Jump to content

Starting with a lens and working backwards


Recommended Posts

<p>Any advice would be really helpful!</p>

<p>I'm looking to buy a new camera but the most important thing to me is image sharpness. I started off looking for a camera and then looking for a lens, someone in another tread, said that really, I should be choosing the lens first. I currently have a Canon 10D and I want to update it as cameras have moved on quite a long way now. I'm not fussy about sticking to Canon. I would be quite happy to switch brands.</p>

<p>All I really want is a 35mm equivalent of 30-55mm anything within that range would be fine. Probably a prime lens but a zoom lens is fine as long as it didn't compromise the image quality. I would quite like it to be fast too, maybe F 1.4 to F2.</p>

<p>I will be using it mostly for night scapes with a tripod, I know I don't need a fast lens for that but I would like to have that shallow depth of field for other photography. Trying to just buy one really good lens rather than a range.</p>

<p>Currently I have been looking at:</p>

<p>Pentax K5<br>

SMC Pentax-FA 31mm F1.8 AL Limited</p>

<p>-</p>

<p>Sony A580<br>

Sony 24mm f2.0 ZA SSM Distagon T*</p>

<p>-</p>

<p>Panasonic GX1 (I know it's not out yet but looks like it should be good.)<br>

Panasonic LUMIX G 20mm f/1.7</p>

<p>At the moment, in most cases the lens cost more than the body I'm not worried about fancy tricks the camera can do. I would be quite happy with a complete manual really. Although, I would like to be able to print the images about 800mm wide. Low noise in the shadows is important too.</p>

<p>If anyone has an opinion or experience with this kind of thing, I would be most grateful.</p>

<p>Cheers.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You will get better quality at lower price from a non-retrofocus lens, i.e. not wide-angle, such as a normal 50/1.4 or Pentax 43/1.9. (Unless your purpose here is to show how rich you are, rather than take good pictures.) The Sony 24/2 ZA and Pentax 31/1.8 cost around $1300 whereas the 43/1.9 is under $600 and the Canon 50/1.8 is around $100.

 

I think you would be nuts to buy micro 4/3 for large prints. Peter is correct, the best image quality at semi-reasonable cost is from Pentax 645D, I believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>According to what I have been told by medium format photographers, not too many stores will carry the Pentax 645D due to a shortage of promised new lenses. In fact, the current B & H Winter 2012 catalogue does not even list the 645D. It seems that many medium format users prefer the Hasselblad H4D-40.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Lewis, I have both the Pentax K-5 and the Panasonic Lumix G2 with Panny 20mm f/1.7 (trying to sell, in fact), and I can say without hesitation that the Pentax K-5 with a good optic such as the Pentax DA limited 70mm f/2.4 or the Pentax DA* 55mm f/1.8 will give you much sharper, more noise-free images than any m4/3 system, despite that beautiful Panny 20mm f/1.7 pancake! That said, the other posters are right in that the larger format Pentax 645D would be tops for image detail and low noise. For night work, I would also invest in a very good tripod and ballhead such as the Really Right Stuff carbon fiber systems. They exhibit the lowest resonance, best rigidity and stability, and will allow you to get the most out of your sharp lenses and high-quality sensor.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thank you for everyones responses.</p>

<p>I have looked at medium format but I don't really have that sort of budget, £10000 it a little too much, although I would like one!</p>

<p>Scott, interesting you should you say that I would need a 5D MK2 minimum. In another post, I started of trying to decided between the 5D MK2 and the D700. People on that post were saying I don't need a full frame and I would get better noise handling with a smaller sensor, like the K5.</p>

<p>Maybe I'll just have to make smaller prints, not be quite so ambitious.</p>

<p>It's helped to hear that you all I'm mad to think about a micro four thirds.</p>

<p>Are there any other brands or systems people could recommend I look at?</p>

<p>Thanks again.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Lewis, your approach of selecting lens first and body second is probably a good one. However, before you select either, you should select your format. If you're doing low light photography and want shallow depth of field, a larger format is certainly something you should consider. The topic comes up a lot, so I wrote an article to save myself typing about it over and over. For a discussion of the various differences between formats, look here:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/fullframe.htm">http://www.graphic-fusion.com/fullframe.htm</a></p>

<p>You can extrapolate the arguments to any format, if you might be interested in larger than the 24x36mm "full frame" of the 5DII (and other cameras).</p>

<p>Once you decide on format, then you need to select your manufacturer. I suggest you select a brand based on the overall design philosophy, the feel of the cameras, how you get along with the user interfaces/controls, and the "whole" of the lens and body selections. This is an indication of what will be available to you in the future and at what price. Then when you've decided format and manufacturer, pick your lenses and camera body.</p>

