(Forums mod system deleted for brevity)

It's too bad that it did not go down well. I think we all have to understand that members who bother to give feedback are doing so because they like the forums and want it to improve. Why else would they spend time and effort to write something that is potentially explosive ? In any case, I will continue to participate in the forums and give feedback whenever I feel it is due. And yes, I welcome feedback from you guys if you think I went overboard.

Most users here know how the system works after a few weeks with the moderators. Not all users post answers to really help either, there are quite a few who post here just to show off their alleged knowledge or equipment rather their lack of it and their complete mis-understanding of various aspects of photography. Sometimes such posts make me along with others post extremely cutting replies to try to snap the luser out of his or her delusion.

One last point, my signature refers to those who believe everything that is printed in photographic magazines is both accurate and unbiased. Having worked in the press for many years I can assure you that commercial considerations really colour magazine articles, reviews etc and that regurgitating (re-telling) a magazines opinion shows a very callow and immature photographer.

 

[ckiang]

Okay, firstly, no self respecting landscape (or commercial, architectural or aerial) photographer uses AF anything, it's entirely done manually because the current AF accuracy is not good enough for critical work.

You referring to MF-ing on a MF system right? Coz I find it too difficult to MF an AF lens on any camera (AF or MF) coz the focussing throw is just too short (probably designed that way to have faster AF?)

Regards
CK

 

[Acieed]

You referring to MF-ing on a MF system right? Coz I find it too difficult to MF an AF lens on any camera (AF or MF) coz the focussing throw is just too short (probably designed that way to have faster AF?)

Regards
CK

Thanks Ian and CK for sharing their techniques and experience which I've always learnt a lot from. Don't think they were being sarcastic, in fact I would wish they were this critical about the shots I posted here So.. relax guys..

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[chriszzz]

Forget this Chriszzz gents. Look what I just came across in another thread, here, post 13. Talk about pot calling the kettle, and I haven't even been looking out for his posts, it just happened to be in that thread I was reading.

Look Jed, in that thread I was just kidding. See my smiley behind ? How many smileys do I need to use to indicate I was kidding ? Castleinthesky did say that he felt silly, and I was just playing along in that joke. And I asked him if he had lots of Nikkor lenses to see if he had a better reason to go the Nikon route. And if you felt that I was overboard in that post, feel free to let me know.

I can't believe that a small negative feedback I gave generated so much defense from the mods ! You guys mean to tell me that you cannot take any negative feedback at all ? Only positive feedback ? I felt that I did not say anything offensive, nor insulting, nor harsh. Tell me which part of my feedback did you not like ? And how else would you have worded it ? Or should I have just kept my mouth shut ? Please tell me. I accept feedback, and would really like to know what I did wrong, if any.

Lastly, even if I was guilty of "pot calling the kettle black" ( which I strongly feel I wasn't ), it does not detract from the fact that my feedback was still accurate and factual. If you disagree, let me know why.

 

[Ian]

You referring to MF-ing on a MF system right? Coz I find it too difficult to MF an AF lens on any camera (AF or MF) coz the focussing throw is just too short (probably designed that way to have faster AF?)

Regards
CK

Nope am refering to MF-ing with an AF-lens ... It's not a problem if you have good techniques. The only thing I find with the non professional grade Nikkors is that the focus rings are often a bit light and sloppy feeling.

 

[chriszzz]

It's a catadioptric lens system :devil:
A good starting place is the now out of print Ilford Manual of Photography.

Thanks for the pointer. I'll see if I can lay my hands on one.

Okay, firstly, no self respecting landscape (or commercial, architectural or aerial) photographer uses AF anything, it's entirely done manually because the current AF accuracy is not good enough for critical work.

ND grads and reverse grads require adjustment to place the transition point of the filter correctly in the composed image. This requires the use of BOTH hands to manipulate the filter holder and filter to the correct location. Try doing that while holding down the DOF preview lever/button.

Ahhh... I see now. That's the diff between professionals and hobbyists.

Most users here know how the system works after a few weeks with the moderators. Not all users post answers to really help either, there are quite a few who post here just to show off their alleged knowledge or equipment rather their lack of it and their complete mis-understanding of various aspects of photography. Sometimes such posts make me along with others post extremely cutting replies to try to snap the luser out of his or her delusion.

OK, I accept that. I think most members would be hobbyists, and cannot reach the level of know-how that pros would possess. But yet they try to be helpful. Show off ? I don't think so. Just try to help those who know less, just as you are helping me to learn more in this thread.

One last point, my signature refers to those who believe everything that is printed in photographic magazines is both accurate and unbiased. Having worked in the press for many years I can assure you that commercial considerations really colour magazine articles, reviews etc and that regurgitating (re-telling) a magazines opinion shows a very callow and immature photographer.

This is true. Many magazines, like Pop Photo, tend to give favorable reviews to companies that use advertise heavily in their mags. Well, in the absence of the real lens sample, we can only read these with a pinch of salt I guess.

 

[chriszzz]

Wow, I had never expected a tongue-in-cheek reply to clive's post to generate to much heat here. If I offended anyone, then I apologise. But like Jed and Ian said, (due to the things work here) most moderators are not posting as capacity of a moderator unless signed off as so. There really isn't a reason to doubt that.


You guys really got to learn to relax and lighten up a bit, when I posted that, I never meant it to be sarcastic. It was just a tongue-in-cheek comment, no reason to feel offended. I did not add a cute smiley behind for nothing.

Regards
CK

Disclaimer : The above post is made in my personal capacity and does not reflect ClubSNAP's point of view nor does it from from my moderator designation.

CK,

I must admit that I thought your smiley :bsmilie: was actually more of a LOL (laughing out loud) kind of emoticon, not a smiley like . LOL as you know can be used to indicate a rather condescending tone. If I had misunderstood your message, then I apologise for using your statement as a negative example.

I really thought all I was doing was giving a small feedback from my observation. I never expected such a robust outpouring from something so simple. Can I ask you ( or any mod ) one very simple yes/no question : Do you resent negative feedback ? If you do, I'll stop giving them in future, since it's pointless if they cause resentment instead of improvement.

 

[Ah Pao]

:lovegrin: :sweatsm: :angel:

OK, I don't have I have the authority to do this, but let's cool off this thread...it's 4 in the morning (SGP time) so people can get a bit wacky.

公说公有理，婆说婆有理。。。

Let's ALL keep off this thread for a few hours, take a good nap, then come back later...

 

[Jed]

Look Jed, in that thread I was just kidding. See my smiley behind ? How many smileys do I need to use to indicate I was kidding ?

CK,
I must admit that I thought your smiley was actually more of a LOL (laughing out loud) kind of emoticon, not a smiley like . LOL as you know can be used to indicate a rather condescending tone. If I had misunderstood your message, then I apologise for using your statement as a negative example.

Need I say more again? Who was the first person to ignore a smiley then? How many smilies did CK need to use to indicate he was kidding then? His post is quite clearly tongue in cheek with or without smilies, yours on the other hand just seems condemning.

I have no problem with accepting negative feedback if there is negative feedback to be had. But I've said nothing wrong to begin with, as you yourself mention, you never intended to refer to me. But you did, as you generalised by saying the moderators in this thread were sarcastic.

And as for accepting feedback, you should accept some yourself. Listen to Ian, and me. But then you clearly haven't been doing the latter at all.