Lenses. Myths and reality.

Previously, the material described below was part of an article on lens types, but the article grew and broke into two separate parts.

Lenses. Myths and reality.

Lenses. Myths and reality.


When choosing a photo lens, many users of photographic equipment immediately want to get a fast 50x superzoom lens with macro photography, beautiful bokeh and 'razor' sharpness. Unfortunately, no such lens for interchangeable-lens cameras exists yet. This is due to the laws of physics and the complexity of manufacturing.


About zoom lenses:

  • There are practically no aperture universal lenses for full-format cameras with a relative aperture of F2.8 and having zoom over 3X... Almost all fixed F2.8 photo lenses have a zoom ratio of no more than three (3X). These lenses include the ranges: 11-16mm, 14-24mm, 20-35mm, 20-40mm, 24-70mm, 28-70mm, 28-80mm, 70 (80) -200 (210) - all such lenses have a magnification zoom up to 3X. The conclusion is very simple - fast superzoom does not exist. The largest zoom equal to 3.75X and aperture F / 2.8 has a lens Tamron SP AF Aspherical LD ​​[IF] 28-105mm 1: 2.8 276D.
  • No cheap autofocus fast zoom lens with F / 2.8.
  • Zoom lenses with high zoom ratio and constant F do not have high aperture and are very expensive. These lenses include the Nikon 24-120mm F / 4G VR and Canon EF 24-105mm F / 4 LIS USM.
  • No lungs autofocus fast telephoto lenses with a constant aperture of F / 2.8.
  • Virtually no super-fast zoom lenses... Typically, all fast zoom lenses are limited to f / 2.8. The f / 2.8 limitation is a serious lack of zooms. As an exception, I can only cite the Sigma 18-35 / 1.8, and then, this lens is designed only to work with APS-C cameras.
  • In some cases, instead of one universal heavy superzoom lens, such as 18-200mm, 18-270mm, 18-300mm, you can use multiple zoom lensesFor example, 18-300mm can be replaced by a bunch of 18-55mm + 55-300mm. Sometimes a set of multiple lenses can be cheaper than one super zoom.
  • In general, the zoom lens has a deterioration in image quality with increasing zoom ratio. The larger the zoom, the worse the quality. But there are exceptions.

About fixed lenses:

  • Only fixed lenses have aperture of F2.0, F1.4, F1.2 and lower. This means that if you need a super-bright lens, then only fix can come to the rescue.
  • The cheapest fast autofocus lens Nikon 50mm F1.8D for 100 cu will have 2.5 times more aperture than the most expensive Nikon 70-200VR F2.8which costs more than 2000 cu These are the pies, because when you look at the super-large and super-expensive zooms of other photographers, always remember that a small, ultra-light lens can put professional zoom in at aperture on the shoulder blades. Often, the same statement holds true for image quality, such as relatively dark Industar-50-2 F3.5 (but super cheap) - can easily sharpen the legendary 24-70mm f / 2.8 lenses.
  • I do not recommend chasing professional zooms like 80-200 F2.8, 70-200 F2.8, 24-70 F2.8, etc. They are very heavy, they are difficult to transport, they do not always fit in a case. Such zooms are needed mainly for professional shooting. I often have to shoot, and I know that in 1 day from a heavy ligament, the lens + camera + flash, my hands get very tired. Very often, a fix with an average focal length weighs several times less and with it you can do the same thing. For example, to replace a lens of class 70-200mm, you can take one fix at 135mm, to replace 24-70 you can take a super high-quality fifty-fifty lens. To replace 50-14, you can take 24mm. Ideally, the zoom is divided into several fixes. In no way do I agitate to switch to fixes, I just share some thoughts on this.
  • Huge aperture fix lenses in most cases is not used when shooting. But big aperture such lenses allows more accurate operation auto focus system, and gives a bright image in the optical viewfinder, which is important when manual focusing.

Talking about image quality is a very slippery topic. My opinion is that you can't just compare lenses of different classes and types. You can only compare certain of their parameters (sharpness, aperture, color rendition), but we cannot talk about the quality of the image in general. You cannot compare zooms and fixes - they have different tasks and, of course, different formed images. Lenses with different focal lengths cannot be compared - they have different tasks.


