/p/ - Photography » Thread #2655889

[35 / 3 / ?]

Anonymous Wed 26 Aug 2015 02:36:37 No.2655889 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>2655892 >>2655895 >>2655927 >>2655949 >>2656014 >>2656035 >>2656138 >>2656984 >>2657015

How true is it that less glass = better image quality?

By image quality I mean everything he talks about... Glass being the devil and mcprocessing light etc?

I do believe primes are superior to zooms, I cant explain it as well as he can but what he says seems to make sense.. But how true is it?

If it is true, I would consider buying an older 80-200 f/2.8 zoom over the current 70-200 f/2.8 VR just because it has a lot less glass.

Thoughts?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 26 Aug 2015 02:42:10 No.2655892 Report

Quoted By:

>>2655889
>watching a fat fuck from youtube

go away OP

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 26 Aug 2015 02:44:56 No.2655894 Report

Quoted By:

You should also buy a Tessar design lens, and throw away all your double Gauss trash.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 26 Aug 2015 02:46:07 No.2655895 Report

Quoted By:

>>2655889
>How true is it that less glass = better image quality?
Each element you put in a lens has a negative and a positive effect.
The negative is that it adds another surface which, even with the best coatings, causes some reflection and loses you some light, and it will bend each wavelength of light by a different amount - which will add to the amount of chromatic aberration you have to account for.
The positive effect is whatever aberrations you can now correct using that element. Which are many and varied, you can use additional elements to reduce distortion, reduce field curvature, reduce CA (such as using a two or three element achromat/apochromat in place of a single element), reduce astigmatism, reduce spherical or comatic aberration, etc etc.
so in the final tally it's a matter of whether each additional element you add corrects more problems than it introduces. All else equal fewer elements is better, but all else is never equal, so it's pretty meaningless to judge a lens on that criterion.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 26 Aug 2015 04:37:04 No.2655927 Report

Quoted By: >>2655933

>>2655889
> I do believe primes are superior to zooms.
That is pretty much a fact in current lens benchmarks.

And for gear of equal price or just at the very high end, you should be able to tell the difference easily in most cases.

isi !QyKYlWUTgk

isi !QyKYlWUTgk Wed 26 Aug 2015 04:49:54 No.2655933 Report

Quoted By: >>2655965 >>2656724

>>2655927
>That is pretty much a fact in current lens benchmarks.
No, it's actually not.
Primes are smaller, and primes can be faster. This is their actual modern advantage.

Optics are extremely advanced these days. Zooms, by nature of being zooms, have more elements with which to correct their flaws, an-
actually, just read the post above yours. Good zooms? They tend to be a case of elements adding in more than they take out.

There are exceptional primes and shitty zooms, of course. But zoom quality is to the point that really only misinformed folk choose primes for the belief that it's "superior."
It's just smaller, lighter, and faster, and costs less to bring a design to a given level

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 26 Aug 2015 05:07:06 No.2655949 Report

Quoted By:

>>2655889
>not using a lens offers the best possible image quality

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 26 Aug 2015 05:32:03 No.2655965 Report

Quoted By: >>2655969 >>2655976 >>2656058

>>2655933

I was waiting for you to come in and post this tired old meme with no proof other than that zeiss lens designer link that you've got tucked up your sleeve.

The best primes (and there are many of them) are still better than the very best zooms according to literally every benchmark website you can find, and it's not even close. Also, in general, your average prime is better all around (as in sharpness, CA, distortion, etc) than your average equivalent zoom.

Are there some sharp zooms? Absolutely, especially among exotic UWA's that don't see a whole lot of new primes on a yearly basis. The newish Nikon 70-200 f/4 is a beast. So is Canon's brand-new 11-24. Are they sharper than the best equivalent primes? Nope. Are they sharper than some of the shittier equivalent primes? Oh yeah.

It's ridiculous and wrong to claim that the only advantage of primes is portability and transmission, though.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 26 Aug 2015 05:36:41 No.2655969 Report

Quoted By: >>2655970 >>2655995

>>2655965
isi cites a Zeiss designer, a company famous for their primes, as saying zooms have more potential for correction
you cite fucking DxOmark or something
think Ill stick with isi's word.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 26 Aug 2015 05:39:05 No.2655970 Report

Quoted By:

>>2655969

k. ;)

isi !QyKYlWUTgk

isi !QyKYlWUTgk Wed 26 Aug 2015 05:49:16 No.2655976 Report

Quoted By: >>2656058

>>2655965
>The best primes (and there are many of them)
You mean like the Otus and other primes that use element and group counts that are more in line with what you'd expect from a high-level zoom?

