# Truth about lenses any lens



## donny1963 (Dec 21, 2019)

*Truth about lenses any lens*

Ok i saw this video that Ken put out and he hit the nail on the head about lenses, i always
knew this and i can't agree with more..
Want to know the truth about lenses watch this..


It's like this there is always a sweet spot to where you focus your lens, just like every lens has a Aperture Sweet Spot where it captures it's sharpest..
This is why some times when some one uses a specific lens does portraits and wonders why one picture is not quite as sharp as another, 

and many times it's due to where it was very sharp you had your lens at it's sweet spot and the other picture that was not so hot, is because it was NOT at it's sweet spot..


----------



## Derrel (Dec 22, 2019)

.!!


----------



## Jeff15 (Dec 22, 2019)

There are many experts.....?????>>>>>


----------



## petrochemist (Dec 22, 2019)

Jeff15 said:


> There are many experts.....?????>>>>>


All his videos I've started watching have been so full of BS that I now click away from any links as soon as I recognise him.

Fortunately this time I didn't even have to click Donny's link to know it wasn't worth the effort.

Yes lenses are often optimised for a specific role, and will not be as good when used for situations far from that role - using normal lenses for extreme macro is such an example. 
Less extreme cases rarely make any significant difference. Macro lenses can be good for portraiture (if sharp images are wanted), and portrait lenses can work well for landscapes when the focal length fits the desired FOV.


----------



## Braineack (Dec 22, 2019)

Why can't this guy light his videos worth sh*t?

Why do always post this guy like we care?

Why don't you understand the definition of truth?


----------



## Designer (Dec 22, 2019)

Who all watched the video?

I did.


----------



## Braineack (Dec 22, 2019)

I'm sorry


----------



## Derrel (Dec 22, 2019)

Gasbag or legit source of hot air? Disclaimer :The above photo was made with a lens.


----------



## tirediron (Dec 22, 2019)

Someone owes me 13:40 of my life back!   It's difficult to imagine how evolution was able to cram that much stupid in one head!


----------



## Braineack (Dec 22, 2019)

I'm still trying to figure out the point of his video.


----------



## Designer (Dec 22, 2019)

Braineack said:


> I'm still trying to figure out the point of his video.


His point was that lens manufacturers "stretch"  "embellish"  (falsify) the usable focal length of zooms for marketing purposes.  People then purchase these lenses and find that the image quality suffers at the extreme ends of the zoom range, with distortion, a lack of sharpness, and vignetting.

A similar practice is done with the stated apertures of prime lenses.  Manufacturers claim a certain wide aperture, when the lens actually works better at a somewhat reduced aperture.  It's not as if you have not heard this before.

The "measure-baters" see the loss of performance in the edges and corners, and heap heavy criticism on the lens because they expected the lens to perform flawlessly at the closest and farthest extent of the zoom range, all the way out to the edges with sharp focus, no distortion, and no vignetting.

So even though lenses usually perform quite well when not pushed to their extremes, the marketing division wins when writing the specifications.  Quite simply, they sell more lenses that way.  Think that is dishonest?  Some people think it is a dishonest way to promote sales.

I think that since we know this, we can usually adjust by not expecting a zoom to be without distortion/vignetting, and a prime lens to be sharper and with better contrast when slightly stopped down.

I understand some people don't like the presenter (for various reasons) but this video had a very simple message that even I could understand.


----------



## limr (Dec 22, 2019)

I'm still trying to figure out why y'all even bother with these threads.


----------



## tirediron (Dec 22, 2019)

limr said:


> I'm still trying to figure out why y'all even bother with these threads.


Because my plan was this morning was to sit on the chesterfield and hit myself in the head with a hammer for 15 minutes; I couldn't find my hammer, so this was an effective substitute!


----------



## tirediron (Dec 22, 2019)

Designer said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > I'm still trying to figure out the point of his video.
> ...


His point is to attract viewers to increase revenue.  