Myths about lenses:

  1. Using a fixed lens, you can immediately get a masterpiece - it's a delusion. Fixed lenses have the best image quality indicators, aperture - but not more. Getting a good shot takes a certain approach. The lack of zoom in prime lenses is compensated by the photographer's feet. There is even such a comic concept: “on the fix you need to zoom with your feet“. The most difficult fix in my practice is Helios-40-2.
  2. Zoom Convenience... Convenient use of zooms is not always as “convenient” as they say. Zooms are almost always heavier than prime lenses and are difficult to transport. My 70-300VR barely fits in a wardrobe trunk. A large zoom lens is more difficult to control, and your hands get tired from it. With dynamic shooting with dashes, a large zoom is easier to catch and break. Personally, I mutilated lenses during my practice. It is customary to say that zooms break more often, as they have more moving parts, have more problems (with protruding the trunk, and the function of "vacuum cleaner").
  3. The inconvenience of fixes... Fixes are not always as inconvenient as they say. Fixes are generally much easier than zooms. For example, when shooting a portrait at 100mm fixed, you always know that there will be no distortion, but if you shoot at a zoom (for example, 18-105mm), then you often approach the subject, accidentally reduce the focal length, and you end up with a 'barrel' (barrel-shaped distortion) and, as a result, not the most pleasant picture. Therefore, using a zoom lens, you have to additionally monitor the focal length. For tele-zooms, you still need to carefully monitor shutter speed, since a 70-200mm lens in the 70mm position can be removed for 1 \ 80 s, but when zoomed in for 200 mm, shooting at 1 \ 80s does not always work.
  4. Cheapest fix is ​​better than expensive zoom. A counterexample, for a wide angle, an 18-70mm zoom is much better than a cheap 50mm fix. It all depends on the situation and needs.
  5. Aperture - always good. In fact, on a sunny day at ISO 100, it is very difficult to use an aperture below F1.8, since there is a lot of light and dose it with excerpts not always possible. Some cameras have a restriction on shutter speed in 1/4000 of a second, and if you set F1.4 during the day, then you can’t do without overexposure. To reduce the amount of transmitted light but keep a small depth of field, neutral filters should be used. Also, super aperture gives a very small depth of field. For some purposes, a small depth of field is unacceptable.
  6. A dark lens is always bad. This is not always true. For example, for a studio it is quite possible to use a whale "dark" lens. In the studio, you can use a lot of light and most often shooting takes place at apertures of F5.6-F16.0. Because of this, a dark lens is a good thing as you can save money on an expensive fast lens.
  7. You need to have a complete set of lenses in a range of 14-200mm or so. This is not so, my colleagues often get by with two, three lenses and many have not closed some range of focal lengths. Personally, I don’t have a wide-angle range, I limit myself to 17-85mm on crop and 28-135 on full frame. I tried a bunch of lenses as I write photographic reviews and made conclusions for my needs. Other people will draw their conclusions... If you do not try, you will not know, therefore, I do not recommend taking thoughts to heart on all kinds of photo forums. There are many photographers in history who shot with one lens all their lives and did not spend a drop of energy on the choice of technology.

Personal experience:

I’m constantly asked what I use for shooting. I like fixes and it’s not difficult for me to rearrange the frame to run back and forth. At the same time, I also use zoom lenses, they can really simplify the life of the photographer. What types and sets of lenses to use, everyone must decide for himself.


Conclusions:

It is very difficult to find one lens with which you can shoot different types. Often you have to use a set of several lenses.

↓↓↓ Like the review and share the link in social networks ↓↓↓. Thanks for attention. Arkady Shapoval

Add a comment:

 

 

Comments: 163, on the topic: Lenses. Myths and reality.

  • Alex

    As it seemed to me, there is not enough thought about superzoom, let's say - summarizing. Maybe there is a thought somewhere else ...
    Often I hear that people want to buy lenses with a lot of magnification for quite a lot of money and lose on the quality of the photo. But you can buy a pair, for example: break 18-200 into 18-55 and 55-200 or 70-300.
    Another thought. 15-88 starts with f 3,5 and ends with 5.6. But 55-200 begins with f 4. It turns out that using FR 55 is more advantageous than 55-200. Aperture at this focal length above. The same with other lenses.