Yeah, you're sure proving me wrong with that one. ;)

>no proof other than that zeiss lens designer link
Do you have proof that primes are inherently better than zooms?
Have you ever actually watched that video? He works for *Zeiss.* He's shilling a prime, if anything.
What is he talking about when he mentions it? He's talking about element count and correction of aberrations. Advantages that zooms have in the modern age due to the amount of glass they're required to use anyway that Zeiss has applied to primes in a no-holds barred design...which shows.

Also,
>The newish Nikon 70-200 f/4 is a beast
You read, on the internet. You haven't used it.

>So is Canon's brand-new 11-24
You read, on the internet. You haven't used it.

>Are they sharper than the equivalent primes? Nope.
Pulled out of your ass with sheer disregard for the fact that there isn't an equivalent prime to the 11mm wide end.
There's a Rokinon 10mm, it's not one of the good Rokinons though.

>It's ridiculous and wrong to claim that the only advantage of primes is portability and transmission, though.
Those are their only practical advantages if you actually know how to take photographs.
Also,
>transmission
You could just say speed, you newt. You'd actually be taken more seriously.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO this_is_what_virgins_actually_be (...).jpg, 445KiB, 500x1180

Anonymous Wed 26 Aug 2015 06:24:34 No.2655995 Report

Quoted By: >>2656007

>>2655969
"I know that it is a common prejudice that a zoom is softer than a prime. But in reality this is not necessarily true at least not if you just say 'the zoom' but actually the zoom is many lenses. So a well made zoom at least in the middle of the focal length range is very often better than corresponding prime lenses because the optical efforts, just the number of lenses and the special tricks with lenses, complicated high performance glasses or so, is higher in the zoom than generally in the prime lens. This comparison brings us to our main topic the otus. The otus can only be bigger (I think he meant better) by spending more effort, more lens elements. The traditional prime lenses, the small size was always the most important issue. So one limited the efforts a little bit and accepted the quality limitation. So zooms in the middle of their range can be excellent of course they show compromise sometimes in the end of the range in the middle they can be excellent provided that the make is good but because of the higher complexity across the dangers of misalignment of lenses are a little bit higher."

https://youtu.be/9cnEnRADDLo?t=6m15s

So he says a zoom can better if you use more elements to make corrections which is not always done to some primes to keep sizes down. So a big expensive zoom with lots corrections will be better than a prime in part of the range. To say this means zooms are better than prime goes against what he is saying.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 26 Aug 2015 06:27:47 No.2655998 Report

Quoted By:

>implying anyone here can max out the potential of a 1970s zoom

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 26 Aug 2015 07:16:09 No.2656007 Report

Quoted By: >>2656017

>>2655995
>To say this means zooms are better than prime goes against what he is saying.
I can't handle this cognitive dissonance.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 26 Aug 2015 07:40:56 No.2656014 Report

Quoted By: >>2656021

>>2655889
>How true is it that less glass = better image quality?

It's utterly false.

MORE elements leads to better image quality.
Which is why a top quality lens like the Zeiss Otus 55 has 12 elements in 10 groups while a Canon 50 f/1.8 has only half that with 6 elements in 5 groups.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 26 Aug 2015 07:44:50 No.2656017 Report

Quoted By:

>>2656007
All he is saying is that the blanket statement "zooms are softer than primes" is wrong. Disproving something doesn't make the opposite true. He doesn't say "primes are softer zooms" or "zooms can be better corrected than primes". Primes can have as many corrective optics as zooms.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 26 Aug 2015 08:01:34 No.2656019 Report

Quoted By: >>2656108

ITT: Stats nerds

while ur clickin keys talking about the same shit im clikin shutters getting paid.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO f22.jpg, 163KiB, 931x330

Anonymous Wed 26 Aug 2015 08:10:22 No.2656021 Report

Quoted By: >>2658556

>>2656014
Someone posted this a while ago showing that the 8 element apo summicron is sharper than the 12 element otus.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 26 Aug 2015 08:14:22 No.2656022 Report

Quoted By:

Doesn't matter how sharp and clear your image is, if your photo is shit, the photo is shit. Just like yourself

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 26 Aug 2015 09:06:56 No.2656035 Report

Quoted By:

>>2655889
how do you explain sony fe 90mm f2.8 macro g oss?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 26 Aug 2015 10:11:59 No.2656058 Report