That said, his "message" seemed to be that lens manufacturers are somehow "cheating" buyers, or mis-representing their product.  The simple fact is, if you want a lens to work well through a range of X - Y focal length, than you need to build it with a range of X-x - Y+y.  If I want my truck to be able to pull a 10,000 pound trailer all day, under all conditions, I need to design it with surplus capacity, so I build it to tow 15,000 pounds.  It wouldn't be prudent to do that all the time, but it CAN do it.  Just like the 16-35mm lens can extend to focal lengths of 16 and 35mm.  Is it perfect there?  No, of course not, but it does function.  Are manufacturers doing anything sneaky?  No.  They're simply telling you what the focal length of the lens is.


----------



## Braineack (Dec 22, 2019)

He also makes fun of pixel peepers who care about corner sharpness at the same time...

He also confuses marketing techniques with physical limitations in optics.


----------



## Braineack (Dec 22, 2019)

Designer said:


> I understand some people don't like the presenter (for various reasons) but this video had a very simple message that even I could understand.



I was being fallacious.

This isn't anything new or a secret. And exactly why there are mtf charts, and other review sites that measure zoom lenses at all focal lengths and stops.  But angry adjective, claims they don't.  I specifically look at these charts and measurements.

Even Ken Rockwell does it...

He also acts like these lenses are completely unuseable at these limits, which again is stupid.

Dude just spews trash.  I can't believe you people watch him.

Again, this isn't new, this has been true since the first zoom.  In fact, id argue lens manufacturers have been making huge advancements in this realm. So again, what's his actual point?


----------



## Overread (Dec 22, 2019)

So translation - he bought a lens that he really likes and not everyone else likes it so he spend 13mins pushing his face into a camera mouthing off how everyone who doesn't like the lens he likes is not as smart as him or somesuch. 

I mean its your standard clickbait stuff. Sure zooms are never their best wide open, nor are primes. I mean that's not really much of a debate, this is well known and well documented; it still doesn't mean we can't test and see performance wide open and see how it stands up. 



limr said:


> I'm still trying to figure out why y'all even bother with these threads.



We're bored. We've access to the greatest and biggest information source of human understanding and creativity ever created in the history of mankind and - - we are bored. 

I also blame Tired Iron!


----------



## Braineack (Dec 22, 2019)

I blame Donny for always trying to troll and post this drvel


----------



## tirediron (Dec 22, 2019)

Overread said:


> I also blame Tired Iron!


Oh, 'cause that puts you in an exclusive club!


----------



## Derrel (Dec 22, 2019)

.!! 
 .!!


----------



## tirediron (Dec 22, 2019)

Braineack said:


> I was being fallacious.


Ummm... "facetious" you might have meant?


----------



## Braineack (Dec 22, 2019)

Both work.


----------



## limr (Dec 22, 2019)

Braineack said:


> I blame Donny for always trying to troll and post this drvel



What about all you folks that take the bait every single time?


----------



## Derrel (Dec 22, 2019)

limr said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > I blame Donny for always trying to troll and post this drvel
> ...



.!!!!!!!!
.   !!!!!!!!!


----------



## limr (Dec 22, 2019)

Derrel said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Braineack said:
> ...



Exclamation mark abuse.


----------



## Sharpshooterr (Dec 22, 2019)

It looks to me that what all forums really need to doing is to be educating those that don’t know much about lenses or photography.
If instead of learning forum rules and risking getting kicked off  by telling people the have crappy cameras, all beginners and many advanced just need to be taught how to thoroughly read an MTF chart.
An MTF chart will tell you EVERYTHING you need to know about a lens without even trying it or even reading a review.
I realize not all companies will publish an MTF. Boycott those companies until they do, and if they won’t, give your business to those that will.
For a zoom, price alone can almost be an accurate guide. A zoom that has a 2:1 ratio at $10K  is gonna be really good! $300 zooms have ratios of 11:1
$300 lenses have a place for a lot of people, nothing wrong with that if it’s all they need. At $300 they are wonderful Facebook and Instagram lenses, they’re all that might be  needed.
People aren’t necessarily being deceived by marketing, they are just deceiving themselves with what they are getting for $300!!!
No, I didn’t watch the video. I very rarely watch opinion videos, let alone clickbait.
SS


----------



## weepete (Dec 22, 2019)

I just had to try and watch the video now....



Nope, despite fast forwarding I still couldn't make it to the end.


