/p/ - Photography » Thread #3756039

[30 / 2 / ?]

2MiB, 2499x5000, Collage.jpg

I think I fucked up

Anonymous Sat 07 Nov 2020 11:17:35 No.3756039 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>3756069 >>3756100 >>3756107 >>3756129 >>3756143 >>3756184 >>3756209

Help me /p/, I think I fell for the prime meme.

So I bought a 100mm macro prime a few weeks back and was stunned - STUNNED - by the quality of this lens. But 100mm doesn't work for a lot of my photos, so I bought a 50mm and plan to buy a 35 or maybe even 20mm.

Tonight I did a test. I took 3 photos all at 50mm with the exact same ISO, aperture, and autofocus, on a tripod.

One is with my 50mm prime
One is with my 18-55mm kit
One is with my 50-200mm kit

Can anyone even tell the difference in quality? They're all pretty good and I'm starting to think maybe I should have spend a few hundred more on the super deliuxe 50mm prime because I'm not seeing a whurld of difference here. Did I fuck up?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Nov 2020 12:40:08 No.3756069 Report

Quoted By: >>3756078

>>3756039
What camera did you use?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Nov 2020 12:48:59 No.3756076 Report

Quoted By:

Closely following this thread cause I'm thinking of buying a 35 and 50mm prime too.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Nov 2020 12:51:06 No.3756077 Report

Quoted By: >>3756088

well primes are quicker generally, so why would you keep the F# of the 18-55, which definitely has a slower aperture, the same as the 50mm? You can do things with primes that you can't with slower zoom lenses, generally. That's where the benefit (and the sacrifice of having a fixed focal length) comes in

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Nov 2020 12:51:08 No.3756078 Report

Quoted By: >>3756095

>>3756069
Pentax KP

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO shrug.jpg, 23KiB, 500x327

Anonymous Sat 07 Nov 2020 13:07:29 No.3756088 Report

Quoted By: >>3756178 >>3756221

>>3756077
I was just trying to make a comparison without variables, yes the 50mm has a much wider aperture and that's really the glowing benefit and it does work great, but pound for pound at ƒ/5.6 there isn't a huge difference. Kinda think maybe I should have bought the $500 50mm. I have a lot of lenses now and it irks me to see the new 50mm isn't all that much better. I'm thinking of buying the 18-270mm just to cut the fat because who cares anymore.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Nov 2020 13:46:15 No.3756095 Report

Quoted By: >>3756097

>>3756078
I'm not familiar with this one...but it appears the 50-200 is sharper than the others two.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Nov 2020 13:50:13 No.3756097 Report

Quoted By: >>3756101

>>3756095
possibly, but I didn't divulge which is which :3c

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Nov 2020 13:53:53 No.3756100 Report

Quoted By: >>3756102

>>3756039
If the only pics you’re making are small jpegs like this then yeah you fucked up

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Nov 2020 13:55:12 No.3756101 Report

Quoted By: >>3756105

>>3756097
Oooh that's a bit low...i just assumed the last one was in the order you posted.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Nov 2020 13:55:51 No.3756102 Report

Quoted By: >>3756112

>>3756100
>5000px
well no, not at all. just was posting a comparison because that was the whole point

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Nov 2020 13:56:53 No.3756105 Report

Quoted By:

>>3756101
I thought a blind evaluation would be more valuable

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Nov 2020 13:58:48 No.3756107 Report

Quoted By: >>3756109

>>3756039
I always thought you bought a 100macro to focus stack products and other inanimate objects

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Nov 2020 14:01:34 No.3756109 Report

Quoted By:

>>3756107
this test/thread is about the 50mm though

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Nov 2020 14:04:19 No.3756112 Report

Quoted By: >>3756116

>>3756102
Realistically you’ve taken a pretty bad test shot. The lighting is slanting primarily in from the right, there’s significant dark areas as well, and you should have made each image it’d own post in as big a size as possible. Looking at dark areas, corners and the bowls texture I can see more of the image processing used than I can see the quality of the lense

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Nov 2020 14:09:03 No.3756116 Report

Quoted By: >>3756125

>>3756112
You're right anon, my test shots are garbo and should have been better. Not just in lighting but particularly in DoF. it was just hard in the moment to find room for the photo test so i just pointed the camera at the most interesting corner of the room. i imagine this experiment would be hugely different if the shots were portraits or even long shots of the room

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Nov 2020 14:38:45 No.3756125 Report

Quoted By:

>>3756116
Good idea, bad execution. If you look at test shots for lenses they are simple above all else. Clean lines, bright light, and textures like brick are popular as they let you see how sharp the lens performs across the whole picture.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Nov 2020 14:47:21 No.3756127 Report

Quoted By: >>3756145

Why the hell does peak IQ even matter. Pick your lenses based on size and usefulness TO YOU.

