# Help Me Get Sharper!



## rbbecker (Jul 18, 2016)

Hi All, 

New member here and would call myself an intermediate photographer. I know a fair amount but am (and will always) be learning. 

Looking for help on a couple things. I'm lucky enough to live a few miles from Lake Michigan so have basically endless opportunities for sunsets. I recently took what I thought was the perfect shot but when I blew it up to 11x14 to frame and hang, the lighthouse isn't sharp at all! I was seriously bummed. 

Thoughts? 
Here are the specs of my equipment used:
Camera: Canon EOS Rebel T1i
Lens: Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II
Aperture: f/20
Shutter: 1/60
ISO: ISO-125
Focal Length: 51mm

My approach on this one was the higher f-stop to ensure more in focus like the water and second lighthouse in the background. 

Any info which might help let me know and I can provide. Any tips I can work on to improve and eliminate this in the future? I take lots of sunsets


----------



## dxqcanada (Jul 18, 2016)

Was that hand held ?
What were you putting the focus ?
Possibly this lens is not so good at small aperture ?


----------



## rbbecker (Jul 18, 2016)

Hi dxq, yes that photo was handheld.... from a boat. 

The near lighthouse was in focus. 

I plan to go out this week in the evening with a tripod if I need it and get some good sunset shots, I'll try to explore a variety of apertures with this lens and report back.


----------



## dxqcanada (Jul 18, 2016)

Hmm, it appears that your camera/lens is front focusing.


----------



## rbbecker (Jul 18, 2016)

Help me out, what is that?


----------



## dxqcanada (Jul 18, 2016)

Front/Back Focus ... term used when Camera + Lens combo misses AF focus point.
From what I see of your image, your Camera + Lens is focusing in front of your focus point, which you said is the first lighthouse ... the pier in front is more in focus.
Many advanced camera's have a micro-adjustment feature to change/compensate for each lens ... I don't think your camera has that feature.
You may want to compare shooting something in manual focus vs auto focus.


----------



## dxqcanada (Jul 18, 2016)

Hmm, appears that your lens is not so hot smaller than f/11
Canon EF-S 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 IS review
though I suspect you may have shot wide angle.


----------



## rbbecker (Jul 18, 2016)

OK I understand now. I can try that too. What do you look for to avoid that? Or is it simply working outside the optimized window of that lens+camera combo?


----------



## dxqcanada (Jul 18, 2016)

If your Camera+Lens is front focusing heavily, then much you can do except go MF ... or get a better lens or a camera that has micro-adjustment.


----------



## rbbecker (Jul 18, 2016)

OK so maybe I'm not as camera savvy as I thought but what specs on a lens other than price point would I look for to improve on this type of shot?


----------



## dxqcanada (Jul 18, 2016)

Well, maybe you should try to work with what you got first ... unless you got a lot of cash to spend on this.


----------



## Solarflare (Jul 19, 2016)

Sources of softness (with no guarantee of completeness):

- *Wrong focus*: Something else than the intended subject is in focus. Fix: Choose the correct focus.

- *Insufficient Depth of Field* (DOF): only part of the subject is in focus (important for example for group shots). Fix: Stop down the aperture.

- *Blurr through camera shake*: Directional general softness of the image. Fix: faster shutter speeds or more stable camera (for example mounted on tripod) needed.

- *Blurr through subject movement*: Directional softness of the subject. Fix: faster shutter speeds and/or panning.

- *Low light / high ISO*: Sensors will produce increasingly bad signal to noise ratios the higher the ISO used, causing reduction of resolution and thus less sharpness.

- *Diffraction*: At a certain point, lenses too brutally stopped down will turn soft. This is a law of physics and unavoidable. The exact point depends upon pixel size. For an APS-C sized sensor around 20 Megapixels, it is at about f/5.6. Fix: open the aperture more.

- *Lens softnes*s: Especially wide open lenses tend to be soft, especially in the corners. Fix: choose a higher quality lens or stop the lens 1-2 stops down from maximal opened aperture. So thats f/8 for a f/3.5-5.6 zoom.

=> The issue here is clearly the diffraction from the massively stopped down aperture at f/20, possibly also camera shake at only 1/60 sec for a 80mm focal length (rule of thumb: shutter speed should be equal or faster 1/focal length in seconds).

Wrong focus cannot be the issue because the softness is very even over the whole image, also its quite hard to get anything NOT in focus at f/20.