----------



## donny1963 (Dec 22, 2019)

what's to figure out "Designer" just stated the point, you don't like the videos don't watch it, but it's not bull this is Total Truth about lenses..

but some here making comments just come to make negative comments,  i guess it because they think they are the only one who posts something good LMAO


----------



## Derrel (Dec 22, 2019)

.!!!!!,?.


----------



## Braineack (Dec 23, 2019)

donny1963 said:


> but some here making comments just come to make negative comments, i guess it because they think they are the only one who posts something good LMAO



Something good?

At the ten second mark, Angry Dude claims he's going to teach us something that "not a single other website or forum" will educates you on.

Well let's take the 24-120mm f/4 mention in the video then.

I'd argue Ken Rockwell is one of the most popular websites for lens information.  On his page for the 24-120, he measures the distortion/vignetting at various focal range, and publishes the MTF charts at 24mm and 120mm.

If that's not enough for you, DXO Mark is another popular website for lens/sensor measurements.  They too have measured the optical performance of the 24-120mm.  Here in there interactive chart, you can select various focal length and apertures of the lens and view the results of sharpness, transmission, distortion, vignetting, and CA.

Still not enough?  Photographylife.com also reviewed the lens, here I can see easy-to-read sharpness charts at various focal lengths and apertures by center/mid/corner.  They also too measure the vignetting and distortion as well at the various focal lengths too. 

In this review they even note:



> And 120mm is definitely the weakest point of the 24-120mm f/4G VR. We see a pretty visible overall drop of sharpness across the frame, with wide open performance looking the worst. Sadly, even stopping down to f/8 does not do much to improve its extreme corners.



Wow.  I thought not a single other website or forum would educate me on this???

Angry Dude isn't being very truthful here...

He then rambles for 13 minutes, ultimately concluding that physical challenges/compromises in optic designs is a marketing technique, at the same time calls pixel peepers who complain about optics at the extreme focal ranges of zoom lenses unintelligent.

Then you come here and give a summary of the video, and write about _focusing your lens a_nd there's a sweet spot for the _focus_.  So for any of us who didn't watch the video were completely mislead by your inability to comprehend the video and rehash it here.

So posting a video with little-to-no education or factual content [as well as production value], on a subject that's already well covered, and then mischaracterizing it here is "something good?"


----------



## Derrel (Dec 23, 2019)

Braineack said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > but some here making comments just come to make negative comments, i guess it because they think they are the only one who posts something good LMAO
> ...



Touche. Or as the kids say today, "burn".


----------



## Eric Uberseder (Dec 23, 2019)

These people lose me right away when they start talking about other stuff, like this guy with his hot rad car(does anyone call it that any more anyhow).  They have to stay on the subject for me to be willing to follow along.


----------



## Braineack (Dec 23, 2019)

Eric Uberseder said:


> They have to stay on the subject for me to be willing to follow along.



You should read his book on Magnets and learn why everyone else is wrong about them.


----------



## zombiesniper (Dec 23, 2019)

Ken Whee......er I mean Thea Angry Photographer is the photography worlds version of a conspiracy theorist. Only he can manage to figure out "X". What a pile.

Do zoom lenses have a "Sweet Spot/range"? Sure they do. Why? Nobody wants to pay $200K for an 18-500mm f2.8 lens. Heck even if they did the next complaint would be that it weighs 175lbs.

If you pay $100 for a lens, don't expect 10k worth of performance. That's just ridiculous. Even the expensive lenses aren't perfectly sharp without imperfections.
Expectations have to be based on the reality of the workmanship and cost of a given lens.



In short. Trolls are being trolls. Nothing left to see here.


----------



## tirediron (Dec 23, 2019)

zombiesniper said:


> ...In short. Trolls are being trolls. Nothing left to see here.


I dunno dude... we've got almost four pages of "nothing" here so far!


----------



## Sharpshooterr (Dec 23, 2019)

zombiesniper said:


> Only he can manage to figure out "X".



Are you sure he’s figuring out X?
I think he’s just taking the Y, scratching it out and writing in an X!!! LoL 
But we need to cut it out, it’s pretty obvious he has a loyal following here. Don’t wanna make’m feel bad and drive them into the closet. After all, being a conspiracy theorists is in right now, we’ve even got on in the ....., nevermind!!!


