10D and Good Glass Myth

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by jorge_ituarte|3, Aug 31, 2003.

  1. The image quality difference with good glass is as drastically
    different with the 10D as it is with film. It's not a slight
    difference. You would have to be absolutely blind not to see it.
    Unless you are printing 4x6 prints at Walmart. Even then so! This is
    the most RIDICULOUS new myth on this forum. Why it is being
    proliferated I have no idea. It is categorically untrue.
  2. The myth that the difference between good and bad glass is not apparent on the 10D.
  3. Jorge,
    Many of the postings on this forum have made exactly the opposite case: i.e. the use of digital (and for most users this currently means the 10D) and the ability / inevitability of viewing / printing larger pictures (an actual pixels view on a 17" monitor is equivalent to viewing a 36x24" print) actually requires better lenses.
    The one area where it can "improve" cheaper lenses is with lenses that have good central definition but are soft in the corners or show some vignetting - these deficiences will be less obvious with the crop factor of a 300D/10D/D60 etc.
    An example of the latter is my 100-300 f4.5-5.6 USM zoom which performs better on my 10D than on film for the reasons given above and actually is a very useful and useable lens on the 10D.
  4. Due to the crop/magnification factor of 1.6 I think lenses must be better (related to x1.6) at the center part when used with a D60/10D/300D than combined with 35mm body.
  5. Derek, I am aware and agree with posts to the contrary. But every since Bob's review of cheap Canon zooms on the 10D there has been a rash on this forum of people believing that the quality glass on a 10D makes no difference. You need to read through post since that review and you will see what I mean. I hate to sound like am stating the obvious but it doesn't seem to be that way for some folks. It's just so ridiculous I had to post.
  6. To believe that using a cheapie consumer lense on a 10D is just as good as a high-quality L lens is silly, of course.

    But refusing to believe that the crop factor *can* give an effective performance enhancement to those same cruddy zooms compared to a full-frame sensor (be it film or digital) is equally silly.

    There is a difference, but it's not worth concerning youself over if a) you're a pro shooting for guaranteed publishability, or b) the money is not your primary concern in the deal.
  7. I too have noticed alot of opinions for lens quality being more noticable on digital,not less.
    <br>One related point though....from what i've seen so far,the 10D has such clean and clear output that one can get some "completely acceptable" pictures with cheap lenses.A case of the camera making up for the lens to a point.But it's still nowhere near what a great lens can do.....
  8. You can use cheap glass on the 10D and it can come close (note not equal) the better glass under the following circumstances: FIRST the cheap glass must be stopped down 3 stops, SECOND one end of the zoom range (on the 28~80 its the 80) will suck but the other end will be fine, and finally THIRD you will need to have better than normal technique to get the best from average glass.

    Where does the "L" glass pay off, FIRST wide open, SECOND at both ends should be fine except for the 100~400 at the 400 end (note there maybe others), THIRD your technique may actually need to be better because of the heavier lens.

    BOB wrote a really good article compare the 28~80 vs other zooms, it did pretty good when stopped down, go to the article section to see his review.

    Note most cannon primes (even the cheap ones) will blow the cheap zooms out of the water.

  9. Jorge

    You are wrong. I'll tell you why. A 10D cannot, under any circumstances, resolve more than 65 lp/mm in an image. That's an absolute upper limit based on pixel spacing and can easily be verified by experiment.

    Just about any lens is better than that (at least in the center of the image), be it a 75-300 or a 300/2.8.

    Now FILM can resolve 120 lp/mm or so. Lower quality lenses can't match that, but high quality lenses can.

    SO....the result is that the DIFFERENCE between high and low quality lenses is LESS with the 10D. High quality lenses are still better, there's no doubt about that, but the DIFFERENCE is less.

    Crap lenses still look like crap on a 10D. However the difference between a GOOD lens and a GREAT lens isn't as obvious as it would be if you were shooting Velvia and looking at the results under a 10x loupe.

    The above is the 5 cent version of the situation. The $10 version goes into MTF of lenses, MTF of film, MTF of CMOS sensors and other esoteric stuff. There are also subjective factors like the fact that digital images often LOOK better (even when they have the same of even slightly lower resolution as film) because of the nature of the image and the lack of grain.
  10. Bob,
    It was nice of you to give Jorge a way out (subjective factors).

