| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/22/2006 10:42:47 AM · #26 |
Maybe so. The 1ds Mk II has rather large pixels and is a full-frame camera...
Regardless... here is the information I am referring to... taken right from the handy links you posted. Thanks...
Originally posted by Cambridge In Color:
Diffraction is an optical effect which can limit the total resolution of your photography-- no matter how many megapixels your camera may have. Ordinarily light travels in straight lines through uniform air, however it begins to disperse or "diffract" when squeezed through a small hole (such as your camera's aperture). This effect is normally negligible, but increases for very small apertures. Since photographers pursuing better sharpness use smaller apertures to achieve a greater depth of field, at some aperture the softening effects of diffraction offset any gain in sharpness due to better depth of field. When this occurs your camera optics are said to have become diffraction limited. |
In other words, Diffraction Limitation, which affects the resolution of fine detail at veyr narrow apertures is a function of aperture.
Not quality of the glass.
This also follows that regardless of the sharpness of a lens, if your photosites are small enough, you will experience loss of fine detail due to Diffraction Limitation when going beyond certain apertures...
If you are more visual, go check out the example about a page and a half down from the top called Visual Example: Aperture vs. Pixel Size.
You can move your mouse over the type of camera to see an approximate scale of the size of the photosites.
You can then move your mouse over an aperture to see the effect of Diffraction on the size of the airy circle...
Once the size of the airy circle gets larger than that of a single photosite, even the smallest point resolved by your lens, regardless of the sharpness of the lens, it will no longer be resolved as a single point of light... it will affect neighboring photosites and that is what is called blur...
The effect IS somewhat mitigated (IMHO) by the automatic interpolation that is performed on all Bayer style sensors, which are already used to sharing picture information across pixel borders... This is just my ideas and thinking about the relation of pixel size to the CoC...
Further down the page, you will see a real-world effect under the heading What It Looks Like.
That is based on the sensor of a 20D, which is quite a common body at this point... The effect won't be as bad on your 10D...
Note that in that example, I would guess that they used a single lens, but switched the aperture for successive shots, therefore it is further proof that lens sharpness is not necessarily the only issue...
However, it is also noted that most lenses get softer as they move past their 'sweet spot', usually around f/8-f/11 anyhow...
That's why I said that f/22 isn't being used as much for many really serious landscapers...
If I'm way off base (and it's happened before), let me know, but as mentioned before, I'm pretty sure that I understood the material fairly well...
|
|
|
|
06/22/2006 11:04:05 AM · #27 |
Sounds to me like you are trying to get one lens that suits two different purposes. In that case you will have to compromise one.
For just landscape I love the 17-40. I have the 10-22 as well and for me it's just too wide most of the time and I find myself using it around the 22mm end most often. That is probably just because of my landscape style though. But for general use the 17-40 is too short for many.
Sounds like the 24-70 F2.8 L would be a good option for both, and it is an excellent lens. I have a nice bonus coming in a couple weeks and that is going to the purchase of the 24-70. If it's too pricey for you the non-canon one should suffice. But is 24mm wide enough? If 28 was not wide enough I'm not sure 24 is going to be wide enough.
Or... a friend of mine is very happy with the 17-85 Canon EF-S and he is strictly a landscape photographer. I've never used it so I won't endorse it, but it might be an option? The range works out well for your need.
|
|
|
|
06/22/2006 11:34:29 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by Care Bear:
A fast lens for landscapes? Shooting at 2.8 would leave you with little dof and nothing sharp when focused at infinity. |
Not really true, I have shot a lot of landscapes at apertures ranging from 1.8 to 2.8, I´d much rather have a fast lens and stop it down rather than taking a f4 max aperture lens. The rest of what you wrote is accurate though and of course you should stop down to f8-11 when you can, but to say that big apertures unuseable for landscape is just plain wrong.
As for lenses I reccomend, I gotta agree with most people here, 17-40L is great, so I hear the same about the ef-s 10-22 (although I have never tried it) That is the rule of thumb, to get wide lenses for landscape. I would NOT worry about the gap from 50mm to 100mm, it´s really not that big a deal.
A while back when I had the 20D as my main camera, sometimes when I wanted to travel light and shoot landscapes, I just brought along a 17-40, 50mm and 100mm macro, I have heaps of landscape shots done with that macro lens so I´ts just a matter of personal style and preference.
Message edited by author 2006-06-22 11:44:51.
|
|
|
|
06/22/2006 11:47:11 AM · #29 |
why did you dislike the lens?
Originally posted by PhotoRyno:
I just sold my canon 28-135mm lens( I really disliked this lens) |
|
|
|
|
06/22/2006 01:09:11 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Larus:
Originally posted by Care Bear:
A fast lens for landscapes? Shooting at 2.8 would leave you with little dof and nothing sharp when focused at infinity. |
Not really true, I have shot a lot of landscapes at apertures ranging from 1.8 to 2.8, I´d much rather have a fast lens and stop it down rather than taking a f4 max aperture lens. The rest of what you wrote is accurate though and of course you should stop down to f8-11 when you can, but to say that big apertures unuseable for landscape is just plain wrong. |
I'm sorry, but I'm a little confused by this one... to my eye, it looks like you are saying the same thing, namely that using wide aperture lenses CAN yield good results...
