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.
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:
- 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.
- 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").
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
Thank you very much. I will agree - I will contact you.
It is difficult to work alone objectively, here I completely agree with the author!
The main thing is not to pick up those who later have to fail.
So I bought Sigma 18-200, which painted much worse than the whale 18-55.
-----------
http://photo-wed.blogspot.com/
the question is: it may be silly to ask. but ……… which lens is the sharpest and which one gives the most beautiful picture. I have Nikon D600 and Nikkor 28-300mm f / 3.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S. in principle, at certain apertures and medium focal lengths it is not bad, but I want better.
I absolutely agree with the idea that you will not try, you will not understand.
For a long time I was looking for a TV set for myself, but when I realized that I was renting more often in small dark rooms (music apartments), I bought a fast-fix and was pleased with the choice.
But here you can’t remove the birds on the lampposts, but I don’t need to :-)
Arkady tell me such a question, I'm a beginner, camera D 600, two zoom 18-55 and 75-300, I found a fix VIVITAR auto telephoto f5.6-22 300mm. The mount is accordingly unsuitable whether it makes sense to remake the mount under my camera
Nikon D600 or Canon 600D camera?
Canon D600
rather Canon 600D
In the D80 thread, I got you questions about width. After reading this article I realized that you are not particularly using them. It’s a pity) The articles are excellent, I read and rejoice)
Recently, the entire internet was buzzing, waiting for the release of the 18-35 1.8 sigma zoom. So the fastest crop lens is now (1.5x). And in addition - high-aperture zooms have a magnification of more than 3x, an example of this is Tamron 28-105 2.8. I haven't tried it myself, but I've been dreaming for a long time. It is a pity that they are no longer released.
Good afternoon! Please tell me what are the cheapest options for autofocus prime lenses for the Nikon D80 camera in the 85-135mm focal range. and aperture up to 4. Purpose - a portrait close-up and waist-high.
about how a cheap platykovy toy in the face of 50 mm 1,8d - can make a professional 24-70 2,8. don't make people laugh to begin with. take and compare both on crop and on FF and draw a conclusion) the happy owner of NIKKOR 24-70 2,8 - after buying it, I no longer need cheap plastic 50mm 1,8D - because with "sharpness" - he does not have very much even on FF - at 2,8 - 3,2 is adequate. I am silent about detailing at all - wax men in plasticine clothes. Well, the finishing ones - BOKE - well, yomoyo - in places of course the hexagons look, but often they very much distract attention with their shape. no need to compare expensive professional equipment with amateur cheap plastic. but as for the high-quality half, I advise you to save up for this miracle of technology, made by little rice Japanese with love - Nikon 58mm f / 1.4G
There is also a German-Japanese miracle 1.7 50 Zeiss. Manual 15-25 year old in exemplary condition for $ 250-300 With a divine boke. afraid of manual focus - do not get the camera. Try it, it's worth it. The body is steel with rubber splashes on the focus rings and apertures. The contax-yashika mount is treated with an adapter for $ 2-3 - he likes a nickname, he likes a ken.
“There are no fast universal lenses with an aperture ratio of F2.8 and a zoom greater than 3X. "
ghm .. still there)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/542783-REG/Fujinon_HTS18X4_2BERM_M48_HTs18x4_2BERM_M48_1_3_18x_ProHD.html
Fixed
Kill SPAMER!
From the beginning it seemed that the article was written for schoolchildren about to purchase their first DSLR. Then there was a persistent feeling that the author himself was an aspiring photographer of school age. There is a lot of enthusiasm, little knowledge, moreover, they are superficial and inaccurate, which leads to erroneous judgments. But with what didacticism everything is stated. Such
And you are not too lazy and indicate inaccurate knowledge, we will fix it.
On this site already a year - but such a greyhound from the comment of "Sergei" has not yet seen !!!!! Serge - You are a puppy! Do not be lazy and walk around the site and then bark about the schoolboy !!! damn well, just took out the brain.
My answers:
Myths about lenses:
1. Using a fixed lens, you can immediately get a masterpiece - it may not be a masterpiece, but with a fix, the picture is better and more pleasant than bokeh, and these are already components of the MASTERPIECE.
2. Convenience of zooms. Zooms are more convenient than fixes, if you don't want to bother with shooting - as you shot it, it will go.
3. Inconvenience of fixes. With fixes, you really don't need to think about uncontrollable distortion. and there is no need to waste processor resources on zooming.