----------



## Overread (Jul 19, 2016)

Few thoughts

f20 - this is a very small aperture and you will get diffraction softening as a result. Generally speaking most lenses get sharper from wide open (smallest f number/biggest aperture) to around f8 or so and then from then on get softer. In general there is variation and its important to note that whilst there will be a peek sharpness point along the aperture scale this doesn't invalidate other apertures. Indeed up to around f13 can still be plenty sharp enough for many uses; though beyond that the sharpness does quickly degrade.

1/60sec might be fine for handholding; but mix in the rock and roll of a boat and you've got considerable chance for more blur because of the added motion - even with IS helping.  A faster shutter speed or a more stable setup would be the ideal solutions to that problem.

Depth of field wise you might want to read up about hyperfocal focusing; although more tricky on DSLR lenses than on older film lenses it can still be done and would replace the need for using tiny apertures such as f20


----------



## fmw (Jul 19, 2016)

Next time you shoot it take a tripod along with you.


----------



## john.margetts (Jul 19, 2016)

f/8 at 1/250 would give you the same exposure, good DOF and no camera shake. As you were on a boat, f/5.6 at 1/500 would have, perhaps, been better (everything is a compromise to a large extent).


----------



## robbins.photo (Jul 19, 2016)

rbbecker said:


> Hi dxq, yes that photo was handheld.... from a boat.



My guess would be this had a great deal to do with it.  A boat is not exactly a stable platform to shoot from, unless it's a really, really, really big boat which are normally called ships rather than boats.

Normally when your standing on a stable platform you want to have a shutter speed that's at least equal to the focal length of the lens.  In this particular case though, since your not standing on a stable platform, I'd recommend upping that considerably, to say 3x the focal length.. so in this case I'd try shooting this at 1/200 or somewhere in that neighborhood.

A tripod probably wouldn't make much difference in this regard, since the platform you'll be using it on (a boat) will be moving the whole time and as such it won't do much to eliminate the camera's motion/camera shake.

The second issue that might be coming into play is the focus point your camera is choosing.  The camera will choose what it considers to be the "best" focal point from a group of focal points unless you tell it otherwise.

As mentioned previously it is possible that the camera/lens combo is front focusing, but unless your seeing this effect on other photos my guess is the most likely culprit here is that the camera chose the dock as it's point of focus rather than the lighthouse.  To prevent this you can reduce the number of focal points the camera has to choose from so that you can control the point of focus.

Also as mentioned previously I'd recommend increasing the aperture to say F11 to avoid diffraction.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Jul 19, 2016)

Sorry, but you will never get a tack sharp image at 1/60 on a boat.
Also, in compositions like this one, try focusing about 1/3 into the frame to get an acceptable amount of focus throughout.


----------



## donny1963 (Jul 19, 2016)

rbbecker said:


> Hi All,
> 
> New member here and would call myself an intermediate photographer. I know a fair amount but am (and will always) be learning.
> 
> ...



there is a couple of problems that is going to prevent you from getting that lighthouse sharp as you intended, first and most important did you use spot metering ? if so did you focus on the lighthouse or the horizon?

The big major problem is, the 18-55 lens is a kit lens and  kit lenses are very cheap lens and you get what you pay for in that aspect.
the 18-55 is not a very good lens for that type of picture to get sharp images like that, especially landscape pictures from a far distance.

As far as sharpness goes in images your lens is what is gets you the quality of your images not the camera , yes some camera's vary in some of it , like what the Megapixels are and the dynamic range capability, but for the most part, the lens is what makes all the difference in the world in quality of your pictures, providing you did everything correctly, a good lens doesn't fix exposure or focus errors.

the other factor is the aperture setting, most lenses has a sweet spot, meaning the best sharpness settings in aperture.
Most lenses start off softer quality at apertures at the lowest number then as you go higher get better, and then has a max where if you go beyond that number the sharpness will start to decline again,  for example lets say your lens starts to get sharp at F4 and better at f7 and F8 then once you get past F11 the quality starts to go down again,

alot of lenses produce it's worst quality at apertures at the aperture you set it at like F20, alot of people think well i want depth of field so if i go at the highest number i can go i'm going to get the best depth of field and everything will be in focus.

that's not true, most of the time you don't even have to go that high with a shot like that, probably F9 or F11 would have been your best bet.
each lens is different tho, so you can't go by one lens and think that will work for all of them.

there is a website call DXOMARK DxOMark by DxO | DxOMark which allows you to put in your camera and lens you have and you can see the specs on it and what settings of your lens gives you the best sharpness, lets say your 18-55 gives you the sharpest picture at focal length of 35mm at aperture F5.6 to F8,
it will show you on a square where the green is being the sharpest  and where the yellow and red is, so you can see where your best and worst settings would be..