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Dec 23, 2019)

Well this is the absolute truth and you'll only hear it here, this is the only place you'll complete your essential education about bread. It's like driving a hot-rod, it's great for shortbread but not for longer loaves... It's like camera lenses they add extra bits on them for marketing, the crusts are only there to make your sandwich look bigger... And the measure-bakers can't see the loaf for the slices... They look at the corners and say look "no ham!", or "no cheese!"... They don't know that the crust is just marketing, kneeding the dough, pushing the crumb... The best bit of your sandwich is the middle...

I was told this by some alien who abducted me. It wasn't his first abduction as he'd previously abducted a week old British Rail Ham Sandwich that he mistook for intelligent life on an earlier visit, (_to be fair it was actually showing more life than the British Rail Guard and so was an understandable mistake_...). Anyway they did all sorts of advanced experiments on the sandwich and determined it was all a marketing ploy. I suggested that they could just make the bread any size they wanted anyway, but he said that it just showed how backwards our species was if we didn't yet understand the finer points of marketing strategy and how it was manipulating our perceptions...

Personally I thought he/she/cephlapod was out to lunch and enquired if they could find their own way home or if I should call a cab...


----------



## Derrel (Dec 23, 2019)

It is amazing how Angry Dude is the only photographer on the whole internet who gives us such valuable insight. He covers things that no one else in the world is aware of. He is indeed a National Treasure. Insight and incredible intelligence drips from his many tattoos. He owns a couple of Alien Bee lights , so he must also be a lighting genius. He pronounces the word Nikkor in the British way,so you know he's really smart.


----------



## TWX (Dec 23, 2019)

Tim Tucker 2 said:


> Well this is the absolute truth and you'll only hear it here, this is the only place you'll complete your essential education about bread. It's like driving a hot-rod, it's great for shortbread but not for longer loaves... It's like camera lenses they add extra bits on them for marketing, the crusts are only there to make your sandwich look bigger... And the measure-bakers can't see the loaf for the slices... They look at the corners and say look "no ham!", or "no cheese!"... They don't know that the crust is just marketing, kneeding the dough, pushing the crumb... The best bit of your sandwich is the middle...
> 
> I was told this by some alien who abducted me. It wasn't his first abduction as he'd previously abducted a week old British Rail Ham Sandwich that he mistook for intelligent life on an earlier visit, (_to be fair it was actually showing more life than the British Rail Guard and so was an understandable mistake_...). Anyway they did all sorts of advanced experiments on the sandwich and determined it was all a marketing ploy. I suggested that they could just make the bread any size they wanted anyway, but he said that it just showed how backwards our species was if we didn't yet understand the finer points of marketing strategy and how it was manipulating our perceptions...
> 
> Personally I thought he/she/cephlapod was out to lunch and enquired if they could find their own way home or if I should call a cab...


I'm sorry, but after the fifth nested metaphor I got confused.


----------



## Soocom1 (Dec 24, 2019)

uh boy. 

Just one observation to make here. 


They are called books.  They are made out of wood pulp typically and have lots of ink (black wet stuff that drys quickly) that leaves behind little impressions of something called letters. 
those are put together to form things called words.  And, amazingly, some also contain hororr: aghast) drawings, diagrams and even PHOTOGRAPHS! 

Imagine that. 

See: 
https://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Opt...truction+design&qid=1577200689&s=books&sr=1-1

Now granted the cost is a bit high, but I am sure a used book, (yes they sell those in something called a BOOK STORE) you might find some that are say $5 or $10 or the equivalent in your local currency, and it will hopefully educate you on the ins and outs of (again, dare I say it..)   REAL INFORMATION ABOUT A SUBJECT!  

Sorry. didn't mean to yell a lot. 

Then, once you have enlightened yourself, compare THAT information against Mr. Angry Photographer, and then tell me about this little secret he holds. 

Sorry. I dont mean to offend anyone who doesnt know what a book is. 
my bad.


