DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Junk lenses
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 42, (reverse)
AuthorThread
12/08/2004 02:03:00 AM · #1
People who go out and spend 1000,1500 or more $$$$ for DSLR expect to get nice images taken.
But aint going to happen with crappy f3.5-f5.6 lenses.

You are much better off buying a nice Panasonic FZ10 with Leica 12X zoom F2.8 lens for 500$,or Sony 828 with built in awesome Carl Zeiss 7x glass.

DSLR will require a bag of expensive lenses for different situations and whatever you buy ,be ready for 3-4000$ worth of glass!
12/08/2004 02:37:02 AM · #2
Out of curiosity...what kind of lenses [and their price] compares to the Carl Zeiss lens in the Sony 828?
12/08/2004 02:38:49 AM · #3
You're absolutely right, that's why i refuse to buy A DSLR like yourself.

*wink*

However though, I feel the photographer is the important element in photography so a decent photographer will get great images with any camera. I, on the other hand need all the help I can get to try to take a decent picture and was happy to add the D70 to my list of fashion items including several $$$$'s worth of glass.. I do not think that f3.5-5.6 is crap though, its about SITUATION i think. of cause we all want (and i have) prime glass of high standard like my Ai 85mm f1.4 for example not quite a Zeiss made in W.Germany but it does OK.

seriously though I do see your point that some people just simply cannot afford to buy top notch glass its a shame, that is why I always plug people to buy secondhand as I do.

edit typos

Message edited by author 2004-12-08 02:44:38.
12/08/2004 02:41:41 AM · #4
That is one of the reasons I went with the Panasonic FZ20 [and budget]. I am very pleased with the lens. It has a F2.8 throughout the full zoom.
12/08/2004 03:39:17 AM · #5
You can't compare apertures in point and shoot and 'prosumer' type cameras with SLRs. The combination of high noise and increased depth of field cancels out the effectiveness of wide apertures on small-sensor cameras. Why? Because aperture has two benefits: increasing shutter speed in low light, and depth of field control.

On a DSLR, the noise generated by the sensor is so much lower than on non-DSLRs (term used for convenience sake) that bumping the ISO has the same effect as opening the aperture on a non-DSLR.

Furthermore, non-DSLRs have a much greater depth of field at a given aperture. A smaller sensor and a smaller true focal length means that even at wide-open apertures and at full telephoto it's hard to throw a background decently out of focus with a non-DLSR. You can't get anywhere near the effect at f/2.8 on an F717 that you can at the same aperture on a 10D (I've owned them both).

As such, non-DSLRs have the cumulative effect of acting like a DSLR with a stopped-down aperture at a high ISO.

Message edited by author 2004-12-08 03:40:53.
12/08/2004 04:25:38 AM · #6
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/264/thumb/117328.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/264/thumb/117328.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
This was taken with my Panasonic FZ1 zoomed at 3x [approx. 105mm] and the DOF turned out great. However I know what you are saying, but some of us can’t afford spending $2-3 or 4,000 in equipment. For those users a good ‘prosumer’ camera can work well sometimes.
12/08/2004 04:37:07 AM · #7
Originally posted by alionic:

I do not think that f3.5-5.6 is crap though


Now, you see. That's because you've got a Nikon kit lens.

I've only had my Canon toy a wee while, but I've already developed a love/hate relationship with the kit 18-55 F/3.5-5.6 lens. On the up side it's light, got a versatile range, and focuses reasonably fast for a 'kit' lens.. On the down side is the variable results, and shocking build quality compared to the camera, and pretty much every other Canon Lens ever made I suspect.

I've taken a couple of nice photos with it, and lots of disapointing ones. The 50 F/1.8 lives on the camera, and I only put on the kit lens for the wide angle. A lens with a little red ring around the end will be in my near future.

pitsaman's first post rings true... If I could afford the three lenses I want I'd have to spend $7500 (NZD) on lenses, and the camera with kit lens only(!) cost $2800 (NZD).

I just don't have the faintest idea where the money is going to come from... Oh santa? Are you listening? :-).

Cheers, Chris H.
12/08/2004 07:19:25 AM · #8
Hmmm... I've been getting very good results with an FZ10, and am about to have an expensive DSLR with very cheap glass.
I'm going to try to build up the glass over the next couple of years, but my reasoning was that by buying the Minolta DSLR, I would be buying into a much cheaper lens system with stabilisation built into the body. I've got the ultra cheapo 75-300mm zoom lens, but have read really good reviews about this lens and am hoping that this lens will still outperform my FZ10. We'll have to wait and see! It does seem a bit crazy that I've spent £1,000 on a new body and £80 on a second hand film camera with 2 lenses included which I'm going to use on the DSLR... I'll keep you all posted!
12/08/2004 07:58:41 AM · #9
I have just bought the canon 50mm f1.8 for £55 - its very cheap but not nasty. Gives very sharp pictures. I even get pretty decent shots with the kit lens now I have spent a lot of time with different settings.