This is a great place to go, because you can see exactly what settings to stay away from or be at for your best quality for each and every lens and camera, you can even see what lenses works best with the camera you have. and also see what camera works best with your fav lens you have now.

i think these are the reasons your lighthouse is not as sharp as you expected, and also landscape pictures are very demanding on equipment for high quality.

because of dynamic range and all of that.. the further away you are from what your shooting the worst the images is going to be when you zoom in..

the Canon 70D is a good camera if all you can budget is a APS-C  Camera,  Now Full Frame Camera's tend to do better quality when it comes to shots like that one your in question with.  Because of the higher dynamic range and all that stuff and also because you can use better lenses on the full frame Camera's  Now i'm not 100% sure about Canon, but with Nikon you can use FX (full frame) lenses on some of the APSC camera's , but i believe you can't do that with Canon Camera's , i'm not 100% sure on that, but i could be wrong on that, but i know with Nikon you can.

But using Full Frame Lenses on a APS-C camera is not always the best way to go, for one thing your getting different specs of that lens then you would on a APS-C vs the Full frame camera,  for instance, if you put a 24-70 2.8 FX lens on a Canon 70D which is a crop factor of 1.6 you would be getting a
38-112 F4.4   lens , because of the crop factor so you would not get the same wide angle but would get more zoom , and your aperture would be starting at 4.4 instead of 2.8.   basically the image you would be capturing would be most of the center of the lens.

it's not really ideal to put FX lenses on a APS-C camera, that's why they make APS-C lenses.

i use a Nikon D810 that is a full frame Camera, and the 3 holy trinity i call it, for lenses are the 10-24 wide,  24-70  and the 70-200 these are the lenses i use the most especially weddings,

i use the 10-24 for taking group shots of like 10 people in a frame, that lens works great.

Any way,  if your going to be serious about landscape photography, what i believe and from what i experience and my research, is that Nikon is a slightly better camera for landscape, because Nikon offers better dynamic range quality and better color tones, and usually more Megapixels and noise control.

when it comes to landscape,  on the other hand when it comes to portrait photography, Canon has a slight edge over Nikon for a couple reason, #1 one of the best lenses for Portrait is the 70-200 and the versions of that lens for canon mount is better quality then the one for nikon, again DXOMARK website shows that.

The canon version of that lens is all green in sharpness at focal length 170 to 200 range, but the Nikon one is not, its got alot of yellow meaning poorer sharpness.

but any way if your serious and want to invest in a good Full frame camera for landscape i would go with the Nikon D610 that is the cheapest entry level full frame for Nikon and it takes great pictures, and it's 24 MP, the Nikon D810 is 36MP 

Megapixels makes a big difference in quality when doing landscape images and blowing them up / zooming in to the image...

the more MP you have the bigger you can blow up your prints and maintain quality.

that is my belief that Nikon is the better way to go when it comes to landscape, 

now this use to be really more so correct before, because now canon has the 5DS-R camera which is 50 MP  Nikon use to be leading in MP with 36MP canon was only at 24, but now the new canon 5Ds-R is out well that might be a canon you might want to do your landscape photography with but it's expensive.

but the Nikon D610 will do much better landscape images then what your using now and have a better lenses available for it.
but go back out there with what you got and try and focus strait on the lighthouse and use a tripod if your using slower shutter speeds then 100. even at 100 use a tripod, the rule about holding the camera with your hand is your shutter speed should never be lower then what your focal length at the time you take shot, this isn't always true but that is one theory,

meaning if your focused at 50mm you should have your shutter speed at least 50 if holding the camera in your hand, but even then you still can get camera shake,  if your using a shutter speed of like 160 or 200 you should be fine so long as your not using  a 300 mm zoom and set it at 300 mm then you would get camera shake holding it in your hand...

the more you zoom in the more likely you would be in danger of camera shake.. i have never seen camera shake happen using shutter speeds at like 160 using a 24-70 lens before but i'm sure its possible.

the other thing is if your camera has any noise reductions settings you might want to enable them, and if your lens has a switch on it for image stabilization,  Nikon calls it vibration reduction , but it's the same thing.