    • Arkady Shapoval

      Thanks for the addition :)

    • Gene jb

      5.6 and 4.0 are not really much different and if you shoot in RAW you can always compensate. And during shooting, you can shift the ISO and shutter speed.

      • Alex

        Sometimes this difference becomes significant. In addition, if we talk about aperture ratio, then shutter speed just compensates for it and vice versa. Those. when NECESSARY ”shooting with the lowest possible shutter speed, this difference plays a role. There was a case of shooting basketball with my daughter. The hall is large and dark. Shooting even at the minimum aperture and maximum (up to acceptable) ISO did not allow taking a single photo in motion. 1/60 I think the shutter speed was. At the same time, f = 4 made it possible to shoot at 1/160 and the moments of throws around the ring (the children are suspended) turned out to be acceptable.

    • Artem

      And so that the difference is not so significant, it is better to immediately take a high-aperture lens (for example, as is advised here 35 1.8 - https://buynbest.ru/luchshij-svetosilnyj-obektiv-nikon) for a crop - a necessary thing.
      then there will be less noise and the background will blur immediately

  • Sergei

    The most difficult fix in my practice is Helios-40-2 - how so

    • Arkady Shapoval

      The optical viewfinder is difficult to work with. And what is the most difficult for you?

      • anonym

        MTO 500

  • Alexander

    Also very interested in the answer about Helios 40-2. As far as I understand there, the difficulty in focusing is sometimes no more. Krasnogorsk simply resumed their production and I want to buy it.

    • Arkady Shapoval

      I have already answered.

  • Cyprus

    The photo is simply fabulous, sometimes it is useful to leaf through old photos and dig up masterpieces.

    • R'RёS,R ° F "RёR№

      Only you are hard to see there)

  • Alexey

    Helios 40-2, with such aperture is difficult to focus (given the weight).

  • Georgy

    on helios 40-2 "about complexity" ... I found such a thing (from a friend it is on the canon). She often had misses in focusing, she always complained about it, twisted it in her hands, and realized that apparently the fact is that this particular brand of gelik has a very inert focusing ring. those. she seemed to “almost caught” and here the ring, even with minimal shifts, tends to “fly away” another millimeter and a half. It seems to be a little, but this is just enough so that on an open diaphragm they will miss the face on the ears, for example.
    And the 81H has a different fun, especially on a few elaborate / loose specimens: if at the moment of pressing the shutter you firmly hold the focusing ring, the “jump rope” gives a quite tangible blow to the lens + a slight backlash + delayed hand reaction - and the sharpness drops. Therefore, on 81st, I adapted to remove my hands from the lens before descent.

    • R'RёS,R ° F "RёR№

      Regarding 81H, I completely agree, when you close the aperture during a picture, the camera shakes noticeably with all the consequences, but this is information for another article.

  • Alexander

    The cover photo is a bomb, especially when you read the data about the camera)

    • BB

      these are "Easter eggs" from Arcadia))

  • Alexander

    Arkady just recently read an article about the myths of portrait lenses, I think this link will be appropriate in this article. http://koldunov.ru/?p=380

    • novel

      good addition. thanks

  • anonym

    Has anyone ever thought about the myth of the vital need to work with extra-high-aperture optics ??? shots at v / o 2,8, 1,8, 1,4, 1,2 have probably incredible bokeh, but give the lower limit of optical properties. Here is Kenon's “fifty kopeck piece” - 0,90! 0,90 is, but shooting at this value is nonsense! In practice, even in portrait photography, values ​​of no more than 4-5,6 are required to obtain a truly QUALITY shot. For teleoptics -8-11. This is if you work seriously, and not play the natural scientist. The use of a large o / o-measure is enforced for the most part, and not a "masterpiece" rule. Stop being mistaken!

    • R'RёS,R ° F "RёR№

      A lens with a 1,2 hole is not difficult to close to 2,8, but vice versa? I think everyone saw gorgeous portraits shot with fast fixes, it’s clear that it’s harder, but if it turns out so nice to see.

      • ontebeoteg

        +1 And don't forget about autofocus (applies to modern lenses). After all, the FA focuses on the open aperture. So, the faster the lens, the less light is needed for autofocus to work.

