Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?

dpreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 291 posts

Re: Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?

#91

Post by formerly_proven »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #42
patorjk wrote: post #15

My Nikkor 50mm 1.8G is one of my favorite lenses. When I had a cropped sensor DSLR I used it as my portrait lens, and when I upgraded to a full frame I started using it as a general purpose lens. It creates beautiful images. I've always been curious about the versions with a lower f-stop, but the price always makes me think twice.

I came so close to buying this lens when I got a Nikon D750 last fall. I'm not really a photographer, but I was unsatisfied with the images coming out of my phone, and if I was going to get a dedicated camera, I wanted to go "all the way", so to speak. But the problem with 50mm prime lenses is they all seem to lack image stabilization. (The one exception I could find, a 45mm from Tamron[1], has bad chromatic aberrati…

Short, fast primes are rarely optically stabilized. That Tamron series (35-45-85/1.8 VC) is the only exception I know.

While these can be stabilized using IBIS on mirrorless cameras, I have just that combination (Nikon Z6 + 50/1.8G) and the VR is less useful than you'd think, because being around f/2.0 already gets you to shutter-speeds where it's not really necessary, and a 50 mm can go pretty slow without stabilization anyway.

Re: Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?

#92

Post by ISL »

ben7799 wrote: post #37

I love 50mm lenses but a lot of this stuff is ridiculously academic since photography is artistic & creative in nature. DPreview largely seems to write for the crowd that doesn't even care about the art aspect and just wants validation that they have better photo gear than others. These new 50mm lenses often defeat the point cause they're enormous, heavy, very expensive, and have little benefit over the slower versio…

Sounds like the 40mm f/2.8 might resonate for you :).

Re: Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?

#93

Post by twalla »

azhenley wrote: post #76
twalla wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to go even deeper down the rabbithole the Alphas are also great manual lens platforms. https://phillipreeve.net/blog/manual-lenses-sony-a7/ Plus, a comprehensive list from the same folks for all the E mount lenses: https://phillipreeve.net/blog/fe-lenses-sony-comprehensive-i...

Definitely. I recommend grabbing a Helios-44 58mm off eBay and a cheap adapter from Amazon.

I have one of these and would second the recommendation - really cool bokeh, light and cheap enough that I don't mind bashing it around. Seems they've gotten more expensive compared to when I purchased mine though (I think I paid 50-60 USD)

Generally speaking all of the M42 mount Soviet Zeiss clones will be interesting and relatively affordable.

Re: Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?

#94

Post by proudfoot »

ticklemyelmo wrote: post #70
proudfoot wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not capturing the rays, you only get where they strike. You can't fix it all computationally. Secondly, we already do correct distortion and chromatic aberration in software, but this doesn't really make up for loss of resolution that you can't fix. Information is being lost.

Isn't the location that a ray strikes entirely a function of angle of incidence, its frequency, and the particular lens? Why couldn't that function be determined and inverted?

Optimally yes. But in practice multiple rays from multiple angles strike the same sensor.

Lens design is about minimizing this.

Re: Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?

#96

Post by breischl »

hrktb wrote: post #78
ben7799 wrote: post #37

I love 50mm lenses but a lot of this stuff is ridiculously academic since photography is artistic & creative in nature. DPreview largely seems to write for the crowd that doesn't even care about the art aspect and just wants validation that they have better photo gear than others. These new 50mm lenses often defeat the point cause they're enormous, heavy, very expensive, and have little benefit over the slower versio…

Would you make the same line of comment on a anandtech chipset review, arguing it's ridiculously technical and doesn't take into account the art of progamming ? I am pretty glad dpreview does these kind of technical reviews, it nicely completes other photographer reviews who'll dig more on the experience and real world impact side of things.

A lot of photographers buy amazing gear, and ignore the fact that they lack the skill that would use it well or even require that gear.

I think the closest analog might be someone that reads the reviews, buys the latest-and-greatest computing hardware... and then uses it to surf the web and play Tetris.

Re: Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?

#97

Post by proudfoot »

ajross wrote: post #83
proudfoot wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not capturing the rays, you only get where they strike. You can't fix it all computationally. Secondly, we already do correct distortion and chromatic aberration in software, but this doesn't really make up for loss of resolution that you can't fix. Information is being lost.

That's the point though: the quantization absolutely introduces errors, but there were there to begin with. You're comparing the computed result of my "cheap camera" not with its competitor's sensor output but with the hypothetical focal plane of the competitor's lens. And that's wrong, because the competitor has pixels too. The error you get out is of the order of the sampling error you put in. That's true of all le…

I'm saying with the same sensor, the competition will have better data compared to you, since the rays are striking where they should be.

Information is lost when a ray strikes somewhere it shouldn't. Things get blurred and cannot be recovered. You can't fix this with software.

Re: Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?

#98

Post by thetinguy »

ben7799 wrote: post #37

I love 50mm lenses but a lot of this stuff is ridiculously academic since photography is artistic & creative in nature. DPreview largely seems to write for the crowd that doesn't even care about the art aspect and just wants validation that they have better photo gear than others. These new 50mm lenses often defeat the point cause they're enormous, heavy, very expensive, and have little benefit over the slower versio…

Dpreview is owned by Amazon.

Re: Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?

#99

Post by crazygringo »

proudfoot wrote: post #39
ajross wrote: post #24

What I don't understand isn't the design of the lenses, which are chasing ever-tightening windows of precision in a competetive market with high margins and discriminating consumers. Of course they're going to be overdesigned. What gets me is that lens distortion is a fully reversible convolution. It's not lossy, at all. Or rather, it's only lossy in the sense that the existing quantization in the sensor is already l…

You're not capturing the rays, you only get where they strike. You can't fix it all computationally. Secondly, we already do correct distortion and chromatic aberration in software, but this doesn't really make up for loss of resolution that you can't fix. Information is being lost.

> You can't fix it all computationally.

Can't you? If you're dealing with known hardware, then you can apply a deconvolution. Blurring can literally be undone, people do it all the time. It's harder when you have to estimate the kernel, but much easier when you already know the lens's exact properties. Also when you apply it directly to RAW data.

So not exactly sure which information you're referring to you when say information is being lost?

Sure artifacts can be introduced from noise, etc., but that's all just tradeoffs. If a simpler lens is letting in more light, or you put money towards the sensor rather than the lens, the end result may well be better, no?

Re: Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?

#100

Post by Matrixik »

dagmx wrote: post #80
Matrixik wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Tamron. Everyone remembering Tamron from 10 years ago looks at me as if I'm insane for using Tamron zooms (that was all released in last 2-3 years) on Sony A7 III. Then I show them end results and they are making big eyes. They are sharp and looking really good. As good as best Sony zooms or Sigma? No, but really close and cheaper. I'm looking now to buy Tamron 28-200 that is basically best super zoom available o…

Second the recommendation for Tamron. I have their 70-200 f/2.8 with stabilization. It's amazing, especially for the price. I shoot concerts with it on an A7ii. The lens is great. The camera body however is showing its age which is unfortunate, but I'll upgrade in a generation or two.

Oh, you are talking about older version for cameras with mirror. I'm talking about newer one designed from scratch for mirror less cameras. They are even better and getting really close to Sony lenses (even better than some like new 70-180 f/2.8 is cheaper and better than Sony 70-200 f/4).
Post reply on HN