<p>BTW, it's OK to consider a Canon or Nikon too, unless you have a particular problem with them. There's nothing wrong with Sony or Pentax, but why rule out the bigger players?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I'll also mention that my first DSLR was a 10D. It's antiquated by today's standards, but mostly because it's slow and relatively less sensitive in low light. Otherwise it was a very capable camera, and I could get very good enlargements from it, including some very nice looking 20"x30" (508mm x 762mm) prints. More modern, higher resolution cameras will of course do better. Are you finding the image quality of your 10D lacking? What lenses do you have?</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>20x30 could be done with most brands FF, aps-c or even m4/3rd if conditions are good and one is not too critical of IQ. On the olther hand, if one is too critical, go MF. But there's always compromises, with any camera/format. There's no best:</p>

<p>MF doesn't AF fast,<br /> 5d2 AF slower than d700 but has more MP,<br /> The sonys have IBIS (so does pentax) and use zeiss lenses. <br /> APS-C utilizes the middle part of FF lenses so sharpness is better FF, at least in theory. <br /> Nikon and Canon both have a larger selection of lenses etc, etc...</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Lewis, if you don't have the budget for medium format, consider large format. LF cameras and lenses from a few decades ago can be inexpensive. but capture images that compete with new digital gear. A modest scanner converts LF images to digital for contemporary use. LF photography is not suited to those who capture many images with minimum inconvenience. Fast lenses for LF are expensive. The gear is larger and heavier to transport. For some of us, it's worth the effort.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Lewis, if you don't have the budget for medium format, consider large format. LF cameras and lenses from a few decades ago can be inexpensive. but capture images that compete with new digital gear. A modest scanner converts LF images to digital for contemporary use. LF photography is not suited to those who capture many images with minimum inconvenience. Fast lenses for LF are expensive. The gear is larger and heavier to transport. For some of us, it's worth the effort.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that obviously all formats and systems involve compromise, and the the large format systems yield the best

ultimate image quality for extreme enlargement. However, I find that the Pentax K-5 does enough things right, and

combined with their awesome, light, weather-resistant and extremely sharp DA* and Limited optics, would satisfy one's

needs for "high quality" prints. Again, coupled with good technique and a high-quality tripod system such as Really Right

Stuff, I think you'll be pleased with the resulting image quality. For example, I use the Pentax DA Limited 70mm f/2.4

(among others), which I find razor sharp across the field! See sample images at my site. Good luck

choosing a system!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Sarah, your write up is was most helpful, I didn't quite make all the way through but I found the bit about the sweet spot of the lens really interesting. I always thought it was better to have a wider lens and then just use the middle. - I think Bill Tuhill was making the same point earlier. If I have understood you correctly, it's not so good to use a wider lens because, you're effectively trying to get more information out of a smaller piece of glass.</p>

<p>My current Canon kit is, a L 17-35mm F2.8 and a L 200mm F2.8. The zoom is a little bit broken but I think could be repaired. It does make sense to stick with Canon but I was just researching to see if there was anything better suited before I buy more Canon. All my equipment has been second hand, so I haven't spent that much. The reason I want a new camera is because I've been looking at my old shots from the 10D and I just feel they are a bit soft once I've blown them up to 50MB. I don't really like having to keeping up-to-date with camera, I would prefer to buy one good camera and have it last a good few years.<br>

<br />I was thinking that the 5D Mk2 would be the way to go but people have been telling me that the dynamic range is not so good compared to other cameras.<br>

<br />Thank you to everyone who has recommend medium and large format camera. As much as I love film, I think all the benefits that digital bring can't be overlooked. I don't know if I will have a lot of set-up time that Large Format would require. Most of the shots I want to take will be in urban areas. Plus, I can use a digital camera for my work.<br>

<br />After all of this, I'm now thinking I need to buy a FF camera. If start buying lenses, I don't want to buy lenses that are only suitable for an APS-C camera. And for FF, it seems only have three makers, Canon, Nikon and Sony.<br>

<br />Canon, like said, I've heard that 5D MK2 might not be right. <br>

Nikon, the D700 is only 12MP and the others are a bit pricey.<br>

Sony, the lenses seem to cost a bit more than Canon and Nikon and it's noise handling is not so good at high ISO speeds.<br>

<br />I was liking the idea of the K5 with the 31mm F1.8. I have seen some fantastically sharp shots with that set-up. If Pentax were to bring out a FF camera, I would still have a good lens to go with it, wider of course. Still not sure.<br>

<br />Cheers.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p><br />After all of this, I'm now thinking I need to buy a FF camera. If start buying lenses, I don't want to buy lenses that are only suitable for an APS-C camera. And for FF, it seems only have three makers, Canon, Nikon and Sony.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>You can use FX lenses on DX cameras. And it is better in that you are using the middle part of the lens, say, if you are paranoid about IQ. I advise you to just get a camera and shoot. With 100 or 200 ISO on a tripod at f8 or so, I really doubt you can tell what format or brand you actually used...</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Leslie:<br>