    Bob is defining image quality as lp/mm in an image. Were there other qualities that you were referring to? Or, in other words, I'm sure there were experiences of yours that led you to your conclusion. What were they? Things other than lp/mm perhaps?

    I'd like to offer a quote from an article at the following link: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-mtf.shtml

    "And, to make things even more indeterminate, it can clearly be shown that the actual image quality produced by a lens does not correlate at all well with its measured resolving power. For this reason resolution test results alone should not be considered a valid measure of a lens' goodness. This is why the optical industry as well as those that really want to understand how a lens is performing rely instead on its MTF." - Michael Reichmann

    He says "goodness" instead of "optical quality" but I believe it still applies simply because, and as Bob stated, we're dealing with things that are subjective to each individual. According to the linked article, "resolution is not a quantifiable scientific absolute." Or put differently, it's also subjective.
  11. I should have spent more attention to the $10 version.
  12. The differences between "good" glass and "low" quality are detectable when using film,digital sensors, or on a lens test bench. If your personal standards are low; or the enlargement factor; they may both appear OK.
  13. I know what I see and I know what I sell Bob. Lines per millimeter are a very small portion of the pie as far as optical quality is concerned.
  14. Here's an example of what I've noticed with my 10D and lenses. I own a 200mm f/2.8L and also a 70–210mm f/3.5–4.5 zoom. In terms of resolution the L lens clearly outperforms the zoom. It's sharper wide open than the zoom is at f/8. But the zoom still gives me a snappy image at the 210mm setting. Not as much detail as the L lens but contrast is good.

    Now let's print 11x14" shots with minimal cropping from both lenses. As it turns out the zoom is sharp enough wide open (f/4.5 at 210mm) that it can resolve detail you can't see in an 11x14" print at normal viewing distances. Since 11x14" is as large as I go (other than a few 13x19" prints done for kicks) the difference in resolution between the two lenses hardly matters. The zoom provides enough snap and enough detail that its print differs very little from the L lens print. The obvious difference is the zoom creates a warmer image. Only on close inspection do you notice small detail in the L lens print is better defined.

    So, yes, you can certainly tell the difference between a decent lens and an excellent one with the 10D. But depending on what you do with your photos the difference may not matter much. I use my zoom most of the time due to its smaller size, lighter weight and greater versatility. Its resolving power and contrast are good enough for most uses. I use the 200 f/2.8L when I need the extra speed or the shallower depth-of-field.

  15. "10D and Good Glass Myth." I've not heard this one. Did you make it up? The myth I've heard repeatedly is the 10D needs good glass more so than film. I assume this myth arose from bored techno geeks viewing image files at pixel level on computer monitors whereas in the past they merely viewed 4 x 6 prints.
  16. Yeah, no doubt, those Tameron lenses are JUST AS GOOD as the highest end Canon lenses... Riiiiight...
  17. Resolution is a measurable quantity. Sharpness is subjective. Image quality is subjective. Both Sharpness and Image Quality depend on resolution, contast and acutance.

    The 10D responds well to changes in contrast, in fact as well as film does. The 10D also responds well to changes in acutance (edge sharpness). The 10D responds to changes in resolution (MTF if you prefer), but only up to a point. That point is the MTF curve BELOW 65lp/mm. It doesn't matter what the MTF curve looks like between 65 lp/mm and 500 lp/mm because, for one thing the anti-aliaing filter in front of the sensor filters out all that information, and for another thing even if it DID reach the sensor all it would do would be to create Moire patterns and other aliasing artifacts.

    Now if the 10D was totally imune to lens quality, that would be great. I'd throw out my 300/4L and 500/3.5L and buy a 50-500 Sigma Zoom and pocket the spare $2000 left over. So yes, you can see the effect of better lenses. You see it most in terms of contrast when used wide open and at the edges of the image.

    So there's no doubt that a 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS will give you better images than a 28-90/3.5-5.6. The real question is whether a 85/1.8 at f5.6 will give you a better image than a 28-135/3.5-5.6 at 85mm and 5.6, or whether a 300/2.8L (at f4) will give you better images than a 300/4L, or whether a 200/2.8L will give you better images than a 70-200/2.8L. On film I'd say the answer is yes if you use Velvia and examine the slides with a loupe. On a 10D I'd say the answer is no.

