Rapid camera tech changes create whole new mindset amongst users

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by RichA, Mar 30, 2014.

  1. RichA

    Guest Guest

    of course it can, as can just about any lens, and certainly ones in
    that range.

    there are lenses that go no further than f/16, while some can go to
    f/32, f/45 or even f/64, depending on the lens (and format).
    diffraction might be an issue though.

    the smallest aperture is not the limiting factor. the widest aperture
    is, which is why lenses are specified by their fastest aperture.

    people pay a premium for fast lenses, sometimes for good reasons and
    other times just to brag.
     
    Guest, Apr 11, 2014
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    But it will never hit 1.4 or 1.2 or 1.0 or .95.
     
    J. Clarke, Apr 11, 2014
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Savageduck Guest

    I guess that's what maximum aperture means in this case, f/2.8.
     
    Savageduck, Apr 11, 2014
    #23
  4. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Apr 12, 2014
    #24
  5. RichA

    Guest Guest

    Guest, Apr 12, 2014
    #25
  6. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    The question was "how does it compare to fixed focal length lenses" not
    "what is the smallest aperture it can use".
     
    J. Clarke, Apr 12, 2014
    #26
  7. RichA

    Savageduck Guest

    From time to time I will make a gesture of silliness in my remarks and
    I will suffer the ignominy of being misunderstood by others. That said.
    the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 is one of the finest lenses a Nikon DSLR owner
    could possess, fixed focal length or zoom.
     
    Savageduck, Apr 12, 2014
    #27
  8. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    That may be true, but if if you need a wider aperture than 2.8 then it
    won't do the job for you.
     
    J. Clarke, Apr 12, 2014
    #28
  9. RichA

    Savageduck Guest

    What job would that be, considering the capabilities of the current
    generation of DSLRs?

    The majority of great fixed focal length fast glass of the past were
    designed in the age of film where the photographer had to live within
    the limitations of film sensitivity, and at times the only answer in
    questionable light was to seek out fast glass. Usually at a relatively
    high cost. Narrow DoF with the resulting bokeh being a secondary result
    can certainly be considered a characteristic of many images produced
    with such lenses. However, that is not unattainable with some of
    today's lenses.
    The 14-24mm f/.2.8 mounted on a Nikon F film body is not going to
    compare with an f/1.2, or f/1.4, but we are having this discussion in
    rec.photo.digital.

    The point regarding the high regard which the *Holy Trinity* of Nikkor
    f/2.8 lenses (14-24mm, 24-70mm, & 70-200mm) is held, is they are zoom
    lenses capable of extraordinary performance even when compared to the
    great fast glass of the past.
    The flexibility, and shot-to-shot adjustability of sensor sensitivity
    found in recent DSLR cameras permits a degree of latitude, and
    performance in poor light conditions only dreamed of with film and an
    f/1.4, or f/1.2 lens. Regarding narrow DoF, most f/2.8 lenses are able
    to deliver, with in mant cases all the bokeh you can stomach.

    ....but I will concede, if you really "need" a wider aperture than
    f/2.8, you will be SOL with that particular 14-24mm.
     
    Savageduck, Apr 12, 2014
    #29
  10. RichA

    Guest Guest

    What job would that be, considering the capabilities of the current
    generation of DSLRs?

    The majority of great fixed focal length fast glass of the past were
    designed in the age of film where the photographer had to live within
    the limitations of film sensitivity, and at times the only answer in
    questionable light was to seek out fast glass. Usually at a relatively
    high cost. Narrow DoF with the resulting bokeh being a secondary result
    can certainly be considered a characteristic of many images produced
    with such lenses. However, that is not unattainable with some of
    today's lenses.
    The 14-24mm f/.2.8 mounted on a Nikon F film body is not going to
    compare with an f/1.2, or f/1.4, but we are having this discussion in
    rec.photo.digital.[/QUOTE]

    with film, you had to have fast glass if you wanted usable results.

    with digital, you can shoot at iso 1600 or 3200 with barely a hint of
    noise, so needing f/2.8 is not a big deal and faster apertures even
    less so. even higher isos can be usable in many situations.
     
    Guest, Apr 12, 2014
    #30
  11. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    :
    : 2) The manual focus lenses are just as useful as they ever were.

    Not quite, because camera bodies don't support them as well as they used to.
    My Nikon F-2 had an angled split image and a Fresnel ring; I'd have to install
    a third-party screen to have anything remotely similar on my Canon 7-D's. The
    manufacturers don't bother, because almost everybody now uses autofocus
    lenses.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Apr 13, 2014
    #31
  12. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    For macro & landscape, I use MF most of the time. I have the antiquated
    belief that the camera does not know what I want in my image.
     
    PeterN, Apr 13, 2014
    #32
  13. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    It's a matter of enabling autofocus.
     
    PeterN, Apr 13, 2014
    #33
  14. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Both my D300 and D800 have focus indicators that work quite well with MF
    lenses.
     
    PeterN, Apr 13, 2014
    #34
  15. RichA

    Guest Guest

    that too, but the autofocus system can be used for focus confirmation,
    which is more accurate than a split image or microlens would have been.


    and then there's the issue of lens mounts. canon manual lenses are not
    useful at all since they don't fit anything anymore and they're hard to
    sell because nobody wants them. on the other hand, manual focus nikon
    lenses can still be used, although the non-ai lenses may be an issue
    with some cameras.
     
    Guest, Apr 13, 2014
    #35
  16. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    And it's a heavy piece of glass. I decided that the 16-35 would be
    better for me. Yes, I would have liked that extra bit of width, but the
    16-35 is a lot easier to carry, and I will get a lot more use oout of it.
     
    PeterN, Apr 13, 2014
    #36
  17. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    The converson to Ai is trivial.
     
    PeterN, Apr 13, 2014
    #37
  18. RichA

    Guest Guest

    no it isn't. if it were trivial, it could be done in minutes by anyone.
     
    Guest, Apr 13, 2014
    #38
  19. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    It took me over an hour to do the first, no more then a couple of
    minutes for several others. Once again your logic is fawed.
     
    PeterN, Apr 13, 2014
    #39
  20. RichA

    Guest Guest

    maybe it's trivial for you, if you have the proper tools and know where
    to cut. most people have neither.

    that's why there are services that do it, namely john white's.

    if it really was trivial, no such service would be necessary.
     
    Guest, Apr 13, 2014
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.