Yes, good point. I'm sure I could get good results with most cameras... I know I didn't specify it in the beginning but I'm just trying to think ahead, what else might I need the camera for... A fast lens would be handy for work and other shots. And if I am buying into a new brand, I just want to make sure it's got everything I need.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I assume you mean you have the 16-35/2.8. That lens and the 200/2.8 are very good. They probably far exceed the resolving capacity of the 10D, at least when stopped down a bit. A 5DII with those lenses would certainly give you more resolution. You might want to pick up a 50/1.4 as your normal lens. (You'll need to rethink your optics when moving to full frame, as they will all yield a much wider field of view.) A step up from that would be the 50/1.2L and then maybe a manual focus Zeiss. The 5DII will give you magnified liveview, which you can use for fine tuning focus. Use a good tripod, mirror lockup, smaller apertures, etc., etc., and that's about as good as you'll get for a 35mm format digital camera. It all depends on what lengths you want to go through to get the absolute crispest shot. However, I think a 5DII would open up a lot more possibilities for you.</p>

<p>I can't comment as to dynamic range in practical terms, as I don't own the camera (yet). However, I've seen enough brilliant images from that camera that I wouldn't be too worried about it.</p>

<p>You understand my assertion correctly about sweet spot of a larger format lens vs. the entire image circle of a native format lens. Some have argued this point with me, to be fair, and I've seen some very impressive images from medium format lenses on full frame cameras. However, I maintain that <em>quality for quality</em>, the native format lens is going to yield the best performance. I think that's why the L lenses (all of them being full frame format) on crop bodies sometimes do not perform as well as the native format EF-S lenses.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>"Scott, interesting you should you say that I would need a 5D MK2 minimum. In another post, I started of trying to decided between the 5D MK2 and the D700. People on that post were saying I don't need a full frame and I would get better noise handling with a smaller sensor, like the K5."</em></p>

<p>Those people don't know what they are talking about! In that other thread I pointed out I print at the sizes you want from both cameras and that the 5D MkII is much more capable.</p>

<p>Look at <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk5/page20.asp">this link,</a> select 800 iso and RAW, put the yellow crop square over the yellow feather thing in the bottom right with some black background, then try and tell me where that additional DR is in the Pentax shot.</p>

<p>If you truly want to print to 100 cm and are looking at low light images nothing short of medium format will best a 5D MkII and a 35 mm f1.4L. The only negative of the 5D MkII for your use is AF, if you will be relying on AF instead of manual focus via live view then another camera might be more suitable from an image capture point of view, not from an IQ point of view. Don't forget APS sensors are around two and a half times smaller than ff ones, that is a bigger difference than between ff and most digital medium format cameras, even the most stalwart advocates of crop sensor cameras admit that at higher iso or big prints the larger sensor always trumps the smaller one.</p>

<p>Here is a low light 5D MkII sensor shot, handheld with a 50 mm, f3.5, 1/6 sec, 400 iso.</p><div>00ZbrT-415913584.jpg.13e52ccd4891ecf880d903b087ed63c4.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>the current B & H Winter 2012 catalogue does not even list the 645D.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Today, Henry Posner of B & H Photo-Video has clarified in another post of mine under Casual Photo Conversations that B & H indeed carries the 645D. He advised to check B & H's website for up to date information.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00ZbLX</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>"is not a guy you want advise from"</em></p>

<p>:-)</p>

<p>It was a location scouting shot and handheld, it did what it needed to, though is probably not useful in this thread, I had intended to crop a small dark section and post that as well but couldn't be bothered.</p>

<p>Here is another that might be more appropriate, if, of course, Leslie approves. It is a tripod mounted 594 second exposure, no NR, f4 iso 100. This file prints superbly at 36" x 24".</p><div>00Zbuo-415963584.jpg.82236efe0323354d9d22f5e81fa80367.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The K-5 + one of the better primes (FA31/1.8, FA35/2, DA35/2.8 Macro, FA43/1.9) are pretty good choices and should best any of the current micro 4/3 offerings. If you're still thinking m4/3 however, I imagine that you might might consider the Panasonic/Leica 25/1.4 as well.</p>

<p>I imagine the 5D Mk II plus a good prime might have the potential for better results, and it should considering it costs $1100 more for the body. I'm not sure just how much lens you need to realize the results you're looking for though something like a 50/1.4 will probably cost less than the better Pentax primes listed above and may actually be better suited for your purpose than the 50/1.2L. One might also consider manual-focus zeiss.</p>

<p>Once you get pretty good lenses and camera though the photographer often becomes the bottleneck as it takes increasingly careful technique to get the best focus and avoid vibration that will become apparent at larger enlargements.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...