    So while you can certainly tell the difference between bad and good, the difference between good and great does get masked to some extent by the limitations of the sensor in the 10D. It's a bit (though not exactly, so don't take this litteraly and start going on about film gaine etc.) like saying that using ISO 50 slide film you'll see differences betwween lenses that you wouldn't see on ISO 400 print film. I don't think you'll find a lot of people disagreeing with that statement. The recording medium DOES matter when it comes to revealing differences between lenses.

    So I'm not selling off all my "L" glass. On the other hand I'm not selling off my consumer zooms either, since neither the "L" nor the "non-L" lenses are going to show detail at 65 lp/mm or above on a 10D.

    BTW I'm not making this stuff up. I did some field tests using a 75-300 at 300mm and a 300/4L. The 300/4L images directly from the camera had a little more "snap" and a little better sharpness. However with suitable tweaking in PhotoShop to bring up the contrast a little and add a little sharpening, the 75-300 images were pretty good. Better than I would have expected and significantly closer to the 300/4L images than I would have predicted based on my previous experience with these two lenses shooting ISO 100 slide film. The 300/4L images were still better, but whereas with film I wouldn't shoot the 75-300 at f5.6 and expect to get usuable shots, with digital I would because of the effects I can achieve working directly on the digitally captured image in PhotoShop. Scanning the film images just doesn't work as well.
  18. I in regard to fabrication on my part to posts in this regard on this forum this would be pretty lame don't you think. Read some posts butt head. I don't like being called a liar. Here is a quote from a post that was deleted (for some strange reason) a couple of days ago.

    Jim Larson wrote: "But back to the topic: Suuure => the 10D is a cheap APS with a price worthy of a top end 1V price. . the atrocity is made worse by the fact that the "L" lenses we like are not effectively used as a result."

  19. I see you just posted Bob. My previous comment was not directed at you obviously. So, previous responder to my post was questioning my having read posts in this regard or fabricating an observed recent line of thinking on this forum.
  20. Bob I respect your opinion but I whole hartedly disagree. I think maybe we are looking for different qualities in our optics. For me good glass is that with will resolve well but also (and more importantly) give a higher degree of 3 dimensionality to a printed image. I want to make the surface disappear. This is essential for me compositionally. I want to establish relationships between foreground and background object via the illusion of 3 dimensions on a 2 dimensional plane. I don't see this being pulled off very effectively with most consumer glass. I also find a lens which is only useful at f/8 to be totally useless for my needs. I need my tools to give me the creative flexibly to work with spatial relationship at different aperture settings and focal lengths.
  21. Hey Bob I have learned not to get into arguments if I am not knowlegable about the
    subject so I won't get into this one. But I can say that I have read many post on many
    forums and a very large majority (in fact all that I have read up until this one) say that
    good glass is more critical with digital cameras than with film. That leads me to belive
    that this has been the "real world experience" of many people. There are those, my
    brother included, that can't except that things don't always come out "real world" the
    way they should on paper, assuming that your info is correct or relevant. As I said I
    don't know you may be 100% correct technically and maybe even in real world use,
    but when the landslide of opinion that I have seen is on the other end of this it is hard
    not to think that "real world" that is where things are at.
    NOTE I did not say that you were wrong.
    With all due respect, Pat
  22. With film and sensors; all life doesn't revolve around lab tests; and shooting high contrast USAF resolution charts. <BR><BR>Better glass will have a higher contast & MTF at more practical resolutions; like 20 to 40 cycles/mm. Most better high end zooms; and most all fixed focal length lenses have a higher contrast than the plain Jane cheaper starter grade "consumer zooms"; and will give better results on sensors and film. The maximume resolution of each can be similar; but the better lenses will have a higher contast & MTF at lower more practical resoltions. This makes a better looking image. <BR><BR>This same argument happened 40 to 50 years ago; when film movie camera lens were used on early TV video camera tubes. Some worked well; some didnt. This is the reason that the IEEE and SPIE and other groups got serious with testing contrast versus resolution; which resulted in MTF testing being developed. Two lenses can test the same as far as maximum resolution; but one can be far better/higher contrast at lower resolutions; than another.<BR><BR> The special "lenses for video cameras" splitoff/argument many decades ago; is similar to the current special "lenses for digital cameras" that are hawked/discussed/argued today.
  23. I also think it is important to state that when we speak of contrast in a lens it has noting to do with global image contrast. Global or overall contrast refers to how the overall tonal gradation is distributed in an image from lightness to darkness When we discuss contrast in a lens we are referring to "micro-contrast" something entirely different. Micro-contrast refers to the ability of the lens to differentiate between smaller and smaller details of more and more nearly similar tonal value. This is actually what creates dimentiality in an image because it allows the viewer to perceive greater amount of differentiation between boundaries at a higher level between areas of slightly different tonal values. Micro-contrast is for me the hallmark of high quality glass not resolution.
  24. Patrick, I really wonder how much of what we see posted on the 'Net regarding lens performance is based on real-world use. When I look at photos taken with my 100mm f/2, 200mm f/2.8L and 70–210mm f/3.5–4.5 lenses at "actual pixels" resolution in Photoshop it's clear the zoom doesn't resolve as much detail at 100 & 200mm as the two so-called "primes." The zoom is also a bit lower in contrast. But when I make 11x14" prints, after adjusting contrast and applying some USM, the main difference between the zoom and the other two lenses pertains to color rendition. The zoom is warmer. I can only see a difference in resolution when I stick my nose up against the prints, and even then the difference is very subtle. At a normal viewing distance the difference disappears.