----------



## Braineack (Dec 24, 2019)

Speaking of books. There are also these books:

https://www.amazon.com/Uncovering-M...wheeler&qid=1577201428&s=audible&sr=8-1-fkmr1

*Uncovering the Missing Secrets of Magnetism: Exploring the nature of Magnetism, with regards to the true model of atomic geometry and field mechanics by means of rational physics & logic*
by Ken Wheeler

Here are some of his reviews:



> I wish I could give this a rating of zero. I looked through the book and could not believe this garbage. The author is completely full of them self, and so far off their rocker with the workings of the real world that my head started to spin. I believe that predictable results that are repeatable speak to the correctness of a theory. Not every theory is complete or perfect as it is a model to describe the observable aspects of the physical, and that is only what we are capable of producing. The content of this book doesn't even begin to head in the direction of giving you something you can use to predict the behavior of a system. It is laughable this passes as a "book" of higher learning, at best. This is just downright sad. What is happening to our education system?





> Don't be fooled by his many words, strung together to make you think he's smart. There is nothing here. There is no science, there is not rigour, there is no testing, no peer review. Nothing. Notta. Anyone who has a college degree and a small understanding of electromagnetic can see through every word of this cauldron of word words. It's not even a slightly coherent theory or book.





> Contains lots of wrong information. That's waste of time. Author does not have any background in physics





> I read 10% of the book but I couldn't go on. If you like continuous sarcasm like a U.S. President I'm aware of, perhaps you'd like this book. I thought it was nonsense. Do a search on the word "Ether" in the book and note the author mentions it 400 times. Frankly, that's 399 too many. The grammar is poor and the principles are archaic. The author will consider me a fool also because I've never observed an electron but I believe in the physics that powers my TV and not Ether.





> Working/teaching in this field for over 30 years. I am published, I have worked for three government entities, two universities and can't believe what I am reading here.
> 
> If I could give this book a ZERO rating, I would. Its complete nonsense, and very little information is factual. Most of its content is false theory's and explanations are not factual but are just opinions. The only secrete is where did you find all this false information?





> Very bad. 0 accuracy. Worse than 9/11.




It seems ANYONE can write a book -- even about things they don't understand.

Angry athimself Guy claims that Einstein was an idiot, and everyone that ever disagrees with his own science is an idiot.  He's a fouled-mouth loon that uses his edgeyness as a crutch to hide his inability.  Everything about him is cringe, but not as much cringe as the people who actually waste their time on him and keep gas in the tank of his red hot Z4.


----------



## Soocom1 (Dec 24, 2019)

No argument about books, but lets consider accolades: 
Lens Design Fundamentals | ScienceDirect

Read his Bio. 
me thinks hes a bit above.


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Dec 24, 2019)

Do you think he knows Nancy Lieder?

Is the Nibiru Cataclysm real, is Zeta Talk just some futuristic social media?

Is magnetism really a vortex or are we stuck in the celestial U-bend of the universe?

Did Ken mistake Nancy's channeling for an orgasm?

Do wind turbines really cause so much cancer that birds litter the ground around them?

Who knows?

Quite frankly all I'm interested in a the mo' is how I'm going to cook Christmas dinner tomorrow and make sure we all have a good time...

See ya' all soon...


----------



## wfooshee (Dec 24, 2019)

Chemtrails, anyone?


----------



## Derrel (Dec 24, 2019)

I like how he says several times in this video, "there is a reason prime lenses exist" . But of course he never does State what that reason is.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 24, 2019)

I heard a rumor that Angry Photographer has an advanced degree in bulljive. Is that true?


----------



## Soocom1 (Dec 26, 2019)

Derrel said:


> I heard a rumor that Angry Photographer has an advanced degree in bulljive. Is that true?


Excramentative jubium extradisum.

Hes a master!


----------



## Braineack (Dec 26, 2019)

ken wheeler on Instagram: “How much ?”

I was trying to find his body of work, his Instagram has nothing but snapshots and advertising, and these gems.

Is he even a photographer?


----------



## Sharpshooterr (Dec 26, 2019)

Come on guys, it’s Christmas, where’s all your good will toward angry men?!?!
It should be quite obvious to anyone smart enough to operate a camera that the Angry Photographer has at least a few anger management issues!!
We should, in the name of holiday spirit, be trying to find him some anger management therapy help....., not trying to PIZZ HIM OFF MORE!!! ☃️
SS


----------



## vintagesnaps (Dec 26, 2019)

How much is it? Have I gotten enough peeps to help put money in my virtual pockets so I can afford to buy it?? 