        • Arkady Shapoval

          The same goes for the viewfinder brightness for manual focusing at different aperture values.

    • Gene jb

      Each lens has a working aperture. This is the one on which it gives an acceptable image quality. Some good lenses start at 1.2, certainly not 0.9. For example, when removing helios 44, you still have to set 3.5 - 4 to the minimum, because the quality is lower, and the grip is very small. Vivitar-1 50 by 1.8 gives simply disgusting image quality, it is very soapy. But 2.8 is already something. Here I already wrote that the manual focus strongly depends on the lighting and with a small depth of field you will fly to the front or back, despite the fact that in the viewfinder and the focus confirmation will say that everything is OK. It is enough to remove the test chart at 45 degrees with room lighting and flash and everything will become clear.

      • R'RёS,R ° F "RёR№

        If there is a possibility (lack of illumination, time, object immobility) then focusing on the monitor is very accurate.

        • Gene jb

          only very slowly.

          • R'RёS,R ° F "RёR№

            Depends on the processor power and on modern models it is already quite bearable, better slowly than out of focus)

      • VALENTINE

        Helios-44 are different. Everything under M39 was made more carefully. Under M42, the lenses of the Krasnogorsk Mechanical Plant are consistently good. My Helios-44 Made in USSR M39 1970 release does not soap already on deuce.

    • anonym

      Zeiss has glass with aperture - 0.7. 10 produced! Pieces! The prime cost is prohibitive, the masses don’t want this, I have 1.4- enough for my eyes. By the way, the canon writes-1.2, when compared in the forehead, the same 1,4 is in Zeiss.

  • Novel

    No, well 2.8 has not stopped anyone yet. And helios, which 58/2 is quite good for itself in the open, and even indoors without a flash, is useful. Less than two - yes, already in question. The main thing is to understand that 1.2 - 1.4 is not an end in itself, but just a narrowly sharpened tool.

  • Alex

    “…… accidentally decreasing the focal length, increasing the DOF… ..” - so, like the DOF does not depend on the focal length

    • Arkady Shapoval

      With a different layout, it depends.

  • Novel

    Alex, it depends. The smaller the focal point, the more depth of field. That is why landscapes work better with a wide angle, everything will be sharp there on hyperfocal. And for telephoto - portraits with good blur. At a relatively large distance from the subject to the background, even a relatively dark telephoto lens will give decent bokeh.

  • Alex

    (Something the past post did not appear, maybe because of the link. Removed, reposted)
    The novel is practically independent. Depends on aperture and scale.

    • Novel

      Alex, the formula for calculating the depth of field includes focal length, focusing distance and f-number. There is also the size of the circle of confusion, but for now this parameter will not be considered. At the same focusing distance and at the same aperture value, the DOF will change depending on the focal length. At the link you provided, a friend changes the focusing distance in proportion to the focal one, keeping the image scale the same - in this case, the depth of field remains approximately constant, yes.

      http://vladimirmedvedev.com/calc.html - count yourself. The author of the quote "... ... accidentally decreasing the focal length, increasing the DOF ... .." is right, you can see this in practice. Zoom in and rotate the focal length ring without changing the focusing distance.

      • Alex

        I completely agree, on the basis of Medvedev and I say. The author says that he approaches the subject and decreases the focal length (a barrel appears), i.e. As far as I understand, he means, in this example, that the scale is preserved (the object is both there and there in the frame of the same size), but a barrel arose and increased the depth of field. But this is my understanding of what was written, without any claims to the author. I think it is necessary to remove “increasing the depth of field” because not everything is so simple and many are misled: the wider the angle, the greater the depth of field. Forgetting about the scale and let's say transferring it to macro photography start to get confused.

        • Arkady Shapoval

          removed.

      • Alex

        * ... but a barrel appeared and the depth of field increased ...
        To the previous post, otherwise it turns out quite funny :)

        • Novel

          Got it, I just took the phrase out of context.