12/08/2004 08:52:42 AM · #10
the "carl zeiss" lens in the sony isn't really a carl zeiss. it's made by sony, according to the carl zeiss spec. At least, that's what i was told from someone who used to work for CZ, so i can't say if that's 100% true.
but if someone else said it, then it must be true :)
12/08/2004 09:07:23 AM · #11
Originally posted by jxpfeer:

the "carl zeiss" lens in the sony isn't really a carl zeiss. it's made by sony, according to the carl zeiss spec. At least, that's what i was told from someone who used to work for CZ, so i can't say if that's 100% true.
but if someone else said it, then it must be true :)


That's the same situation as the Leica lenses in the Panasonics (except the LC-1, I believe)
12/08/2004 09:15:22 AM · #12
I agree, but if you look at the lens reviews, the scale isn't linear with "price". I have the Sigma 18-125, which at $250 beat the $600 Canon 17-85 USM lens in a pretty good "scientific" comparison posted in the threads of DPReview. And my own experience has been pretty good with this lens now.

I also have the ultra-cheap $69 Canon 50mm 1.8, and the relatively-expensive (but cheap for L): 70-200mm, which is a beautiful lens too.

But I especially agree with your point about apertures! I've been looking at a second, more portable camera, probably the FZ3, which sports a 36-420mm F2.8 "Leica" lens and yet the camera sells for $350. How much would that same lens cost for an SLR!
12/08/2004 09:35:35 AM · #13
Originally posted by nshapiro:

I agree, but if you look at the lens reviews, the scale isn't linear with "price". I have the Sigma 18-125, which at $250 beat the $600 Canon 17-85 USM lens in a pretty good "scientific" comparison posted in the threads of DPReview. And my own experience has been pretty good with this lens now.

I also have the ultra-cheap $69 Canon 50mm 1.8, and the relatively-expensive (but cheap for L): 70-200mm, which is a beautiful lens too.

But I especially agree with your point about apertures! I've been looking at a second, more portable camera, probably the FZ3, which sports a 36-420mm F2.8 "Leica" lens and yet the camera sells for $350. How much would that same lens cost for an SLR!


The lens is F2.8 all the way from 36mm to 420mm... an incredible achievement, especially considering how sharp it is and how little fringing there is.
12/08/2004 10:01:08 AM · #14
Originally posted by nshapiro:

...But I especially agree with your point about apertures! I've been looking at a second, more portable camera, probably the FZ3, which sports a 36-420mm F2.8 "Leica" lens and yet the camera sells for $350. How much would that same lens cost for an SLR!


That lens does not exist yet for a SLR! LOL If it did it would probably weigh 50lbs and cost $10G LOL

One thing to remember is that even so-called "junk" lenses can give pretty good results stopped down, the difference between "junk" lenses and pro lenses is that the pro lenses give great results wide open and have a wide maximum aperture of f/2.8 and less
12/08/2004 10:14:21 AM · #15
Originally posted by nshapiro:

I've been looking at a second, more portable camera, probably the FZ3, which sports a 36-420mm F2.8 "Leica" lens and yet the camera sells for $350. How much would that same lens cost for an SLR!

It isn't "so amazing" when you realize that optically it is really a 4.6-55.2mm lens due to the miniscule imaging circle needed for the tiny sensor.

When you compare the size of a 50mm/1.8 lens (the "long" end of the above lens) for a DSLR to a 400mm/2.8 lens for a DSLR, you'll see that optically, there is several orders of magnitude difference...
12/08/2004 10:24:12 AM · #16
Originally posted by EddyG:

Originally posted by nshapiro:

I've been looking at a second, more portable camera, probably the FZ3, which sports a 36-420mm F2.8 "Leica" lens and yet the camera sells for $350. How much would that same lens cost for an SLR!

It isn't "so amazing" when you realize that optically it is really a 4.6-55.2mm lens due to the miniscule imaging circle needed for the tiny sensor.

When you compare the size of a 50mm/1.8 lens (the "long" end of the above lens) for a DSLR to a 400mm/2.8 lens for a DSLR, you'll see that optically, there is several orders of magnitude difference...


If it's not amazing, how come no other manufacturer of prosumers have designed a similar lens? Show me another 36-420mm lens with F2.8 throughout the entire range with IS thrown in as well. Never mind the fact that it's ridiculously cheap.
12/08/2004 10:38:44 AM · #17
Lens brightness says nothing about its quality...
12/08/2004 10:39:27 AM · #18
I am not overly happy with the performance of the Kit lense that came with the Canon Digital Rebel. However, it is adequette as far as starting lenses go. About a week after obtaining that camera kit, I picked up an inexpensive 70-300 with Macro feature lense.

All in all, I have taken a number of acceptable pictures and will be holding off on all lense purchases until I get a few other things out of the way.

I am dreading buying my first 50mm/1.8 lense as I know that will set me off on a lense buying frenzy. In the meantime, I have to learn how to get acceptable results out of the crap lenses that I own.
12/08/2004 12:43:20 PM · #19
I think the Leica D2 / Panasonic LC1 is an excellent example. The little camera has a Panasonic built Leica lens with f/2.0 maximum aperature and 28mm - 90mm (35mm equiv) coverage. It is hard to find that speed and sweet spot zoom range on dslr regardless of investment.

The other problem I see is people getting caught up in long zooms or wide zoom ranges. There are some relatively inexpensive prime lens that deliver both speed and high quality. Examples for canon would include 35mm f/2.0, 50mm f/1.4, and 85mm f/1.8.
12/08/2004 12:45:34 PM · #20
Originally posted by pitsaman:

or Sony 828 with built in awesome Carl Zeiss 7x glass.


I've read a bunch of times about how disappointing this glass is (on review sites I mean).

P.S. in regards to talk about 'kit lenses' aren't they made to be a cheap starter lens? Isn't it the point that they work, but aren't great? Like the rebel kit lens, not great, but it was under $100 so who cares!

Message edited by author 2004-12-08 12:47:56.
12/08/2004 12:57:13 PM · #21
Originally posted by GoldBerry:

Originally posted by pitsaman:

or Sony 828 with built in awesome Carl Zeiss 7x glass.


I've read a bunch of times about how disappointing this glass is (on review sites I mean).

P.S. in regards to talk about 'kit lenses' aren't they made to be a cheap starter lens? Isn't it the point that they work, but aren't great? Like the rebel kit lens, not great, but it was under $100 so who cares!


i feel i should put in a few words about the 828 :) The lense does create a slightly higher amount of "purple fringing" than other lenses, but it's (i believe) one of the fastest to focus with, and is quite faster than most prosumer lenses (f2-f2.8). I've made myself an action to remove the purple fringing which works quite well, and adds a minimal amount of post processing (since i take some much time in preparing my prints, whats another 5 seconds). I haven't seen many people who've bought the camera be dissapointed, but a few reviewers were a bit put off by this.
12/08/2004 12:57:17 PM · #22
Originally posted by EddyG:

Originally posted by nshapiro:

I've been looking at a second, more portable camera, probably the FZ3, which sports a 36-420mm F2.8 "Leica" lens and yet the camera sells for $350. How much would that same lens cost for an SLR!

It isn't "so amazing" when you realize that optically it is really a 4.6-55.2mm lens due to the miniscule imaging circle needed for the tiny sensor.

When you compare the size of a 50mm/1.8 lens (the "long" end of the above lens) for a DSLR to a 400mm/2.8 lens for a DSLR, you'll see that optically, there is several orders of magnitude difference...


Ok, then tell me where I can buy a 4.6 to 55 mm F2.8 constant aperture lens for my dRebel? ;)
12/08/2004 01:07:34 PM · #23
Originally posted by nshapiro:

Ok, then tell me where I can buy a 4.6 to 55 mm F2.8 constant aperture lens for my dRebel? ;)

The first thing you need to do is install the "downgrade" to the the 4.5mm x 3.4mm sensor in your dRebel... =] That makes the required imaging circle for the lens much smaller than what is required to fill the current 22.0mm x 15.0mm sensor already in your camera...

Message edited by author 2004-12-08 13:08:58.
12/08/2004 01:21:36 PM · #24
I'm getting frustrated with the noise from my Sony. I have had a large batch of photos rejected from Istock for noise. Was a model shoot specifically for stock too!
12/08/2004 01:31:15 PM · #25
The F828 is a great camera, for what it is. It does a very respectable job given its large zoom range. The fast lens helps make up somewhat for the higher noise of its CCD.

But it is a camera that has limits. With a DSLR you can improve your system by getting better lenses. A few good prime lenses would seem to be a good to have with a DSLR, such as a 50mm 1.8 lens, this combined with any of the DSLRs will give a camera that can shoot much better indoors, with available light, then my F828 ever could.

I have heard people say that you can expect to pay more for your lenses on a DSLR then the body, there is nothing wrong with this and it is nice that you have the options of add them as you can afford them.

I bought the F828 as a stop gap until the DSLR that I want becomes available, at a price I am willing to pay, I give it one to two more years for me.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 01/23/2021 05:58:32 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 01/23/2021 05:58:32 AM EST.