I think that Care bear is just trying to say that you don't use the lens opened up to the widest aperture for the lens when you shoot a landscape... IE the 50mm f/1.8 at f/11 is good. Shooting 50mm f/1.8 at f/1.8 is probably less effective...
I don't think he's trying to suggest that a lens that has a wide max aperture is inappropriate for landscapes... |
|
|
|
06/22/2006 02:02:20 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
If I'm way off base (and it's happened before), let me know, but as mentioned before, I'm pretty sure that I understood the material fairly well... |
I wasn't implying that were off base at all. Just trying to understand all of this myself.
If I understand correctly, with a sensor size of 6.3mp vs 8mp, the effect of diffraction will be less for a 6.3mp camera. Sensor size being equal that is.
Message edited by author 2006-06-22 14:02:44. |
|
|
|
06/22/2006 02:25:51 PM · #32 |
that seems to be the gist of things, yes...
That would mean that a Nikon D70 would have less Diffraction limitation effects than a Canon 30D OR a 10D because it has larger photosites...
The 10D has the edge over the 30D in this respect as well...
Things get a bit more complicated though because photosites aren't edge to edge...
Because of this, you can't just divide the number of photosites by the area of the sensor to find out how big the photosites are... That merely tells you the theoretical maximum size of a photosite... In reality, they are actually a bit smaller than this...
However, later model Canon CMOS sensors have something called Microlenses (apparently) that have been placed over top of them to gather light from a larger area... This doesn't mean that they will surpass the largest theoretical size, but rather that the real life size of the photosites will actually be effectively larger... I read somewhere back when I was first getting interested in the 20D (when it first came out) that this was a contributing factor to why the 20D has such good noise characteristics particularly when compared to other similar pixel pitched sensors... It was some time ago, so I'm not going to say it's 100% accurate... my mind could have fogged it up too...
If this is the case, real world performance with the Diffraction limitation issue may indeed be roughly the same as the camera is using more of the photosite area, effectively making the pixels larger... |
|
|
|
06/24/2006 04:29:13 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Eschelar
I think that Care bear is just trying to say that you don't use the lens opened up to the widest aperture for the lens when you shoot a landscape... IE the 50mm f/1.8 at f/11 is good. Shooting 50mm f/1.8 at f/1.8 is probably less effective...
Yep that's what I was saying.
Nothings wrong with a fast lens for landscapes, as long as you stop it down.
|
|
|
|
06/24/2006 04:54:33 PM · #34 |
| I have the 17-35 and 28-75 tamron lenses. I just got the 28-75 the other day and I'm really impressed with it's optical capacities. Really superb sharpness and good color right out of the camera. I like both of the lenses a lot. If you ever plan to get a full frame sensor, I STRONGLY suggest you get the canon 17-40L instead of the 17-35mm tamron because the tamron has very poor edge performance. Also you might consider a wider lens, and i'm sure other people in the thread have already suggested some. The tokina 12-24 F4 was suggested to me, and from the reviews i've seen it's excellent. |
|
|
|
06/24/2006 06:42:05 PM · #35 |
With the Rebels crop factor you need every mm of wide angle you can afford for landscape work. 28mm is no where near enough. You will be disappointed in that lens if you buy it.
I would seriously suggest something in the 17-40 range for landscape and then think about a second lens to cover the 40mm + range.
I can't tell you how much better landsacpes look with a full frame sensor and a 16mm WA - the difference is huge. Go as wide as you can and forget trying to compromise.
Message edited by author 2006-06-24 18:43:37.
|
|
|
|
06/24/2006 07:13:33 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Falc:
With the Rebels crop factor you need every mm of wide angle you can afford for landscape work. 28mm is no where near enough. You will be disappointed in that lens if you buy it.
I would seriously suggest something in the 17-40 range for landscape and then think about a second lens to cover the 40mm + range.
I can't tell you how much better landsacpes look with a full frame sensor and a 16mm WA - the difference is huge. Go as wide as you can and forget trying to compromise. |
That would be the Canon 10-22mm, then; 10mm x 1.6 = 16mm...
Good choice, if I do say so myself...
R.
|
|
|
|
06/25/2006 01:14:10 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Falc:
With the Rebels crop factor you need every mm of wide angle you can afford for landscape work. 28mm is no where near enough. You will be disappointed in that lens if you buy it.
I would seriously suggest something in the 17-40 range for landscape and then think about a second lens to cover the 40mm + range.
I can't tell you how much better landsacpes look with a full frame sensor and a 16mm WA - the difference is huge. Go as wide as you can and forget trying to compromise. |
That would be the Canon 10-22mm, then; 10mm x 1.6 = 16mm...
Good choice, if I do say so myself...R. |
Somewhere down the road I do plan on getting the 5D full frame. I want to get my lenses before upgrading cameras. At this moment I am starting to look at the 17-40L for landscape (I am buying this lens knowing I will someday put it on a FF camera) and either the canon 70-200L or Tamron 28-75 2.8, although I am thinking the 75mm will be a bit short.
I am leaning toward the faster tamrom because of my kids for indoor sports (basketball) and other general shooting.
I have about a week before I purchase some glass and I just want to make the best choice. about $1200 to spend
ALSO, thanks everyone for you input, it is helping me with my decision process.
Message edited by author 2006-06-25 01:15:05. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/20/2025 07:33:06 AM EDT.
