*very high aperture 50mm lenses.
Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?
221–230 of 291 posts
Re: Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?
#222What 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…
What a lens does is fully reversible if you have phases as well as amplitudes at infinitely high resolution.
Unfortunately, you don't. You have a sensor that captures only amplitudes, on a spatially quantized grid, with some noise. It loses a lot of information. If your lens has very low aberration and not too much distortion, most of that information is information you don't care about. If your lens has a lot of aberration and distortion, a lot of the information you care about is encoded in exactly the stuff that the sensor is losing.
Re: Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?
#223Earlier 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…
People used to give Sigma such a hard time over quality, but they (and Tamron, Tokina, Venus Optics, etc) have come such a long way. Sigma have been top of DXOMARK's scores for the last five years.
I'm a bit of a Photography Amateur but the Sigma I have on my A6100 is my only non-kit lens and it absolutely blew me away as to how much I spent (~300$) for the quality. Just wish it had OIS.
Re: Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?
#224I've never been unhappy with my older Nikon 50mm lenses, and the Zeiss 50mm lenses are fantastic and have been for years. What I'm really happy with on newer lenses is technology like fresnel lens elements that allow us to have compact and light weight telephotos. I have a Nikon 300mm lens that weighs 1/5th of its predecessor (which I also have) and is 1/3 the length and takes better photos. It was well worth the price tag and I greatly appreciate this sort of technical improvement if it allows me to avoid carrying a tripod for birding.
Re: Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Have you ever watched an old TV show and despaired how unwatchable it is because of low quality of image? Yes, that's the same thing -- our tastes change. I've had the opposite reaction - I'd watch something I've seen before in 4k remastered or something and it would be a worse experience because the extra details reveal the low quality tricks you can get away with on lower reproduction quality. I've even noticed po…
Hah. I've had that experience but with sound. Long time ago, when dinosaurs roamed the Earth and AMD K8 was the pinnacle of technology, I invested in a basic home theater setup. A decent AV receiver, a subwoofer, two studio-quality monitor speakers. A friend warned me that the speakers I had picked were "crisp, but unforgiving". All of a sudden DVDs sounded wonderful. The audio tracks in TV programmes became clear. T…
In images they call that the difference between being "scene referred" vs "display referred".
There is no generally accepted theory of stereo sound, instead there are at least three theories:
(1) a method for mastering sound recordings intended to be played by two speakers that are right next to each other (two sides of a TV, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_Retrieval_System for some theory)
(2) mastering sound records so that 'left means left' and 'right means right' which means your speakers are on opposite sides of the room and you're near the middle. That can cast sounds effectively to the left and right but falls down casting them to the middle
(3) Ambisonics, which doesn't really work because the coherence in natural sound sources badly damages the timbre of natural sounds and the concept of 'represent natural soundfield' doesn't really mix with 'record instruments individually in dead environments', 'add reverb', and 'repeat' which is how 'quality' sound in the judgement of the industry is attained.
Often DVDs were mixed under the assumption that they couldn't trust the receiver (e.g. no center channel); blu-rays sound a lot better not just because they allocate more bits to sound, but because the mixing is more aggressive... they don't feel they have to copy dialog on the L and the R because they know many people don't have a working C.
Re: Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?
#226What 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…
That's basically what micro 4/3 cameras are doing. As far as I know they all can do distortion correction in-camera for JPEG output, and the prime lenses are generally quite cheap and very compact. For example Panasonic has a 25mm f/1.7 lens that is 125 grams and costs $150 brand new. Of course you can also buy similar focal length lenses that are huge and weigh over a pound, while spending $1500+. But I don't know h…
I disagree. The Panasonic 25mm f/1.7 is equivalent to a 50mm f3.4 on full frame.
For 150g on full-frame you can get a 50mm 1.8, at a cost of 150$ brand new. So on full frame at a similar weight and at the same price you get superior optics.
If you really care about the weight, the 40mm 2.8 has the same weight and the same price but superior optics again.
All modern FF cameras do distortion correction too. M4/3 lenses are not especially decided to trade-off distortion for sharpness anymore than full-frame.
Re: Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?
#227Over the years I've needed high end gear in a hurry mostly for emergency work after hurricanes or wildfires. I have dealt with all the rental houses in the US and the one the author of this article founded is hands down the best (lens rentals., on) .
Its interesting how much effect the founder can have on a business even after its grown large. You can tell if the company exists primarily to fulfill a mission or just as a money making exersize.
Re: Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Even if it were the case, what is wrong with that? I mean, we can buy fancy cars without having a background in engineering, right? All the sneering about people being bad photographers and not needing the latest gear is out of touch. Average photographers benefit immensely from fast autofocus with full frame coverage, better sensors and better optics that make taking pictures in difficult conditions easier. Besides,…
I think the problem with enthusiasm for unnecessary consumer goods is the environmental impact.
I do agree consumers don’t deserve condescension for geeking about technical details, but I still see it as at least ironic when somebody buys an overengineered product.
Re: Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
His lens tests are excellent. The lens rentals blog is the best place to find them [0]. If you're in market for high quality lenses, lens rental blog is a great resource. I also like cameralabs' lens tests [1]. Not as scientific as lensrentals, however, it has real samples and images of charts for comparison, so you can get a sense for what the different resolution means in image resolution. It also tests things beyo…
He does break down technical stuff is average Joe language. But, one this that does tick me off is his lens analysis does not consider larger formats.
is that because the limitation of his testing insurgents?
Re: Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?
#230I recently got back into photography after a decade break. Brought a nice mirrorless camera and a few good lenses (Sony A7iii, 24-105 f/4, 35mm f/1.8). I was truly blown away at the progress that has been made in handheld imaging. The difference between my old Cannon EOS 450d and my current equipment is immense. What has happened to the iPhone camera in the last 10 years has also happened to handheld cameras too, but…
Great camera. Don't discount the 3rd party E-mount lens makers, such as Samyang. If you are unsure what to get next, I suggest looking at this list of every E-mount full-frame lens: https://briansmith.com/sony-a7-a7r-a7s-lens-guide/
Don't forget rokinon. The sharpest lens I've ever used was my cheap manual rokinon 35mm. It was heavy as hell but holy crap was it sharp.