As Bugs Bunny says, what a maroon.


----------



## phlash46 (Dec 31, 2019)

donny1963 said:


> *Truth about lenses any lens*
> 
> Ok i saw this video that Ken put out and he hit the nail on the head about lenses, i always
> knew this and i can't agree with more..
> ...


Bullwhompy


----------



## Lonnie1212 (Dec 31, 2019)

Hi Donny,

Thank you for sharing this video. I can identify with your opinion about finding the most effective spot or setting on a lens.


----------



## Braineack (Dec 31, 2019)

Lonnie1212 said:


> Hi Donny,
> 
> Thank you for sharing this video. I can identify with your opinion about finding the most effective spot or setting on a lens.




@Lonnie1212 

Wait, you agree that your lenses acheive focus better at particular focal lengths?

Because that's Donny's assessment as written.


----------



## Lonnie1212 (Dec 31, 2019)

Braineack said:


> Lonnie1212 said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Donny,
> ...



Trying to think of how I can answer the question.  Not sure I have the know how or the experience to say for sure.  But I struggle to learn with all of my lenses.  I will give you an example.  A few weeks ago I purchased a Nikon 18-35 lens for my first full frame camera-Nikon D610.  Both the camera and lens are new to me.  Have taken hundreds of pictures over the past two months.  The pictures are better than my DX camera.  But most of the pics are not keepers by any means.  Just learning phase pictures and getting to know the camera and lens.  But a few days ago I haphazardly took a night skyline picture from my apartment window.  It was over the city of Springfield, Illinois.  I eventually downloaded the SD card to my computer.  I sat there and viewed all the photos I had taken.  The skyline picture finally came across the computer screen.  There was something different about the picture that took my breath away.  It was the first picture I have ever taken in my life that actually made my jaw drop.  It's not a pretty picture.  It is a sharp picture.  It is probably the sharpest picture I have ever taken.  It was a night picture, there were city lights, there were brick buildings in the pic.  Everything is unusually sharp and clear in the pic.  What combination of settings or events led to this type of picture?  Could it have been that sweet spot that the guy in the thread mentioned?  I am not sure yet.  But I do want to know.


----------



## Braineack (Dec 31, 2019)

It's hard for me to not take a sharp image on my d610...


----------



## Derrel (Dec 31, 2019)

Well Lonnie I would check the EXIF information, and see what focal length and what aperture and what ISO was used. That should give you a pretty good idea of where your lens is quite good. When I view my images in Lightroom. I have it set to display the focal length, the shutter speed, the ISO, and the aperture. In other words I want to see the exposure data and mentally correlate it with the resulting photo.

When taking star photos or city photos at night ,freedom from coma is particularly valuable in a lens. It just possible that with your 18 to 35 zoom lens you shot at an aperture where the lens is free from coma. Coma often makes a point of light look kind of like a football or an elongated saucer, like a flying saucer. If a lens is well corrected for coma it is therefore especially good for star or night photography where there are light sources.


----------



## Lonnie1212 (Dec 31, 2019)

Derrel said:


> Well Lonnie I would check the EXIF information, and see what focal length and what aperture and what ISO was used. That should give you a pretty good idea of where your lens is quite good. When I view my images in Lightroom. I have it set to display the focal length, the shutter speed, the ISO, and the aperture. In other words I want to see the exposure data and mentally correlate it with the resulting photo.
> 
> When taking star photosor city photos at night ,freedom from coma is particularly valuable in a lens. It just possible that with your 18 to 35 zoom lens you shot at an aperture where the lens is free from coma. Coma often makes a point of light look kind of like a football or an elongated saucer, like a flying saucer. If a lens is well corrected for coma it is therefore especially good for star or night photography where there are light sources.