Also while using a tripod if you don't have a remote shutter to take your picture try using the self timer so you don't have to touch your camera to take the shot to reduce the risk of camera shake..
a good steady tripod goes a long way with shots like that..

Hope this helps.


----------



## Solarflare (Jul 20, 2016)

donny1963 said:


> The big major problem is, the 18-55 lens is a kit lens and  kit lenses are very cheap lens and you get what you pay for in that aspect.


 Canon is an able lens producer. Their kit lens is able to produce very good results if used correctly (stop down to about f/8, avoid the extremes of the focal range).

Even a Sony kitlens - the worst of its kind - will produce much better results than the picture in the OP, if used correctly.





donny1963 said:


> the 18-55 is not a very good lens for that type of picture to get sharp images like that, especially landscape pictures from a far distance.


 Actually kit lenses from able lens producers are already very good for this kind of picture, because one wants to stop lenses down for landscape anyway.





donny1963 said:


> Now Full Frame Camera's tend to do better quality when it comes to shots like that one your in question with.


 Again not an issue. APS-C can produce excellent results when used at base ISO, which is common with landscape. Full Frame mostly gives access to better lenses (or using the good lenses in the enviroment they've been designed for) and a small extra boost.

Your DxOMark for example claims the D7200 (current APS-C) has better dynamic range than my D750 (current full frame).





donny1963 said:


> Because of the higher dynamic range and all that stuff and also because you can use better lenses on the full frame Camera's  Now i'm not 100% sure about Canon, but with Nikon you can use FX (full frame) lenses on some of the APSC camera's , but i believe you can't do that with Canon Camera's , i'm not 100% sure on that, but i could be wrong on that, but i know with Nikon you can.


 Wrong. You always can use full frame lenses with half frame cameras, no matter what lens and no matter what camera, no matter if its Nikon F or Canon EOS or Pentax K mount.

The only issue is that with Canon, you cannot use half frame lenses with full frame cameras. Thats because EF-S lenses reach further into the camera body than EF lenses and would thus smash the mirror of a full frame camera. Therefore Canon made it impossible to mount EF-S lenses on full frame bodies.





donny1963 said:


> [...] Nikon is a slightly better camera for landscape, [...]


 I recomment against taking sides in the eternal battle Canon vs Nikon, plus your opinions are all highly questionable to begin with.


----------



## john.margetts (Jul 20, 2016)

Solar flare, I don't think the reason that Canon made the EF-S mount different to the EF mount was to prevent mirror damage - my EF-S lenses (I have three) do not protrude further from the mount than my EF lenses. I rather think they were concerned about the massive vignetting that would result from using an EF-S lens on full frame cameras.

Rather brave of you to correct Donny's errors - he would do well to control the stream of consciousness when he types.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 20, 2016)

Can you stop using the term "Half Frame", please?


----------



## john.margetts (Jul 20, 2016)

What's wrong with 'half frame'? It might not be mathematically correct but is more 'correct' than 'crop sensor' as nothing has been produced to crop or 'aps-c' which refers to a defunct film format.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Jul 20, 2016)

2/3 Frame would be more accurate if you want to use a fraction. Just sayin'

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Solarflare (Jul 20, 2016)

HughGuessWho said:


> 2/3 Frame would be more accurate if you want to use a fraction. Just sayin'


 You're wrong.

The crucial measurement is the AREA of the sensor, not the length of either of the axes.

And thats less than half for APS-C, compared to 35mm film.

According to Wikipedia:

APS-C:
Dimensions: 23.6 x 15.6 mm
Image Circle Diameter: 28.29 mm
Area: 368.16 mm^2

35mm Film:
Dimensions: 36 x 24 mm
Image Circle Diameter: 43.2666 mm
Area: 864 mm^2

So the term "half format" is actually generous.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 20, 2016)

It's not a common term and using it so interchangeably is a bit confusing.  A Crop Sensor or APS-C is the commonly used term so everyone will know what everyone else is talking about.

Full Frame ALSO refers to a defunct film format -- so that point is pretty moot.  Crop can refer to any sensor smaller than a Full Frame, but 9.9:10 we are talking about a 1.5-1.6x crop.