If you're going to wind up with a 20mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 100mm that you feel obligated to always carry together...just buy an 18-200 and be done with it.

If you plan to buy a set of primes and only ever go out with a single one attached to your camera and enjoy the constraints this gives you, then pick some focal lengths that sound nice and go for it.

Trying to decide between zoom lenses and primes based on IQ in 2020 is dumb as fuck. All modern lenses are going to be good and give you good results to make small prints with. If you think tiny differences in IQ is why your photos suck, then you're just a gearfag.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Nov 2020 14:51:39 No.3756129 Report

Quoted By: >>3756141 >>3756177

>>3756039
Pretty bad subject to do a test shoot.
First one looks 18-55
Second one looks 50-200
Third one looks 50mm prime

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Nov 2020 16:55:59 No.3756141 Report

Quoted By:

>>3756129
also think its this

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Nov 2020 17:07:35 No.3756143 Report

Quoted By:

>>3756039
Top picture is either out of focus or taken with a lump of butter.
Second two are sharp, with the middle one appearing slightly sharper to me, although it could be the slightly higher contrast throwing me off.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Nov 2020 17:27:06 No.3756144 Report

Quoted By:

Third pic looks like the prime to me. I’m guessing the top is the 50-200 due to just how soft it is.

Keep in mind that zooms perform best in the middle of their zoom range, and if you’re often shooting at a focal length that’s at the end of the range, it’s not gonna be ideal. Softer, more vignette, more distortion, and probably slower. For something like a 50mm (I’m assuming FF equivalent), it’s well worth having a prime, even if you don’t go all in on primes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Nov 2020 17:31:22 No.3756145 Report

Quoted By: >>3756149

>>3756127
>just buy an 18-200 and be done with it.

Yes that is fine if you want CA which will make you want to tear your eyes out of their sockets. No need to pixel peep even. But keep telling yourself a 18-200 is good brainlet

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Nov 2020 17:42:11 No.3756149 Report

Quoted By:

>>3756145
fuckin' drama queen over here. fine, get a 24-105 or some shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Nov 2020 18:22:37 No.3756177 Report

Quoted By:

>>3756129
>Third one looks 50mm prime
this, the rest I can't tell honestly.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Nov 2020 18:24:50 No.3756178 Report

Quoted By:

>>3756088
>surprised when lenses all perform fine at f/5.6

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Nov 2020 18:33:18 No.3756184 Report

Quoted By:

>>3756039
Primes are great for lightstars when closed down and those few extra stops wide open, and they're usually lighter and more compact. At f4 to f11 you'll see practically no difference unless you find deep scene where you can analyse back and fore dof. But even in this situation the difference will only be apparent when you use high end prime.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Nov 2020 19:35:01 No.3756209 Report

Quoted By:

>>3756039
Yeah, nearly all modern lenses produce good photos, especially on a tripod, with no possible glare, taking a snapshot without much need for dof.
If you shoot everything at f/8 from a tripod and lens hood, the only significant difference between lenses is focal length and minor gains in sharpness.
You buy a prime for the low weight, low noise (with open aperture), shallow DOF, and pixel-peeping sharpness gains.
I shoot with a stabilized superzoom, because I don't need shallow dof or extremely sharp images, and the stabilization allows for slower shutter speed which mitigates the noisy image problem.
I love primes too, but there is no need to continually chase perfection and more and more expensive lenses. As long as your gear doesn't intrinsically hold you back from achieving the photo you want, it's good enough.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Nov 2020 20:04:12 No.3756220 Report

Quoted By:

it would help if your subject wasnt so shit. all those pictures are 100% ugly and uninteresting. the third one is noticeably better technical quality though.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Nov 2020 20:06:39 No.3756221 Report

Quoted By:

>>3756088
sell everything and buy a 28, 50 and 105mm

and stop being a bitch, shoot in full manual

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

I think I fucked up