Quoted By: >>2656183

>>2655965
Good response

>>2655976
Hilarious mental gymnastics
>Yeah, well the otus is effectively a zoom lens cos it has correctional glass, the fuck are you smoking?
>do you have proof primes are better, errm yes, that's what he meant when he said every benchmarking site. Or are you saying testing a lens sharpness doesn't prove one lens to be sharper than another?
>but you haven't used it. Whys that relevant isi, we're looking at lens stats, do you need to be in the Arctic to know it's -40? Or would you trust a man with a thermometer reporting it as -40?
>there's no 11mm, nice strawman isi, plenty of primes through the rest of that lens range though isn't there
>transmission =/= speed, learn the difference, there's no inherent benefit to a large aperture lens, there is for a lens with high transmission.
>only advantages are portability and 'speed' - how about sharp across the frame? Or less complicated distortion? Higher contrast? Sharper? Better micro contrast? Smoother focus? Keeps the camera better balanced? Reduced chromabs?

I think most people will be in agreement with me that the only real benefit of a zoom lens is convenience.

Weren't you arguing yesterday that the Canon 24-105 L is shit as a holiday lens? That a single prime would be a better choice regardless of where you were going? And the canons only use was For PJ's?

Are you surprised no one takes you seriously and half the forum trolls you?

As for OP, if we're talking theoretical physics, then yes, the less, the better. But in the real world it's more about who can get the best glass and who comes up with the best imperfect design using the materials available.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 26 Aug 2015 12:18:28 No.2656108 Report

Quoted By:

>>2656019

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 26 Aug 2015 13:48:05 No.2656138 Report

Quoted By:

>>2655889
I'd take everything this guy says with a huge pinch of salt. His reasoning for less is better gets really fucked up if you delve a little deeper. If isi was Wednesday Adams, he'd be Uncle Fester.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 26 Aug 2015 15:29:31 No.2656183 Report

Quoted By: >>2656659 >>2656666

>>2656058
>Weren't you arguing yesterday that the Canon 24-105 L is shit as a holiday lens? That a single prime would be a better choice regardless of where you were going?
Why do you always misrepresent arguments you lost moopco?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Aug 2015 09:53:32 No.2656659 Report

Quoted By:

>>2656183
So he's successfully made you look like a complete twat both on here and on irc yesterday. It's probably time to stop being an obsessive little stalker, you freak.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Aug 2015 10:14:02 No.2656662 Report

Quoted By:

A perfectly curved image sensor mated to a meniscus lens made from ED/Flourine glass would outperform most zooms by a significant margin.

Catsby

Catsby Thu 27 Aug 2015 10:46:18 No.2656666 Report

Quoted By:

>>2656183
That doesn't sound misrepresented at all.
Also calling someone out you know is banned is pretty weak isi.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Aug 2015 13:40:58 No.2656724 Report

Quoted By: >>2656725

>>2655933
>believing this horse shit
>misinterpreting that zeiss dude this badly

Holy fuck you're a moron.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Aug 2015 13:45:45 No.2656725 Report

Quoted By: >>2656727

>>2656724
>Mad at isi
>Doesn't refute anything she says with evidence or support
Sounds about right.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Aug 2015 13:53:51 No.2656727 Report

Quoted By: >>2656729

>>2656725
>no supporting evidence
>zooms have better image quality than primes.

If I said 5 + 5 = 10, would you still ask for supporting evidence?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Aug 2015 13:55:03 No.2656729 Report

Quoted By:

>>2656727
No, but if isi said 5+5=10,
and you said "fuck you isi, >believing this horse shit"

I would expect you to have a reason.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 28 Aug 2015 01:02:02 No.2656984 Report

Quoted By: >>2656991

>>2655889
>taking anything this guy says seriously
Here's his portfolio: https://www.flickr.com/photos/134746128@N05/
Enjoy

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 28 Aug 2015 01:09:06 No.2656991 Report

Quoted By:

>>2656984
>https://www.flickr.com/photos/134746128@N05/
Are you sure that's him? What happened? Polonium poisoning? Did a new McDonalds open beside his house?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 28 Aug 2015 02:05:23 No.2657015 Report

Quoted By:

>>2655889
Go find this retards videos about magnets and shit.

It's literally "MAGNETS, HOW DO THEY WORK" -tier /b/ retardness.

He's delusional. And no, more elements do not equal worse quality. And that's not what he says either, he literally opines that more elements "change" the light into something less organic or some shit, BECAUSE MAGNETS. He also calls Einstein an idiot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 30 Aug 2015 13:18:25 No.2658556 Report

Quoted By:

>>2656021
>sigma
>1488

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches