# Cost of High Quality Glass vs. Photos



## Vautrin (Aug 8, 2009)

Hi,

So I'm looking at getting a new lens for my olympus e-510 and i'm a little confused. 

The same lens in terms of focal length and maybe with a slightly different range of f stops can have a huge difference in price.

Zuiko Digital Lenses

A 14-42 mm f3.5-5.6 is $249
a 14-54 mm f2.8-3.5 is $799
A 14-35mm f. 2.0 is $2,299

That's a HUGE difference in price.

So for $2k I could literally buy "standard" quality lenses to cover the range of zoom from 15mm-600mm.

Or I could get one really high cost 14-35mm lens.

So my question is what do I really get for all that extra money?  Is the $799 lens going to be huge difference over teh $249 lens?

Or will it not show up enough in the photos I shoot and I should stick with cheaper glass?

What do people do, how do you best trade off between price and quality?

Thanks,

Dan


----------



## JodieO (Aug 8, 2009)

If you are shooting for fun and not for clients or professionally than by all means, use the cheaper glass.

I would NEVER use cheap glass for my clients.  There is a pretty huge difference in quality in my experience.


----------



## Phranquey (Aug 8, 2009)

Vautrin said:


> Hi,
> 
> So I'm looking at getting a new lens for my olympus e-510 and i'm a little confused.
> 
> ...


 
There is no trade off between price & quality.....if you want quality, you pay the price.

Read through this site. There are many threads about "Do I upgrade my camera or my lens?". The answer is always the lens. Many of today's dslr's, even the lowest end ones, are capable of taking great shots if they have a good piece of glass in front of it, and a good eye behind it.

The grade of lens you purchase is going to depend on what you need it for, how often you really need the quality, and what you are willing to spend. Myself...I don't shoot wide angle much, so I have a cheaper Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6, and it does me just fine for what I need. If I were shooting with it in a lot of indoor low-light situations, I would definitely be upgrading.

I am a Nikon shooter, and have no experience with Olympus lenses... but there is a 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 II for $599 on that site that doesn't look too bad.


----------



## mooimeisie (Aug 8, 2009)

This topic is also a recent conversation I have been having with a friend.  I have come to the conclusion, I would rather save and wait to buy quality than purchase lower price lenses.


----------



## Vautrin (Aug 8, 2009)

JodieO said:


> If you are shooting for fun and not for clients or professionally than by all means, use the cheaper glass.
> 
> I would NEVER use cheap glass for my clients.  There is a pretty huge difference in quality in my experience.



I don't suppose you have examples?  I've tried looking online but I've never really seen a web site which says "OK this is the $200 olympus lens and it took this photo and here's the $2,000 lens and it took this photo" with both taking pictures of hte same scene.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 8, 2009)

Phranquey said:


> Read through this site. There are many threads about "Do I upgrade my camera or my lens?". The answer is always the lens. Many of today's dslr's, even the lowest end ones, are capable of taking great shots if they have a good piece of glass in front of it, and a good eye behind it.


 
No, it's not. Some very few people (myself included) don't ascribe to the "one answer for anything" philosophy, and there are cases when buying a new camera is CRITICAL and the glass is almost a trivial matter.

For example... I was running a D100, and my client DEMANDED higher resolution photos. Did they necessarily need them? Debatable. They wanted them. Rushing out and buying a $1000 lens wasn't going to fix this problem. D300 it is.

That's just one example. I can think of plenty.

In addition, MANY sub-par lenses have sweet spots where you can get some reall good images out of them by just knowing what the strengths and weaknesses of the lense are and taking advantage of them.

One of my best and sharpest images was taken with a REALLY crappy 28-100 3.5/5.6.

There is also an element of learning involved for newer photographers. People, by their nature, learn more rapidly through failure than success. If you give them really good glass, they will fail far less often because it gives them a wider margin of error. Jumping right to a $1500 lens for a new shooter will almost invariably slow their learning curve.

One other thing to keep in mind is most amateurs will not see the difference between a $100 lense and a $1500 one. They will see they can go one or two shutter speeds faster, but that's about it.

Now, am I saying that good glass is unecessary and you should blow it off? ABSOLUTELY NOT. I run a 50mm 1.8, a 80-200 2.8 and my next lense will be the 24-70(ish) 2.8. Good glass is absolutely awesome and should be on everyone's shopping list. The point is that good glass is NOT always the thing you must choose with TODAY's shopping dollars.

Do an analysis of what it is you need now, and spend the money there.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 8, 2009)

Vautrin said:


> JodieO said:
> 
> 
> > If you are shooting for fun and not for clients or professionally than by all means, use the cheaper glass.
> ...


 
Since you asked...

This shot was taken with my piece of crap lense...







Actually, this one was taken with an even worse lense than that one...


----------



## mooimeisie (Aug 8, 2009)

manaheim said:


> Vautrin said:
> 
> 
> > JodieO said:
> ...


 
OK, now that you've shown us the "crap", lets see your good ones.   I guess this really proves, it's not what you've got, but how you use it.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 8, 2009)

Well, I don't want to make this into a Gallery du Russo...   ...and the fact of the matter is that compared to a LOT of photographers, I'm still a rank amateur.  The point is mainly that you can get some really beautiful shots with crap. 

BTW, if you're truly curious you can see my work on my website (link below).

MOST of my shots are taken with either a Sigma 10-20mm (also not a STELLAR lens, but better than most) or my Nikkor 18-200 VR (probably around the par of the 10-20 overall, but you have to know the lense because it has some real pitfalls at certain focal lengths).  There are a few shots up there I took with the Nikkor 80-200 2.8 as well.  The banner image was taken by stitching together shots with the Nikkor 50mm 1.8.


----------



## Vautrin (Aug 8, 2009)

Ok but this just makes me even more confused because images like that make me think I might as well get the cheapest glass out there...  But really I think there's a point of decent quality which is affordable...the question is where?


----------



## Moglex (Aug 8, 2009)

It *is* confusing.

One thing you might like to consider is what you will be mainly using the lens(es) for.

If you spend 90% of your time doing protraits you would certailny be better off splitting your budget so that most is spent on a first class prime for portraits and lesser glass for other focal lengths.

If, on the other hand, you split your subjects across the spectrum you might be better of getting 'OK' glass that will cover the focal lengths you need so that you do not miss shots.

You also need to bear in mind future budget. If you are going to be able to afford more in the future you may well want to lean towards getting the best possible glass for the area you mainly photograph at the moment and wait until funds allow before moving to ther subject fields.

It's never an easy decision.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 8, 2009)

Vautrin said:


> Ok but this just makes me even more confused because images like that make me think I might as well get the cheapest glass out there... But really I think there's a point of decent quality which is affordable...the question is where?


 
heheh, this is an annoying concept, but...

You _can _get good images with sub-par or great glass, but getting great images isn't entirely about the equipment. There's a _lot_ more involved in both. It just so happens that you'll likely be able to get better images with a bit more ease with the better glass. Better tools can have better results, no question... they key is a better tool in the hands of someone who doesn't really know how to use it will generally net only _slightly_ better results.

Ultimately it boils down to budget.  If you can spend thousands of dollars and don't mind doing so, then why bother?  Buy the good stuff.  Just don't feel like you're screwed if you cannot.  You can still get great images with practice, skill and understanding.


----------



## KmH (Aug 8, 2009)

The key to lens pricing is not so much the focal length but that number after the f.

As that number gets smaller the cost goes up, usually so does the quality of the glass itself. Now the focal length does play a part in pricing and it can drive up the price too.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 8, 2009)

WOW... everybody started talking about glass quality when the main difference between the lenses mentioned in your original post is their speed.

A 14-42 mm f3.5-5.6 is $249
a 14-54 mm f2.8-3.5 is $799
A 14-35mm f. 2.0 is $2,299

The cheapest lens is the slowest. The most expensive one is the fastest. Faster lenses are always going to be more expensive.


----------



## Vautrin (Aug 8, 2009)

c.cloudwalker said:


> WOW... everybody started talking about glass quality when the main difference between the lenses mentioned in your original post is their speed.
> 
> A 14-42 mm f3.5-5.6 is $249
> a 14-54 mm f2.8-3.5 is $799
> ...



So if I never shoot at 2.0 and prefer, say landscapes at f11, i should get the cheap one every time?


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 8, 2009)

If you don't need a fast lens, why pay extra for one? I don't know what kind of photos you shoot but don't stop at what you do right now. Is there another type of photography that fascinates you, that you may get into later, that requires a faster lens? If that probability is very small, save your money. And 10 years down the road, if you do need a faster lens, get it then.


----------



## Moglex (Aug 8, 2009)

Vautrin said:


> So if I never shoot at 2.0 and prefer, say landscapes at f11, i should get the cheap one every time?



If you really do always shoot at less than, say, 5.6, then there is not a great deal of point in paying out for a very fast lens as it costs a great deal of money, both in design and manufacturing, to produce such glass.

Do bear in mind what cloudwalker said about what you will be doing further down the line.


Also, remember that there are reviews of just about every lens available somewhere on the 'net so read those avidly.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 8, 2009)

If it helps, here is my buying strategy.

When I photographed for a living every piece of equipment I bought was for a booked job that was going to, at the very least, cover the cost of that new gear and I saw the potential for that gear to be used again and again.

When I left the commercial field and went to art, I never bought a piece of equipment again. I actually sold quite a bit of gear. I'll admit that at that time I had more than enough gear to cover whatever shoot I might want to do.

There were of course a couple exceptions to that. Aren't there always exceptions?

My very first kit. I was going pro and I bought what I decided was the minimum needed to do the job. I also stole my dad's Leica rangefinder (that's Ok, he didn't mind  ...)

Later on, when I went to editorial/commercial photography, I bought 3 strobes while I was still an assistant. I had to make the investment to work on my portfolio.

Now, are you an amateur or a pro? If a pro, follow the above rule and you'll stay financially sound.

If an amateur, well, it depends a lot on your financial situation. But before you spend money on gear that might be better spent on something more important, think hard about whether or not you really need that new gear. For example, you like to do portraits and you only have a 50mm lens. True portraits are a bit more comfortable with, let's say, a 100mm. But do you really need it. No.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Phranquey (Aug 8, 2009)

manaheim said:


> Phranquey said:
> 
> 
> > Read through this site. There are many threads about "Do I upgrade my camera or my lens?". The answer is always the lens. Many of today's dslr's, even the lowest end ones, are capable of taking great shots if they have a good piece of glass in front of it, and a good eye behind it.
> ...


 
You are right.....it is incorrect to say always, so lets say _almost always_. It is beneficial far more often to upgrade the lens rather than the camera.

And, yes, many lower end lenses do have very nice sweet spots. But, if the conditions are not right to hit that sweet spot, and you cannot modify the conditions, you are outta luck. A better (not necessarily the _best_) lens with a wider sweet range, rather than "spot", is going to be far more useful.

To roughly quote Big Mike from a thread a few months ago...We pay 50% for the first 90% of quality, and pay the other 50% for the last 10% of quality.  You decide what you need.


----------



## Aye-non Oh-non Imus (Aug 8, 2009)

I don't like variable apeture on zooms..... period. However, with your list of lenses:

A 14-42 mm f3.5-5.6 is $249
a 14-54 mm f2.8-3.5 is $799
A 14-35mm f. 2.0 is $2,299

... (without researching that particular lens) a constant f/2.0 zoom is almost unheard of, thus the price. The f/3.5-5.6 will be slow and as available light is reduced, so is the ability to get off a decent shot, drastically. The difference from f/3.5 to f/5.6 is 1-1/3 stops, significant. The difference between f/2.8 to f/3.5 is 2/3 stop, much less significant.... plus you get an additional 12mm in focal length. The wide angle lenses will also have a greater DoF by design, which means that at f/2.8 you _should_ still be able to have a decent DoF, which means more useable images as available light falls off. IMO, $800 isn't that much for a good lens. You'll need to do your research for lab results/reviews on the 14-54mm to make sure it fits your needs, but I'm guessing that would be the more attractive lens _for me_.

Welcome to an expensive hobby.


----------



## Moglex (Aug 8, 2009)

Aye-non Oh-non Imus said:


> I don't like variable apeture on zooms.



Surely, if you have a fixed aperture what you really have is a variable aperture limited to the smallest wide open value.

Or is there some clever technique to design them so that they are natuarally that way?


----------



## manaheim (Aug 8, 2009)

c.cloudwalker said:


> WOW... everybody started talking about glass quality when the main difference between the lenses mentioned in your original post is their speed.
> 
> A 14-42 mm f3.5-5.6 is $249
> a 14-54 mm f2.8-3.5 is $799
> ...


 
Speed generally means better lense quality... not necessarily a direct correlation, but speed is usually considered critical and it costs more and requires higher quality components to make it happen... particularly constant speed across the focal range.  Therefore, generally speed also means better optics, better mechanical design, better motion, etc.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 8, 2009)

Phranquey said:


> You are right.....it is incorrect to say always, so lets say _almost always_. It is beneficial far more often to upgrade the lens rather than the camera.
> 
> And, yes, many lower end lenses do have very nice sweet spots. But, if the conditions are not right to hit that sweet spot, and you cannot modify the conditions, you are outta luck. A better (not necessarily the _best_) lens with a wider sweet range, rather than "spot", is going to be far more useful.
> 
> To roughly quote Big Mike from a thread a few months ago...We pay 50% for the first 90% of quality, and pay the other 50% for the last 10% of quality. You decide what you need.


 
Yes, all that is true, but what I'm trying to avoid is people feeling like they have to absolutely go out and buy a $1500 2.8 lens or they are just utterly screwed.

If you spend more, you get better quality stuff, there is no question... but you don't need the top quality stuff to get good shots.

This is the SAME as the stupid D40/D300 style argument.  D300 is a better camera and you get more capability there, and if you can afford it by all means buy it... but that doesn't mean you're have to buy that D300 or be a useless photographer.

aaaaargh... I get so frustrated with these discussions.

I give up.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 8, 2009)

manaheim said:


> c.cloudwalker said:
> 
> 
> > WOW... everybody started talking about glass quality when the main difference between the lenses mentioned in your original post is their speed.
> ...



Absolutely agree with you. But everybody went into discussing quality without mentioning that basic difference: speed, which in this case is the main reason for the price difference.

You could have two 14-42 mm lenses, both variable aperture of f3.5-5.6, and one priced at $250 while the other costs $500. In that case it would have been correct to talk of quality only.

So, I was just pointing out that in the case of this thread, it is only one part of the answer.


----------



## JodieO (Aug 8, 2009)

Vautrin said:


> JodieO said:
> 
> 
> > If you are shooting for fun and not for clients or professionally than by all means, use the cheaper glass.
> ...


 
I don't have any comparison samples, but my entire website is with good quality lenses.  It's going to be hard for you to see the difference on smaller images that are optimized for the web.


----------



## Aye-non Oh-non Imus (Aug 8, 2009)

Moglex said:


> Aye-non Oh-non Imus said:
> 
> 
> > I don't like variable apeture on zooms.
> ...


 

There is a difference between fixed and constant.  There's plenty of information "out there" for you to decipher this for yourself.


----------



## JodieO (Aug 8, 2009)

mooimeisie said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > Vautrin said:
> ...


 
This honestly doesn't show me anything. The only way is going to be accurately showing the same images with both bad and good lenses. When I look at the flowers, I see a cheaper quality lens. It's hard to tell in the first image because it's a very contrasty image. These images are too small to REALLY get the fine details of the difference in lenses... and don't forget, images can be "doctored up" in photoshop. For instance, I coudl take your flower image and really make it pop in PhotoShop and at this smaller resolution, you probably won't be able to tell hugely the difference in the quality of lenses, but at higher rez, absolutely.

I do agree, there are sweet spots in lower quality lenses, but for consistancy in better color and quality, and speed of the lenses, the higher quality lenses are the way to go, hands down.

I'm at the point in my career where I wouldn't touch a cheap lens for clients. Ever. I also wouldn't go less than a D700 or D3 in the Nikon end of things for clients (however, I even just bought my first point and shoot and shared a few images on my blog with it - but it was for family vacation).... but everyone is different.


----------



## Phranquey (Aug 8, 2009)

manaheim said:


> aaaaargh... I get so frustrated with these discussions.
> 
> I give up.


 
Don't do that, it _is_ a good discussion...


----------



## Stosh (Aug 8, 2009)

Vautrin said:


> So if I never shoot at 2.0 and prefer, say landscapes at f11, i should get the cheap one every time?



If you always shoot at f/11 it will be almost impossible to tell the difference in the lenses because diffraction at that aperture will be the biggest reason for image degradation, not quality of glass.  You will however have a brighter viewfinder with the faster glass.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 8, 2009)

Aye-non Oh-non Imus said:


> Moglex said:
> 
> 
> > Aye-non Oh-non Imus said:
> ...



:thumbdown:

There's plenty of info out there about most everything discussed here. So why are we here?


----------



## table1349 (Aug 8, 2009)

These discussions amaze me sometimes.  If you don't understand the difference, usually you don't need the faster glass.  If you do understand the difference and are willing to pay for it then great, and if you aren't willing to pay for it, well that just fine as well.  It comes down to personal choices.


----------



## DWS (Aug 8, 2009)

gryphonslair99 said:


> It comes down to personal choices.


----------



## Garbz (Aug 8, 2009)

JodieO said:


> This honestly doesn't show me anything. The only way is going to be accurately showing the same images with both bad and good lenses. When I look at the flowers, I see a cheaper quality lens. It's hard to tell in the first image because it's a very contrasty image. These images are too small to REALLY get the fine details of the difference in lenses... and don't forget, images can be "doctored up" in photoshop. For instance, I coudl take your flower image and really make it pop in PhotoShop and at this smaller resolution, you probably won't be able to tell hugely the difference in the quality of lenses, but at higher rez, absolutely.
> 
> I do agree, there are sweet spots in lower quality lenses, but for consistancy in better color and quality, and speed of the lenses, the higher quality lenses are the way to go, hands down.
> 
> I'm at the point in my career where I wouldn't touch a cheap lens for clients. Ever. I also wouldn't go less than a D700 or D3 in the Nikon end of things for clients (however, I even just bought my first point and shoot and shared a few images on my blog with it - but it was for family vacation).... but everyone is different.



You've kind of made a good point here. Images can be doctored up. These images were made by cheap lenses but look great. This says a lot. It's not a comparison but it does show that the cost of entry into photography is low and excellent results can be achieved for little money. Is it worth $2000 to save yourself some time carefully sharpening in photoshop? Not to you but to some quite possibly.

It's the economics of the situation. I have a bit of money and I LOVE photography. But really my girlfriend takes fantastic pictures too but her Olympus kit lenses have far higher utility because she doesn't sleep next to her camera.

You mentioned clients. I would like to say no person who seriously has "clients" should consider cheap glass or a solid magnesium alloy body. It's the reliability of it. Once you do it professionally the overriding factor should not be does $2000 lens increase the quality of my image by 1%, it should be does the $2000 lens potentially prevent me from embarrassing reputation ruining equipment failure.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 8, 2009)

JodieO said:


> This honestly doesn't show me anything. The only way is going to be accurately showing the same images with both bad and good lenses. When I look at the flowers, I see a cheaper quality lens. It's hard to tell in the first image because it's a very contrasty image. These images are too small to REALLY get the fine details of the difference in lenses... and don't forget, images can be "doctored up" in photoshop. For instance, I coudl take your flower image and really make it pop in PhotoShop and at this smaller resolution, you probably won't be able to tell hugely the difference in the quality of lenses, but at higher rez, absolutely.
> 
> I do agree, there are sweet spots in lower quality lenses, but for consistancy in better color and quality, and speed of the lenses, the higher quality lenses are the way to go, hands down.
> 
> I'm at the point in my career where I wouldn't touch a cheap lens for clients. Ever. I also wouldn't go less than a D700 or D3 in the Nikon end of things for clients (however, I even just bought my first point and shoot and shared a few images on my blog with it - but it was for family vacation).... but everyone is different.


 
1. As I've said numerous times and various ways, I'm not saying the lenses I was using are a match for higher quality glass.  I'm merely saying that lower quality glass shouldn't necessarily be dismissed out of hand.  It has it's uses, depending on circumstances and needs and experience.

2. You are correct, with images this small it is QUITE hard to tell.  The statues image is a significantly higher quality image... but then, the flower pic was taken nearly 10 years earlier when I had far less clue what I was doing... was taken with a Canon AE1 (vs. the D300 that took the statues), and was scanned from the negative.  At full size, you can tell a significant difference.  That, however, _was not my point_.

3. As I've said about a million times, better equipment is going to give you a higher ceiling on quality, and if you're a pro you're going to be able to tell the difference... but frankly some person wandering in here off the street and ASKING WHAT THEY NEED is going to have quite a bit of time before they're going to be able to take true advantage of that equipment, and frankly quite a bit of time before they will be able to tell the difference.


Again and again and again.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 8, 2009)

Garbz said:


> You've kind of made a good point here. Images can be doctored up. These images were made by cheap lenses but look great. This says a lot. It's not a comparison but it does show that the cost of entry into photography is low and excellent results can be achieved for little money. Is it worth $2000 to save yourself some time carefully sharpening in photoshop? Not to you but to some quite possibly.


 
I don't think that was her point, but I love the way you backhanded it. 

BTW, these images are not doctored. Light sharpening pass, minor color balance adjustments and a touch of contrast. No more than I would do with any image.  Actually, the flowers one wasn't doctored AT ALL... I scanned that years ago and didn't even know how to use photoshop at the time.  It could actually use a bit of help.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 8, 2009)

Always buy the best gear you can afford.  There's not a lot of point in looking at examples of good and bad lenses on-line, since only the most extreme quality issues are going to be clearly visible (other than things such as barrel and pincushion distortion) on all but the best monitors.

Even if you never use the maximum aperture of a lens, the overall results are still going to be better than a cheap lens.  Are they going to be that much better that _you_ can justify the price?  Again, only you can decide.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 9, 2009)

The three lenses the OP mentions are shown here, side by side Zuiko Digital ED 14-35mm F2.0 SWD Review | PhotographyBLOG
in the review of the 14-35mm f/2 lens, which translates roughly to a 28-70mm f/2 on 35mm full-frame sized capture. Given the very small capture size of the 4/3 format, I would think that Olympus pros would like the shallower depth of field effects possible with a highly-corrected f/2 lens shot wide open,or stopped down a bit to f/2.8 to f/3.5.

The 14-35 f/2 weighs just under three pounds. It's positively huge compared with the small,light consumer model,and about 30 percent larger than the mid-level lens. Looking through the review I linked to, what I see from the f/2 model is very good center AND edge sharpness,and a very consistently high-quality optical performance. I also looked on pBase, and I think the way the f/2 lens draws looks very nice. The bokeh also looks pretty good too, in the few natural-world sample photos I looked at.

If you've never owned top-end glass, it's hard to imagine why it costs so much, but given the small capture size of 4/3 and the noise disadvantage it has, I think the two f/2 zooms Olympus has designed *expressly for* their 4/3 cameras is a concession to those who want to absolutely wring every last bit of performance out of a 4/3 camera.

Honestly, if you need this lens, you know you need it,and you know why you need it. If you have to ask about it, you might consider something lighter and smaller than a three-pound, $2,000 lens.


----------



## Moglex (Aug 9, 2009)

Aye-non Oh-non Imus said:


> There's plenty of information "out there" for you to decipher this for yourself.



I'll take that as an 'I don't know'. :mrgreen:


----------



## JerryPH (Aug 9, 2009)

I find a very large difference in between different lenses in the pro class, much less comparing low end consumer glass to pro glass.

You definitely get what you pay for!


----------



## Aye-non Oh-non Imus (Aug 9, 2009)

Moglex said:


> I'll take that as an 'I don't know'. :mrgreen:


Take it in anyway that makes you feel good. As far as Oly gear is concerned, you are correct. As far as lens design is concerned, you are sorely mistaken.

If you haven't the understanding on the difference between fixed, variable and constant apetures, then truely, the information is "out there" for you. I suggest some additional research on your part. My comment "_I don't like variable apeture on zooms_" was from a point of experience, which suits my drothers, style of shooting...... and my wallet.

Now granted, I like to be a smartass as much as the next guy, but I really try to veil my bull$hit so that it's _almost _believable, or at least, makes the person that questions it investigate further to call me on it. Your comment "_Surely, if you have a fixed aperture what you really have is a variable aperture limited to the smallest wide open value"_ is rice paper thin and makes me think that _you_ really haven't thought this through.

Peace.


----------



## JerryPH (Aug 9, 2009)

New forum rules... "bull$hit" and "peace" cannot be in the same post... makes it hard to retort with any great level of passion.  :lmao:


----------



## Aye-non Oh-non Imus (Aug 9, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> New forum rules... "bull$hit" and "peace" cannot be in the same post... makes it hard to retort with any great level of passion. :lmao:


   Go ahead and give it your worst.  Peace was just a signoff for moglex, as ín, stick a fork in it çause I'm done.


----------



## Moglex (Aug 9, 2009)

Aye-non Oh-non Imus said:


> Moglex said:
> 
> 
> > I'll take that as an 'I don't know'. :mrgreen:
> ...



I note you still haven't given any indication that you know the answer.

I'm afarid it's extremely hard to take seriously anyone who consistently spells 'aperture': 'apeture'.

Perhaps you could start to gain just a grain of credibity by giving us an example of any commony available zoom that does not have a variable aperture.


----------



## Aye-non Oh-non Imus (Aug 9, 2009)

Moglex said:


> I'm afarid it's extremely hard to take seriously anyone who consistently spells 'aperture': 'apeture'.
> 
> Perhaps you could start to gain just a grain of credibity by giving us an example of any *commony* available zoom that does not have a variable aperture.


Pot, kettle, who knows. I know, I know..... sometimes we get on a roll and just roll with it.

I'll start with the Holy Trinity
Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8
Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8
Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8

I think the part you're not clocking on to is that a constant *aperture *is constant throughout the zoom range. So I can get an f/2.8 at 14mm as well as at 24mm as opposed to having to suffer the f/3.5 at the wide end to f/5.6 at the other end of the zoom range from the consumer lens. It's a given that these lenses can adjust the *aperture *from f/2.8 to f/22.


----------



## Moglex (Aug 9, 2009)

Aye-non Oh-non Imus said:


> > Perhaps you could start to gain just a grain of credibility by giving us an example of any *commony* available zoom that does not have a variable aperture.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They all have a variable aperture.



> I think the part you're not catching on to is that a constant *aperture *is constant throughout the zoom range.  So I can get an f/2.8 at 14mm as well as at 24mm as opposed to having to suffer the f/3.5 at the wide end to f/5.6 at the other end of the zoom range from the consumer lens.



That is a constant *maximum* aperture, not a non-variable aperture.



> It's a given that these lenses can adjust the *aperture *from f/2.8 to f/22.



Indeed. That's why they are not fixed aperture.

My question, which was perfectly sensible and reasonable to anyone who had even a little knowledge about lens design was whether any lens had been designed and built that had in some way a naturally constant maximum aperture (I'm pretty sure the answer is no), rather than an aperture that changed in f-number as the focal length changed but had been constrained to a fixed maximum value.

Your completely unwarranted aggression in response to that question and your continued failure to make even the most basic attempt to answer it would seem to indicate that you are way out of your depth.


----------



## Aye-non Oh-non Imus (Aug 9, 2009)

Moglex said:


> Your completely unwarranted aggression in response to that question and your continued failure to make even the most basic attempt to answer it would seem to indicate that you are way out of your depth.


 :roll:


eacemrgreen:


----------



## table1349 (Aug 9, 2009)

Aye-non Oh-non Imus said:


> Moglex said:
> 
> 
> > Your completely unwarranted aggression in response to that question and your continued failure to make even the most basic attempt to answer it would seem to indicate that you are way out of your depth.
> ...




Perhaps a bit of reading would be in order.  Understanding Camera Lenses
» Lense tutorial, understanding camera lenses Digital photography articles » Blog Archive
Understanding Camera Lenses


----------



## Derrel (Aug 9, 2009)

I have a hard time trusting an article written by an author who would write a web article entitled "LENSE TUTORIAL,UNDERSTANDING CAMERA LENSES".
If the author can not spell l_e_n_s correctly, I simply can not bring myself to trust in his level of education about photographic topics. Lens. Lens. Lens.

The author also plagiarized the section about Canon L lenses directly from Wikipedia,with no attribution whatsoever.

Reading through the article, if one can call it that, about all that is discussed are the various abbreviations used by manufacturers in lens model names,and not very much about anything else. Nothing about WHY ED glass or fluorite elements are used, nothing about fixed focal length lenses versus zoom lenses, nothing about the differences between "fast" lenses and "slow" lenses,and so on.

Has the original poster even checked back in with this (greatly degenerated) thread?


----------



## Stosh (Aug 9, 2009)

What makes this discussion even more ironic is that the true (or maybe original) meaning of aperture is the physical size of the opening (or iris).  It's come to be interchanged with f-number or f-ratio and apparently that's now acceptable.  They are really not the same thing.  The f-number or f-ratio is a _*ratio *_of aperture (physical opening) to focal length.  A 50mm f/2 lens has a max f-ratio of 2, but a max aperture of 25mm.  A 100mm f/2 lens has a max f-ratio of 2, but a max aperture of 50mm.  A 200mm f/2 lens (an extremely expensive lens available from Canon) has a max f-ratio of 2, but a max aperture of 100mm.

So even a "constant maximum aperture zoom" lens doesn't really have a constant maximum aperture.  It has a constant maximum f-ratio.  Apparently that's too hard to say or too confusing.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 9, 2009)

errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...

There is a lens out there that literally has a constant aperture?  Like forcibly 2.8 throughout... no F4 or F8 for you?  Seriously?

Maybe I'm just misreading between everyone trying to piss on each other to make themselves look big.


----------



## Stosh (Aug 9, 2009)

Sorry wasn't trying to piss on or piss off anyone.  Just wanted to spread some knowledge.  My first understanding of optics comes from astronomy.  When you buy a large telescope you shop by physical aperture first, then f-ratio second.  Unless you're doing photography through the telescope you don't really care what the focal length is unless you need to know exactly what power you happen to be looking at.
I knew pros that knew way more than I did about anything photo related and they never put 2 and 2 together that f/4 actually means something that can be calculated.  They just thought is was an arbitrary number related to speed.  That's why a 2x extender doubles the f-number - because the true physical aperture stays the same while the focal length doubles.

As for knowledge about the history of zooms and wide range of options today, I'm gonna stay out of that one.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 9, 2009)

Time to add oil to the fire? :lmao:

manaheim, yes, there are lenses with a both fixed constant aperture and fixed constant f-number. Those don't even have, of course, an aperture ring.

Can anyone tell me what those are called?
:lmao:


----------



## manaheim (Aug 9, 2009)

c.cloudwalker said:


> manaheim, yes, there are lenses with a both fixed constant aperture and fixed constant f-number. Those don't even have, of course, an aperture ring.


 
o rly?  no wai!

Wow.  That's warped.  I can't even imagine why one would want such a thing, but... ok!  Cool.   Thanks for enlightening me.


----------



## Jeffro (Aug 9, 2009)

I think yall ran off the Original Poster!@!!  But Keep going cause I am enjoying this thread!


----------



## Stosh (Aug 9, 2009)

c.cloudwalker said:


> Can anyone tell me what those are called?
> :lmao:



Yeah, it's called "I took this lens apart to clean it, but seriously screwed up the iris blades so I left them out"  I actually have one of these.

Now that you mention it Cloudwalker, I have a couple of old military aerial camera lenses and they were ALWAYS shot wide open.  There was no aperture ring, only a shutter, but it wasn't a zoom obviously.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 9, 2009)

I have two lenses with CONSTANT maximum apertures,and a fixed,constant f/number. One is a Celestron 300mm f/5.6 catdioptric lens,and the other is a 600mm f/8 Vivitar Series 1 "solid cat",made out of almost three pounds of optical glass! Most people refer to these as mirror lenses. both lenses have one aperture,and one f/number...but there's another thing underlying aperture and f/stop.....

.....and I must say I'm surprised some of the snarkier members here have not gone off on a tangential discussion about the difference between aperture,and f/stop, and T-stop...


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 9, 2009)

Derrel said:


> I have two lenses with CONSTANT maximum apertures,and a fixed,constant f/number. One is a Celestron 300mm f/5.6 catdioptric lens,and the other is a 600mm f/8 Vivitar Series 1 "solid cat",made out of almost three pounds of optical glass! Most people refer to these as *mirror lenses*. both lenses have one aperture,and one f/number...but there's another thing underlying aperture and f/stop.....
> 
> .....and I must say I'm surprised some of the snarkier members here have not gone off on a tangential discussion about the difference between aperture,and f/stop, and T-stop...