Will have to remember the coma issue.  Thank you,


----------



## Derrel (Dec 31, 2019)

Freedom from coma is something that was a serious design criteria in the Sigma 50 mm f / 1.4 ART lens. The same was true in Nikon's old 58 mm F/1.2 Noct~Nikkor. Both of these lenses were designed to be shot in situations where their freedom from coma would give the photographer a real advantage. A few years ago I saw a side by side city night scene comparison of the SIgma 50mm 1.4 ART and Canon and Nikon 50 mm f / 1.4 lenses... the Sigma is a huge lens by comparison to either of those normal lenses, and it is more expensive as well, but it is also designed to be free from optical aberration at its widest lens openings. Pretty much the same thing is true of the roughly $4,000 Zeiss Batis.


----------



## Lonnie1212 (Dec 31, 2019)

Derrel said:


> Freedom from coma is something that was a serious design criteria in the Sigma 50 mm f / 1.4 ART lens. The same was true in Nikon's old 58 mm F/1.2 Noct~Nikkor. Both of these lenses were designed to be shot in situations where their freedom from coma would give the photographer a real advantage. A few years ago I saw a side by side city night scene comparison of the SIgma 50mm 1.4 ART and Canon and Nikon 50 mm f / 1.4 lenses... the Sigma is a huge lens by comparison to either of those normal lenses, and it is more expensive as well, but it is also designed to be free from optical aberration at its widest lens openings. Pretty much the same thing is true of the roughly $4,000 Zeiss Batis.



Looked up the Sigma 50 mm ART lens up on eBay.  Found one for $550.00.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 31, 2019)

Lonnie1212 said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Freedom from coma is something that was a serious design criteria in the Sigma 50 mm f / 1.4 ART lens. The same was true in Nikon's old 58 mm F/1.2 Noct~Nikkor. Both of these lenses were designed to be shot in situations where their freedom from coma would give the photographer a real advantage. A few years ago I saw a side by side city night scene comparison of the SIgma 50mm 1.4 ART and Canon and Nikon 50 mm f / 1.4 lenses... the Sigma is a huge lens by comparison to either of those normal lenses, and it is more expensive as well, but it is also designed to be free from optical aberration at its widest lens openings. Pretty much the same thing is true of the roughly $4,000 Zeiss Batis.
> ...



Contrast that with the price of a used Canon EF 50mm f / 1.4 or a Nikon 50 mm / 1.4 AF-D.


----------



## beagle100 (Jan 1, 2020)

Tim Tucker 2 said:


> Well this is the absolute truth and you'll only hear it here, this is the only place you'll complete your essential education about bread. It's like driving a hot-rod, it's great for shortbread but not for longer loaves... It's like camera lenses they add extra bits on them for marketing, the crusts are only there to make your sandwich look bigger... And the measure-bakers can't see the loaf for the slices... They look at the corners and say look "no ham!", or "no cheese!"... They don't know that the crust is just marketing, kneeding the dough, pushing the crumb... The best bit of your sandwich is the middle...
> 
> I was told this by some alien who abducted me. It wasn't his first abduction as he'd previously abducted a week old British Rail Ham Sandwich that he mistook for intelligent life on an earlier visit, (_to be fair it was actually showing more life than the British Rail Guard and so was an understandable mistake_...). Anyway they did all sorts of advanced experiments on the sandwich and determined it was all a marketing ploy. I suggested that they could just make the bread any size they wanted anyway, but he said that it just showed how backwards our species was if we didn't yet understand the finer points of marketing strategy and how it was manipulating our perceptions...
> 
> Personally I thought he/she/cephlapod was out to lunch and enquired if they could find their own way home or if I should call a cab...



Okay ....  good on you mate
*www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*


----------



## Designer (Jan 1, 2020)

Lonnie1212 said:


> There was something different about the picture that took my breath away.  It was the first picture I have ever taken in my life that actually made my jaw drop.  It's not a pretty picture.  It is a sharp picture.  It is probably the sharpest picture I have ever taken.  It was a night picture, there were city lights, there were brick buildings in the pic.  Everything is unusually sharp and clear in the pic.  What combination of settings or events led to this type of picture?



As usual, there may be several factors in play.  Camera stability and atmospheric conditions can affect sharpness quite a lot.  



Lonnie1212 said:


> Could it have been that sweet spot that the guy in the thread mentioned?  I am not sure yet.  But I do want to know.


You have missed the point of the video.  In the video, he was not talking about a "sweet spot", but rather he was talking about the manufacturer's marketing strategies.


----------