    For me the "real world" means looking at prints because a print is the ultimate form my photos take. If resolution differences between lens A and lens B don't translate onto paper does it really matter that one lens outresolves the other?

  25. David the difference for me is night and day from across the room.
  26. I think I am starting to see a pattern here. I think this amounts to; if you own good lass and bad glass and you massacre all of your images in Photoshop they will all look about the same.
  27. But I don't "massacre" anything. Very little USM is required for an 11x14" print. A little micro-contrast tweaking (USM settings in Photoshop: 10–20, 50, 0) is often all that's necessary. The lens must have enough contrast to give the USM algorithms something to work with of course. With a crap lens you'll never get enough snap for a crisp-looking photo, no matter how much USM you apply. But you can certainly improve the contrast characteristics of a good photo from a good lens. The Canon 70–210mm I refer to above is a good lens.

  28. Pfft!
  29. give a higher degree of 3 dimensionality to a printed image. I want to make the surface disappear. This is essential for me compositionally. I want to establish relationships between foreground and background object via the illusion of 3 dimensions on a 2 dimensional plane. I don't see this being pulled off very effectively with most consumer glass
    But isn't that simply because it's faster? It doesn't have much to do with "good glass" other than in a totally obvious way, i.e. that you get less DOF at f2 than you do at f5.6. Nobody is going to argure with you on that one. Or are you talking about some mystical, hard to define, "Leica like" quality of "good glass"? If not, the you're just saying you prefer shooting at wide apertures, not that you need "good glass" for good images except via the incidental relationship that most "good glass" tends to be faster than "consumer glass".
    David the difference for me is night and day from across the room
    Then I have to compliment you on your extraordinary visual ability or comiserate with you on your cramped living quarters! For me most 11x14 prints look pretty much the same from a distance of 20ft.
    BTW Contrast is contrast. So called "microcontrast" is just the MTF at high spatial frequencies. So called "overall contrast" is simply the MTF at low spatial frequencies. This is the measured MTF including flare, not theoretical calculated MTF of course.
  30. Bob again with all due respect it's not a DOF issue. I see this mostly in my wide angle landscape work at smaller apertures. Let's just say that I and 80% of everyone else see it and you don't. I hate to sound snooty but no I don't have cramped living quarters both my homes are rather large and paid for by the sale of my prints. You know I guess it is that mystical, hard to define, "Leica like" quality of "good glass". I love it and I will spend the money to get it. The last thing I need to worry about as a photographer while capturing images is my optics. I know pretty much what my output will look like before I push the trigger. That is everything for me.
  31. By the way you don't have to really spend the money to get it. Screw mount SMC Takumars with an EOS adapter are superb and build quality is a work of art.
  32. Here's and interesting article by Michael Reichmann about microcontrast;

  33. One point that I saw else where (will try to find the reference) about the sharpness of L lens. Yes, they are very sharp, but but there is another reason beyond the optical design that causes people to wax poetically about them. And that is that they are generally the fastest lenses from Canon. Fast lenses have less depth of field, and the AF sensors work better with fast lenses. Combined, this provides for what appears to be a sharper print.

    The focusing accuracy of AF (or lack of) was born out in an article in Pop Photo awhile back. This may also explain why us Leica shooters will go on and on about how sharp our lenses are (though micro-contrast is another strong component of Leica glass).
  34. That's very true Chip as well as lens contrast playing an enormous role in AF accuracy as well.
  35. The myth does exist. If we look at the P&S digital area, why would so many people look on the pixel count only when they decide for a camera? A friend of mine went for the, let's call it "Supermarketname 4 XXL", against my advice to get a Canon Powershot A70 because the Chinese thingy had a 4 megapixel sensor; he was completely deaf to my explanations on reliability and lens quality.
    Now these people upgrade to an SLR. A digital one, of course, which means they have to shell out $$$. Enter shock: they have to spend more $$$ for a lens. (To quote my friend: "What do you mean with 'you have to buy a lens to an SLR'?" He stuck to his toy because of that.) As a camera has dozens of buttons and wheels and a lens hasn't and as we've been told for years about the great features of each new camera and as you don't have to buy an accessory to make a TV/video recorder/video camera/toaster/GPS/car radio/microwave oven/cell phone really work, photo periodicals regularly downplay the importance of good glass: you can't make a, say, Mamiya user give up an entire system just because the Zeiss Superachromat T* 2.8/300mm is so good that your reviewers invent a few new adjectives. But you may make a Minolta Maxxum 3 user give up his camera for a Nikon N55 if the latter has more features while a Nikon N60 user may fall for the Maxxum 5; because it's easy to "understand" why 3 buttons are better than 2, but understanding why a 28-70mm/f:2.8 is better than a 28-80mm/f:3.5-5.6 requires you to think. If your reader has to do that, he may put your paper away instead and will not see the ad on the next page. Your real customers, i.e. the manufacturers and advertisers, wouldn't like that.
  36. A very good point O. S. I think this is the basic reason that the image quality of consumer optics has steady declined over the last 15 years and continues to do so. One basic example would be Canons 28-80 3.5/5.6 II USM vs. the newer and even worse Canon 28-80 3.5/5.6 IV USM.
  37. In MTF testing; one measures the contrast/response of the lens versus the cycles/mm; which is the resolution. There is no BS emotional feelings; but the real performance of the lens; at one aperture; and magnification is measured. Each lens has its own set of curves; there are no myths; only actual test data. Two different lenses then can be compared on a rational basis; with no emotion. The emotional croc is a smoke screen by marketers; who must woo the general lay public; with colorfull nonscientific adjectives. <BR><BR>The masses are mostly "printing 4x6 print at Walmart"; and not giant enlargements; killer detailed prints; etc. With their modest enlargements; the effects of good/bad glass are harder to see. <BR><BR>
  38. What's the point of these masses shooting with or lugging around an SLR system then Kelly? You can buy a Leica C1 AF Point and Shoot with a F/4 38-105mm lens that is tack sharp wide open at all apertures for $339.00 at B&H and it fits in your pocket.
  39. Typo; Tack sharp wide open at all focal lengths
  40. Yawn. Ya know, I'm not saying my consumer-level zoom is as good a lens as my 200mm f/2.8L. The L lens is faster (I like shallow DOF), built better and much more flare-resistant. It's tack sharp wide-open. Even so the consumer lens is not junk. It performs well enough that it gets lots of use, and in prints up to 11x14"--in low-flare situations with minimal or no cropping--its images are virtually indistinguishable from images shot with the L lens at the same aperture. Like it or not. It's a shame Canon no longer makes the zoom since their current consumer offering in the same focal length range *is* junk.

    Now I'm quite familiar with the mythical properties of Leica glass, having used Leica rangefinder systems for the past 30 years. The lenses are hi-res and snappy. They give great results. I also use 1950s-era Contax RF cameras & Zeiss lenses. These lenses also give great results. But in 11x14" prints their images are again virtually indistinguishable from images taken with the Canon gear. Sorry if this offends anyone's doctrinal stance but, hey, too bad. I don't care about doctrine.

  41. Jorge ; many probably would be better off with P&S cameras!<BR><BR>I happen to like the Olympus Stylus line of cameras.<BR><BR>In making trial posters for court cases; we usually get prints. The quality of 4x6" printing varies alot between printers. On rare occasions; we get actual negatives. When they are from the premium disposable 35mm cameras; they negatives are many times tack sharp in the central regions; and poor at the edges. The first time we scanned some with our 4000 ppi film scanners; I wondered what the hell camera took these images! With pure digital inputs for trial posters; blown highlights are more of a problem; than resolution. At least with film; the non linear shoulder region tends to prevent blown highlights. Sadly many times the disposble 35mm posters look better that the high end wazzoo digital input posters; when the highlights are all blown out. When entire areas read 255/ white in photoshop; there is no adjustment possible.
  42. Jorge

    I'm well aware of the Pentax Takumar lens myth. In fact I have a 50/1.4 Super Takumar in a screw mount as well as a 55/2.0 Super Takumar in a screw mount.

    I've used them both on my EOS 10D and I've actually tested them against the nasty, cheap consumer Canon EF50/1.8. I'd heard of their glowing retutation, superb bokeh, "3 dimensional imaging:" etc. so I though "wow, an inexpenive route to amazingly good optics".

    Guess what. No better the the Canon cheapie and sometimes not as good.
    So either I'm the world's most unlucky photographer who gets the worst examples of all these otherwise magnificent lenses, or my eyesight is so bad it's a wonder I can walk across a room without banging ito the walls, or there are indeed a lot of lens myths floating around out there!
  43. Jorge, the reason why they buy the SLR system instead of the Leica C1 is the same reason that so many here tell people that the only Canon SLR worth buying is the Elan 7 or EOS 3. Bigger is supposed to be better. Oh, and don't forget that you'll never know when you'll need the Command Dial, or the FEL with your 550EX. Or that consumer grade lens will not give results that are worth the effort...
  44. "So either I'm the world's most unlucky photographer who gets the worst examples of all these otherwise magnificent lenses, or my eyesight is so bad it's a wonder I can walk across a room without banging ito the walls"

    What can I say Bob?. My heart goes out to you buddy.
  45. On your last point bob i agree.I have tested many older primes and zooms,comparing them to modern glass of many types.The old zooms (the better brands) tended to have allmost as good resolution as modern ones but MUCH less overall contrast.<br>The older primes were quite good but the newer ones are better still.
    <br>One example that continually sticks in my mind is the EF100macro [non usm].Many of the images i get from that lens are as good as ANY lens is ever going to get.None of the older lenses i've used have even come close to that "total realism" look.
  46. Ron what brand name of old lenses are you referring to. One of the hallmarks of SMC coated glass is very high contrast. I don't consider most old glass very good. The SMC Takumars were produced in the late 60s and 70s. I have made no suggestion of "old glass" in general in any of my comments. Most old pre-multicoated glass is pretty lousy.
  47. bob wrote: "I've used them both on my EOS 10D and I've actually tested them against the nasty, cheap consumer Canon EF50/1.8."

    Bob, this implies that the lenses you tested weren't much good because you're suggesting the 50/1.8 is crap. It's actually a great lens on the 10D in terms of optical performance (my subjective opinion) and I don't consider it to be inferior to my L glass in terms of image quality. So I don't think it's fair to use it as an example of 'cheap' glass in the context of this spirited arguement! Put your screw mount lenses up against the 28-80 zoom or some other similar piece of consumer shite and see how they fair.

    The 50mm/1.8 and other canon primes are, IMHO, "good glass" when it comes to the 10D. Cheap glass doen't always mean "bad glass".
  48. Roberto I think we are getting off the subject here. This discussion deals with the ridiculous assumption that good quality zooms vs. cheap ones like the 28-80 do not have a substantial and obvious affect on image quality with the 10D. Canon makes some superb non-L primes.
  49. I don't think anyone has discussed the article that started this whole thing: http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/28zooms/

    Prior to this article, the conventional wisdom (in my mind) was that the Canon Consumer primes had equal quality to the "L" zooms, both of which are superior to the cheaper zooms. The "L" primes were faster, but not sharper, than the consumer primes.

    By quality, we are talking image quality, and not considering metal mounts, FTM and USM.

    I believe another poster (was it Roberto? Can't remember) posted some comparisons of zooms vs primes with surprising results.

Share This Page