4. The cheapest fix is better than the expensive zoom. Yes it is! Quality, aperture, bokeh ...
5. Aperture ratio is always good. Yes it is! You can always close the diaphragm, or put on a filter. But in a dark room, at a dark zoom, you can't make 3,5 out of your native 1,8. About the grip - I like it when only one eye can be in focus. I don't understand some weddings who shoot portraits on terribly closed apertures, where even background details are clearly visible!
6. A dark lens is always bad. Yes! Because it, as a rule, is of less quality than a lighter counterpart. One follows from the other.
Partly disagree:
1. The presence of bokeh is not part of a masterpiece. In the distant film days, no one steamed with bokeh, as it is now, because the photographer wanted a technically perfect picture.
4. Different lenses are needed, different lenses are important. It is far from always possible to approach or move away from the subject. This is where the zoom will help out. In field conditions - you are tortured to rearrange fixes.
5. Look at the photos of film times. There was no such panic fear of an open daifragm as it is now.
+1 Even the words of this (! Bokeh!) Did not know.
Boke is a Japanese, Nenashen, overseas word.
Useful information, briefly and intelligibly. It so happened that I read a lot of sources, a mess formed in my head from an excess of information, and your article was, as it were, the result of everything you read on both yours and on the side, and made conclusions and put everything in its place. Thanks!!!
Hello. I really liked your article and the way you express your thoughts. It can be seen that they are from personal experience and that you understand the technique. And I decided to ask you for valuable advice.
My whale lens broke and I decided to buy a new, good lens for my Canon 550D camera. I read a lot and am looking for what type of lens will suit me depending on my need. I'll tell you about the goals. I have two of them: a portrait and a landscape. Portraits of both children (from birth) and adults. To clarify, children are a constant movement and it is difficult to take a clear shot when your subject is constantly moving and you cannot mount the camera on a tripod, otherwise you will not be able to catch the desired shot. And photographing both at home and in nature. Those. without additional umbrellas, flashes, etc.
But I also love nature, especially sunsets and sunrises, mountains in the distance, and maybe flowers. But mostly beautiful remote landscapes.
I have a budget of about $ 700. But it’s not necessary to spend everything if it’s not necessary, but I will easily give it back if it’s worth it.
I was thinking about taking a short telephoto lens. After reading, they seem to fit my needs, but I do not know how they manifest themselves in insufficient lighting (in the evening or at home). And are there any SHORT teleobjectives - zooms. Or if the zoom, then immediately large, and if short - then only with a fixed focal length.
Fixes (as for me) at home are very difficult to use. Since it is not always possible to move as much as necessary.
In short, I'm confused. I beg you to help me. and if possible, but get in touch directly. I am very grateful for everything that you will do for me.
Best regards
If you will, I'll fit in with my 5 kopecks. In my opinion, whale is generally the best option. You can 18-55is, you can 18-135 for the sake of a greater approximation. And to buy additional flash 430 2, for example. In terms of money, especially if you take a bu, it will be cheaper than the announced amount, and the results will please. For evening landscapes, you can still buy a good tripod. 18-55 and 18-135 on the clamped apertures will give a picture almost indistinguishable from top-end glasses. But, if you do not want to shoot with a flash and there is not enough aperture, then a fast zoom can save (since you do not want fixes). For example, sigma 17-50 2.8os. There is a high aperture ratio and a good stabilizer. An excellent lens for all of the above, and it fits into the budget easily and naturally, even with a flash.
I’ll add 5 more to your 5 kopecks. even F / 2.8 or F / 1.8 aperture will not help to make a good shot under artificial lighting in a room without a flash. those. flash needed anyway
Full-frame devices allow
Thank you for your attention and advice. I left a general comment. I would be grateful for further assistance.
You prefer portraiture and landscape, but these are genres of photography that do not really share focal lengths. The landscape loves a wide angle, and the portrait in its classic form revolves around 85mm and longer. Therefore, the whale lenses of the class 18-55 are also offered as universal. A moderately wide angle of 29 mm, the equivalent of 18 mm on the crop and 88 mm the equivalent of 55 mm on the crop, give suitable focal lengths.
But in fact, it turns out that 18 mm is not as wide as we would like, and 55 mm is not long enough. Considering not a high aperture, and therefore difficulty in blurring the background when shooting a portrait, the whale lens eventually ceases to please its owner and the person begins to wonder if he should buy something more suitable.