          There, by the way, at a wide angle, in addition to the barrel (different for different lenses), an interesting effect of the background scale still climbs. Those. if we, for example, have our little man, whose portrait we are shooting, and the house behind him at some distance, then with the same size man (and, accordingly, the same depth of field), the lens will capture the whole house, and on the narrow one only part. Well, with particularly small focusing distances, these promising distortions begin to climb even on small objects (such as a human face), causing the effects that were mentioned under one of the links above.

          • Alex

            Well yes. This, by the way, is one of those factors due to which many people think that the depth of field on telephoto is less. In general, this is very clearly visible on macro lenses with a 1: 1 scale and different focal lengths, on the telly the background is more blurred

  • R'RёS,R ° F "RёR№

    Arkady,
    please tell me what is the difference between AF and AF-S? I understand that the first is a screwdriver, and the second with a built-in motor, but I'm interested in other aspects, in terms of focus speed and image quality.
    I'm interested in the fact that the prices for AF fixes are much cheaper than their AF-S brothers. if we win in price, then in what we lose? (except for the difference in price for a carcass with and without a screwdriver)
    Thanks in advance.

    • Arkady Shapoval

      The focusing speed of each direct lens is different, you need to compare certain lenses. AF-S is not always faster than AF. The same goes for image quality. More details here - https://radojuva.com.ua/2012/03/nikon-lenses/

      • Gene jb

        I think the point is the gear ratio of the screwdriver in the lens. Moreover, the phase method works quickly, you still need to know how fast the focus will change with one turn of the screwdriver. This is of course purely theoretical. Once I wanted to buy a nikon with a screwdriver, but leaned towards Canon.

        • anonym

          I did so - a canon with zf.2 lenses through the nik-eos adapter. Diaphragm-handles, you can unscrew another 4 screws, remove the ratchet ball and grease with grease so that the ring does not hang. Result - when shooting a movie, the plot of the day flows into the evening. And any !!! diaphragm value - without jumps and dances.

  • Igor

    Pleased with the “camera” in the caption to the photo =) Nokia 7610.

    • Arkady Shapoval

      This is just the old 7610, the first megapixel phone.

  • AM

    Thanks for sharing your experience.
    All the best!

  • Vadim

    Thanks for the helpful article :)

  • i-hero-in.narod.ru

    I think that there is no point in buying DX lenses, especially if you are serious about photographing - you still go to full frame. Fixes are better, lighter and cheaper than good zooms. And you can bring it closer with your legs - everything is easier than holding an extra kilogram and a half in your hands. Cheap dark zooms are not needed - the quality is unimportant, and on a budget DSLR with its sensitivity there is little sense from them. Better to pay fifty dollars and shirik-fix for this money. With insufficient illumination, it will be more useful and you can get a photo with them much more interesting, more artistic. And all sorts of whale lenses are a complete misunderstanding.

    • Vadim

      Yes! Really bright thought! Excuse me, but what are you talking about even holding in your hands? There are plenty of examples of very good photographs taken by “sheer misunderstanding”, including artistic ones.
      “… Cheap dark zooms are not needed - the quality is poor, but on a budget SLR with its sensitivity there is little sense from them…”
      What are you talking about? I have and use both “cheap” dark zooms and not very cheap high-aperture Fixes. And each of them can cope with their tasks, if only their hands grow from there.

  • Denis

    Oh, oh ... I did not expect to see such an error ...

    “There are no super fast zoom lenses. Typically, all fast zoom lenses are limited to f / 2.8. The limitation at F / 2.8 is a serious lack of zooms. ”

    Olympus in the TOP-PRO lineup has zooms with aperture 2.0! Fine in quality of performance and pattern.
    Zuiko Digital ED 35-100mm f / 2.0
    и
    Zuiko Digital 14-35mm / f2.0

    • Arkady Shapoval

      Will these lenses sit at full frame?

    • Novel

      Denis, this is an exception that proves the rule. This fool (filter 77) costs 20 UAH for a lens with a 000x crop. Even at 2x, not to mention a full frame, such a lens will be overwhelming, so it is impossible to find such lenses for Canon-Nikon-Pentax. In addition, at such a crop, the noise level is inevitably higher at high ISO levels with a rather dubious gain (1.6 - 2.0). So thanks for the addition, really interesting, but more for self-development than for practical use.

  • Denis

    Arkady, with all due respect to you, such lenses do exist. And it doesn’t matter if they sit on the full frame or not.