When you say half frame, do we mean half the sensor area--therefore something larger than APC-S (since APC-S is 43% smaller)--or half the image, like a 4/3" sensor (since the resulting image, all things being equal, should produce 2:1 a picture of a FF)?


----------



## Braineack (Jul 20, 2016)

When I googled "half frame sensor" the first [and pretty much only] thing that came up was a Ken Rockwell rant.

/argument.


----------



## Solarflare (Jul 20, 2016)

That might or might not be be where I heard it first.

Anyway - if you cut a 36x24mm sensor in half, then shorten the resulting two pieces until they are 2:3 aspect ratio again, you end up with two 24x16mm sensors -> thats why its "half frame".


----------



## table1349 (Jul 20, 2016)

Now that sounds like Ken Rockwell math.


----------



## Overread (Jul 20, 2016)

john.margetts said:


> Solar flare, I don't think the reason that Canon made the EF-S mount different to the EF mount was to prevent mirror damage - my EF-S lenses (I have three) do not protrude further from the mount than my EF lenses. I rather think they were concerned about the massive vignetting that would result from using an EF-S lens on full frame cameras.



The EF-S mount does mean that the distance from the rear element to the sensor can be smaller because the mirror inside the camera is proportionally smaller as a result of the smaller sensor. As a result of this effect some, but not all, EF-S lenses will protrude further into the camera body and as such if you were to modify them they would cause the mirror to hit them; generally damaging the mirror assembly. 

As a result those who mod lenses to fit EFs onto EF mounts or who use 3rd party (3rd party generally only use the EF mount even on crop sensor lenses) have to research to see if its possible or not (or risk damage with their own tests).



I would also advise that we stick to the name "crop sensor" because when referring to Canon, Nikon,  Sony, Pentax and most other brands its an applicable term that fits to cover the fact that each of those camera brands uses a slightly different size of sensor. They also all use 35mm as their standard "fullframe" in both their marketing and in general conversation. 
Such terms might not be strictly true always (one can argue that nothing is cropped or that the 35mm isn't a godly perfect sensor size etc...) but they are sufficient enough to be understood by most from beginner to experienced and thus form easy to use terminology in conversing.


----------



## gckless (Jul 21, 2016)

It's crop sensor, or APS-C. The industry uses it, it's de facto nomenclature. Whether it's de jure or not isn't really the question.

Aaaaaanyway, back to OP. I'd start with getting well above 1/60 shutter speed at that length, especially on a boat. I think if you start there, you'll see noticeable differences. Change one thing at a time, you'll learn best that way. Go out and play around with that, then move on to the next suggestion here. Or choose something else to change first.


----------



## DScience (Jul 21, 2016)

Based on the photo, focal length of 51mm and shutter of 1/60th, on a boat, i'm guessing the lack of sharpness is camera movement.


----------



## Solarflare (Jul 22, 2016)

I think its well established now that it was (a) diffraction from stopping down brutally to f/20 plus (b) camera movement from a somewhat slow shutterspeed.


----------



## donny1963 (Aug 28, 2016)

Solarflare said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > The big major problem is, the 18-55 lens is a kit lens and  kit lenses are very cheap lens and you get what you pay for in that aspect.
> ...



Not really questionable at all,   and about what i said on Kit lenses , i never said you can't do landscape with Kit lenses, i just said kit lenses are not all that good quality vs good prime lenses or  higher quality lenses like the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II,






Or even the  Nikon 24mm f/3.5D PC-E






A Kit lens cannot compete to top quality lenses, for instance there is a reason the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II, sells for $2,000.00 vs
a 18-55 kit lens selling for $150.00 and it's not just the sharpness either, these top quality lenses have
complex optical designs, professional lenses are optimized to provide very high image quality, with sharp center to corner resolution.

Special attention is given to reduce various optical problems and aberrations such as distortion, chromatic aberration and vignetting.

professional lenses also yield superb colors, again, thanks to advanced optical designs and coatings.

in addition to the differences in optical design, there are also big differences in the type of lens elements used within lenses.

Aspherical, Extra-low dispersion and Fluorite lens elements cost a lot more to make than regular ones, so you will see many more of those types of elements used in professional lenses. 

In addition, professional lenses are often made with special coating such as Nikon’s Super Integrated Coating (SIC) and Nano Crystal Coat, 
which dramatically decrease internal reflections,
improve sharpness, contrast, colors and reduce ghosting and flare.