The search begins for portraiture and portraiture, and okay, if a person is not limited by finances, everything is simple, he went and bought, but more often the opposite.
You say that your whale is broken. Well, let's say, let’s break it, but it was fine with you, so maybe you would be comfortable with the fast equivalent of a whale lens from Sigma or Tamron? Something like 17-50 2,8.
Please read my general comment. thanks for all
Zoom is good. Situations when you do not have enough aperture of 2,8 is a maximum of 2-3%. And they are predictable in advance, in all other cases, the zoom provides even more options than a set of several fixes.
Why scold zoom? - because in the subject and portrait photography they are trying to replace their legs. Zoom is needed to change the relative position of objects in the frame, but not to fill the frame. First, you decide what you want to see, then set the FD, then use your legs to choose a place from where everything you want will fill the entire frame. As a result, you need to run with the legs even more with a zoom than with a fix. In no case should you stand still and just use the zoom, at least in the range up to 135mm. Longer than 135mm, in principle, it is possible, although there are also cases when you have to add the FR and move another 100 meters (I aligned the lantern and the church in one frame, I had to move 100 meters and zoom in).
So do not listen to anyone, and boldly use the zoom. 2,8 allows you to make bokeh, although blur discs come out with dark centers and scales can turn out, but knowing this can be avoided, and you can use this as an effect. But you have the opportunity to choose any RF by sight, and most importantly, quickly without losing a moment and take a good picture, until the competitor doubts, 24 is a little bit, 50 is a bit too much, 35 would be just right, but I didn’t take it with me today, and as a result, the moment is lost and it is already impossible to return it.
And what kind of zoom do you recommend on the Canon 550d?
dxomark shows that of the canon dark whales is the best, he's the easiest of any 18-55
sorry, it was me
Thank you very much for responding and responding. I wanted to clarify a couple of points. A flash and a tripod are in my plans. Just a little later. Those. I want to get them, it’s just very difficult to work with small children with a tripod.
At the expense of the whale. I was just going to buy something more decent, and just keep the whale in stock. But after the next trip, how and in what way, maybe I put something wrong in my hand luggage on the plane ... in short, the lens has sunk and repair, or rather change everything that goes with it, so much in half a new obktiv. This is how fate itself ordered to buy a new lens. Well, besides, the whale, as you wrote, is something in between, not that, and not another.
And you advise sigma or tamron. I understand they are cheaper. But can it be that a native Canon lens with worse parameters will be better than a sigma or a tamron? Or is it not worth overpaying for a name?
And can you, if you do not take into account the landscape, advise a lens for portraits (adults, children, and maybe a full-length one or just a face (I read that the format of the portrait also matters), maybe for group photos and such photoshoots, a decent zoom?
Better Simple zoom or brown-angle or telephoto zoom?
And I read that there are zoom angles. How are they suitable for these purposes?
And is my budget real, if you count on one, but really worth the lens? Or are usually simple lenses about $ 200-400, but for the better, then immediately more than 1000. And $ 700 is not that not so?
Thanks for your time and answers.
200 are quite simple, 500-600 are rather middle class, 1000 are good. BUT these are rather standard distances (i.e. 16-200 mm). 700 neither one nor the other. If we take the native Canon lenses, then there are two and a half options: simple and lousy ala kit, L-series (everything that is now selling new and not L is junk, better sigma, tamron, etc.), old film lenses, which are already 20 years old (here there is the problem of inconvenient FRs on the crop, but there are cheap and good lenses).
Yes, and the flash when shooting portraits in low light is much better than a bright lens with a stabilizer. So you just need it
And I do not like flash. Especially for a portrait. The focus of the flash is technical and not artistic photography. Light is flat and synthetic. Even with i-TTL.
Great article. Indeed, the author is largely right. But it makes you think what you should do most often. I especially liked the “myths”. I have nikon d3200. And at 1600 iso does not make noise. And all the lenses became "light". And how often you have to use the ND4 filter even with ISO 100! Take a rain or a portrait ...
finally started full frame alpha7r a year ago \ at the same time I typed adapters \ I shoot landscapes, insects \ sharpness is important for me and only the sharpness that the removed filter on the Sony-7p can give \\ autofocus is not needed on landscapes and insects \\ used the sleep- sal-50-1.4 with a diaphragm adapter and was pleased \\ found in the trash from Soviet times an industrial 61ld \ 39mm thread \ and was shocked by the sharpness \ made this lens and nikon-50 \ 1.8d \\ add a couple of stops by exposure- but this is the norm for sleepers and slt and nex in low light conditions. nikon sold, sony-sal \ 50-1.4 \ left for portraits. \\ shot at f8, picking allows you not to miss \\ canon 50-1.8 also tried it - I'll say it mildly, otherwise the canons will beat, -byaka. All this can be seen at 100 % crope and 10-by 15-everything is the same. Even on an ipad with a retina, it’s not all over the place. On a 2k monitor, you’re already boggling, 4k for now, a dream. Import substitution on industar has worked, but with a monitor - will I live / 70 knocked.