    • Arkady Shapoval

      Article updated. Thank you for your attention.

  • Denis

    The novel, yes, it is rather an exception, but it exists and perfectly manifests itself. I generally agree with your thought, but this article is not about crops, ISO and noise. It's about zooms and myths. So I dispelled the myth of the 2,8 limit. May the author forgive me ...
    P.S. Arkady, I’m not at all trying to undermine your authority, I really made a correction without a vile thought.

    • Arkady Shapoval

      Article updated.

  • lord

    Hello Arkady! Tell me, how do you think which of these lenses is better to buy for Canon a cropped matrix 1.6 (600D), which nevertheless will give the best in sharpness picture (not for a portrait):
    Industar 50-2, Helios 44M-7, Industar 61 L / D, Industar 61L / Z.
    It seems that the resolution of Helios 44M-7 is higher than that of Industar 61 L / D and Industar 61L / Z. But the cheap Industar 50-2 resolution is almost the same as the Helios 44M-7 ... Is this so? It turns out based on price and quality, then is it better to take Industar 50-2?

    • VALENTINE

      Certainly Industar-50-2. In fact, it is sharper than the I-61, has an almost circular (7 blades) aperture and - most importantly! - the smallest light scattering without “hares” in the backlight.

  • i-hero-in.narod.ru

    Today I made myself a device for quickly changing fixes when shooting. It's simple enough http://i-hero-in.narod2.ru/poleznie_soveti/

    • Flash

      It's funny, but did you think that dust would clog into the empty cover, which would then fall on the lens and the camera? Those. I think such a system is suitable for 3 lenses, and for example, for two it’s easier to just attach a strap to one cover.

  • Elena

    Good day Arkady. Please help resolve the issue. I have 5100 and a pair of 18-55 and 55-300 lenses. Should I change these lenses to 18-300 and why? And which flash model do you recommend for the 5100?
    Thanks in advance for the answer!

    • i-hero-in.narod.ru

      The 18-300 lens will completely replace these two for you. It’s heavy enough. It is better to check it by weight. But it is suitable for reportage shooting. If you want to get more interesting photos - check out these lenses: Nikon 50mm f / 1.8G AF-S Nikkor, Nikon 35mm f / 1.8G AF-S DX Nikkor (but it's only for partial-frame ones like yours!), Something like Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F / 2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Nikon F (it's also a sub-frame, but bright and inexpensive). In general, it all depends on what you want to take the lens for and how seriously you want to take photographs. Flash - Nikon Speedlight SB-700 or equivalent.

      • Elena

        Thank you for the answer! I need a universal travel lens, so I thought about 18-300 so that for all occasions, I'm just an amateur. I'm interested in the picture of the 18-300 will not be worse than the 55-300? I use fifty dollars now, I like it)))

  • anonym

    Good afternoon. Arkady, I want to hear your thought. I'm in the throes of vibor ... Tamron 17-50 2.8 vs Nikor 16-85. For crop reporting. I played a lot for Tamron, both good and not very good, a lottery with quality, hole 2.8 not working (real about 4). Nikor is darker, but it is sharp, contrasting, fast focus plus wider FR. When there is insufficient light, I use an external flash (50 1.8 included). Second-hand Nikor (attractive price), if you agree with the seller about the test review for a day or two. Can I do it? thanks

    • Arkady Shapoval

      16-85 will generally be better. Can be.

      • Igog

        He took 16-85 not used. I wrote it off from VK

    • Oleg

      take Tamron, he is sharp since 2,8. I somehow compared it with Sony 50 \ 1,8. So Tamron at 50! Sony's fixes are better in color and the same in clarity (both compared at f2,8 and f4,5). I only bought my Tamron from the third time, the first had problems with front \ back focus.
      ----------
      http://pro-nove.blogspot.com/

Add a comment

Copyright © Radojuva.com. Blog author - Photographer in Kiev Arkady Shapoval. 2009-2023

English-version of this article https://radojuva.com/en/2013/02/fix-and-zoom-lenses/comment-page-1/

Versión en español de este artículo https://radojuva.com/es/2013/02/fix-and-zoom-lenses/comment-page-1/