So you can't say that one should expect a kit lens to compete with the professional type lenses.. that is silly..

And on top of that you state my opinions are questionable?  After stating that a kit lens is fine when comparing to a professional lens?

Surly You Jest.....


----------



## donny1963 (Aug 28, 2016)

Oh and by the way if you want to continue to argue with me about that, here is a video on how even just a simple 500mm prime lese is made By Canon
never mind a complex top quality lens.






And here is an amazing lense apeture .95


----------



## fmw (Aug 28, 2016)

If it is of any interest, there were 1/2 frame film cameras.  Minox is an example.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 28, 2016)

fmw said:


> If it is of any interest, there were 1/2 frame film cameras.  Minox is an example.


Did they?  I know the "traditional" Minox B and Riga were more like <1/3 frame and they dabbled in 35 and 110 for a while.  Olympus made some really nice PEN 1/2 frames....


----------



## rbbecker (Aug 29, 2016)

donny1963 said:
			
		

> Not really questionable at all,   and about what i said on Kit lenses , i never said you can't do landscape with Kit lenses, i just said kit lenses are not all that good quality vs good prime lenses or  higher quality lenses like the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II



The post was never in comparison to "professional" lenses or full frame cameras. If I'm using a APSC camera and a kit lens, I obviously don't have the budget or interest in a several thousand dollar set-up. That said, I would have appreciated a response providing help in using my own equipment as opposed to a defense of your pride being hurt. The photos you shared are beautiful, but taken with equipment I'm not interested in buying right now.

Lastly, one manufacturer's ability to mass produce something does not necessarily determine quality. I have never heard of Voigtlander and so would be surprised if they are at all comparable in size to Canon.


----------



## donny1963 (Aug 30, 2016)

rbbecker said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I never assumed that you did have a budget for that type of equipment, was just saying what is ideal for highest quality, that's all, lots of people use kit lenses to do what ever it is they wish to accomplish, which is fine, i see no problem in that at all, in fact kit lenses is probably a good choice to start off with,  I've seen many nice images done with kit lenses.. In fact i use to use them..

APS-C camera's are not bad at all, i never said that, in fact i use them quite a bit, they tend to me smaller and easy to handle..
And Nikon and Canon Makes beautiful APS-C lenses , great lenses are not just for Full frame, They are for APS-C camera's too, for instance the 
Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art Lens for Canon is one of the best lenses for APS-C camera's.
 This is considered to be a professional lens.
Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art Lens for Canon 210-101 B&H Photo

And people always asked me "Can you do Weddings with APS-C camera's?"  and the answer is , yes you can, in fact many professional photographers use them, i have used them before and they turn out great images if you use the right lenses for it.. the  Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art Lens  is one of them.
The  Tamron SP AF 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 DI II for Nikon is a great ultra wide angle lens, great for taking group shots in weddings..
i find the one of the best APS-C Nikon Camera's for weddings is, the Nikon D7000 series,  I have a D7100 and shot many weddings with it.
For high-end weddings , charging $2,000.00 and up, I use the Hasselblad, which is med format and produces Amazing pictures, and I never have a problem with  not having enough light, Ever, Even inside the Church..  
But that's because that camera's Sensor is 3 times the size as a full frame camera, and so i can get bright fully exposed images with a 3.5 lens 
i only got 1 lens for it right now  Hasselblad HCD 35-90mm f/4-5.6 Lens, which i got when i bought my hasselblad Camera i finance it of course making payments every month,  it starts at aperture F4 but it's like a 1.8 or 2.0 on a full frame.. Because of the sensor size..


----------



## john.margetts (Aug 30, 2016)

rbbecker said:


> Lastly, one manufacturer's ability to mass produce something does not necessarily determine quality. I have never heard of Voigtlander and so would be surprised if they are at all comparable in size to Canon.


Voigtlander made the first ever camera lens a very long time ago. They were German and excellent. The name is now owned by Cosina who mostly make cameras and lenses for the big names (including Canon!). They are both very large and very excellent.


----------



## gsgary (Aug 30, 2016)

rbbecker said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You must be very new to photography if you have never heard of Voigtlander, here's a shot with a 40mmF1.4 M mount (Leica fit) on a Sony A7
Handheld





and here's a crop of above photo






Better than most of the Canon L lenses i used to have


----------