I have been following your reviews of both lenses and cameras for a long time. I haven’t seen any deeper and more competent reviews in the net. Although I didn’t always agree on the sharpness of some lenses, Klitorchuk expressed the opinion on strobius recordings that on sites and in master classes on No, you can’t learn anything, I think he’s mistaken. Your review with clear testing is a clear example. Yes and the master classes, say Igor Sakharov, are very, very productive. God bless you, energy for creative work. Your fan. Photographer with 38 years of experience.
Everything is correct. The reason is that most of the reviews are custom-made, and as a result, they are always one-sided, serve the sales of technology. In addition, in most cases, such reviews appear during the launch of a new product on the market, and perhaps a big hysteria arises, they say they have waited, finally got a new lens and there will be no bad photos from now on, and then they will improve something and again they will shout that before that they simply could not do it (for example, give one of my Canon 5D M3 cameras a simple interval shooting mode, while it has long been available in the cheap and old Nikon D5000!) ... Under capitalism, the output of any product is not the desire to satisfy someone, the company wanted to spit on customer satisfaction, but simply, through such “satisfaction” to make a profit, that is, sell it at a higher price. You can, of course, reduce the size of the wonderful Tamron 28-105 / 2.8 or leave it in production, but how then can companies get huge money in this range? That is, there is a constant struggle between the manufacturer and the consumer, and the consumer will never receive a universal and durable product. That is why the smartest people buy a couple or three of manual objectivs and somehow bypass the mousetraps installed for them by the manufacturers.
35 1.8 best, tested - https://buynbest.ru/luchshij-svetosilnyj-obektiv-nikon/
inexpensive, fast, versatile - tested.
You probably can’t imagine a better idea. If more for portraits, then I recommend 50 1.8 AFS
I won’t discover America, but, no matter how technically or optically bad this or that lens is, after the examples of photos from Arkady, the lens still starts to like it)
But because we often forget why we pick up the camera)
...
Arkady, but somehow humiliate, for a change, for example, 85 1.4 bad pictures?))
In fact, the pictures here on Radozhiv are often mediocre. The reason for this is that there is little time for a review and / or there is no place or something else. In general, the photographer's task is to get a good result, no one asks him what he is shooting with, so he can use techniques not only to control the basic exposure capabilities, but also think a little with his head.
Good day. This thread is about lenses, so I turn to experienced for advice ..
Nikon d7200 camera, there is Tamron 17-50, f2.8 and there is Tamron 35-90.
You need a lens for "close-up" shooting, not MACRO. For a “portfolio of eyebrows, lips, eyes” with good detail.
I took to use NIKKOR 105, f2.8. He copes with these tasks, but he didn't like it as a portrait photographer. I don't want to buy it and keep it only for “eyebrow photo”. I want a high-aperture portrait lens, but with minimal MDF, ... so as not to crop
there is a lot of superfluous in the editor. With strong cropping, the detail of the image disappears. If there is an eye in the frame, then so that the picture occupies more than half the frame area. What do you recommend? Thank you in advance.
There are no fast F / 1.8-F / 1.4 portraits with MDF like a macro lens. I would advise you to buy a separate portrait lens. Still there is something in between - Tamron 60 / 2.0
I absolutely agree with the author of the article. There are no ABSOLUTELY UNIVERSAL zooms, as well as fixes.
It is best to have one inexpensive, BUT decent zoom, and a couple of GOOD fixes with different FR.
“I limit myself to 17-85mm on the crop ...” Arkady, what kind of animal did you have like that? Or is it a typo and means 16-85?
Canon EF-S 17-85, for example. But this is a rather mediocre glass (15-85 is not an example better, although significantly more expensive). But given Arkady’s Nikon background, it’s most likely a typo, and I mean Nikon 16-85.
This is not a specific lens, but a set of focal lengths. May be 17-55 + 85 or any sets in this range.
Ok thanks