OK, we have a winner! Please send me your address and I'll send you a six-pack of Ramen noodles.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 9, 2009)

^^^ oh you know I should have made the connection... telescope... mirror lenses...


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 9, 2009)

manaheim said:


> ^^^ oh you know I should have made the connection... telescope... mirror lenses...



Don't know about that. Have never used a telescope and don't know the first think about them 

But I did take advantage of the fact that you did not say zoom.  Someone may prove me wrong but I don't think there are mirror zooms...


----------



## Moglex (Aug 10, 2009)

c.cloudwalker said:


> Time to add oil to the fire? :lmao:
> 
> manaheim, yes, there are lenses with a both fixed constant aperture and fixed constant f-number. Those don't even have, of course, an aperture ring.
> 
> ...



You may note that when I originally asked for a lens with a 'fixed aperture' I specifically asked for any commonly available *zoom* specifically to exclude the dear old mirror lens.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 10, 2009)

^^^ the  only mirror lens I know of is a zoom.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 10, 2009)

manaheim said:


> ^^^ the  only mirror lens I know of is a zoom.



What? Where? I've got to see that.


----------



## Village Idiot (Aug 10, 2009)

Well the OP's "high quality" lenses would not cost so much if they didn't own Olympus gear.

That's the real reason. Olympus's lenses are expensive.


----------



## Don Kondra (Aug 10, 2009)

Village Idiot said:


> Well the OP's "high quality" lenses would not cost so much if they didn't own Olympus gear.
> 
> That's the real reason. Olympus's lenses are expensive.


 
I've heard this arguement before but I've never actually read of a cost/quality (speed and IQ) comparison being done...  

As an example, what is the Canon/Nikon lens equivalent of say the Oly 14-54mm and their costs.

How about the resell value?  Oly high grade lenses regularly sell for 3/4 of new price.

As much as I've enjoyed this discussion, I can offer a basic answer to the OP's question.

Choosing a lens is a balance between what you will be using it for, ie., portraits, sports, family events, etc., what Image Quality will satisfy you and how much you are willing to spend. 

I've owned most of the Standard Grade lens and as I could afford it I upgraded to the High Grade line mostly for the better IQ. 

Zuiko Digital Lenses

And for more specific discussion on Oly lens - 

fourthirdsphoto | Digital Cameras, Lenses and Photography in the Four Thirds Format

Cheers, Don


----------



## Village Idiot (Aug 10, 2009)

Don Kondra said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > Well the OP's "high quality" lenses would not cost so much if they didn't own Olympus gear.
> ...


 
Canon 24-70 f/2.8 = $1300ish new
Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS = $1500ish new

Oly's 12-25 f/2.0 is $2200? The 35-100 f/2.0 is about the same cost.

Resale have Canon's 70-200 going for as low as $1300 but normally around $1400-$1500 (New price varies by retailer/rebates). The 24-70 goes for about $1000 or so used.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 10, 2009)

c.cloudwalker said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > ^^^ the only mirror lens I know of is a zoom.
> ...


 
Sorry, I lied.  I thought this one was a zoom...

50063EOS Pro-Optic 500mm f/6.3 Mirror Lens for Canon EOS Mount SLR Cameras


----------



## Don Kondra (Aug 10, 2009)

> Canon 24-70 f/2.8 = $1300ish new
> Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS = $1500ish new
> 
> Oly's 12-25 f/2.0 is $2200? The 35-100 f/2.0 is about the same cost.
> ...


 
You're comparing a Canon f/2.8 lens to a Olympus ZD f/2.0 lens ? Not fair to the Canon 

I would think the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 and the Olympus ZD 14-54 f/2.8-3.5 would be a closer match if you use 35mm equivalence and the Oly is ~$600. 

Geez, Canon glass is expensive. 

And it's *14-35* f/2.0  

Cheers, Don


----------



## Garbz (Aug 11, 2009)

Don I think that's not the point. Olympus high end gear is excellent. However where is the the competitor to Canon's f/2.8 lenses? 

Olympus lenses jump from consumerish -> to wow look at that lens, awe look at that price 

But direct comparisons are good, I jumped on the Olympus website clicked pro lenses, and saw 300mm f/2.8. Other manufacturers makes those so here they are from B&H:
Nikkor AF-S 300mm f/2.8 G $4,899.95
Canon  EF 300mm f/2.8L $4,100.00
Olympus 300mm f/2.8 ED Lens $5,953.95

Again excellent quality, and probably worth the price. But so far out of reach of prosumers compared to the Canon.


----------



## Village Idiot (Aug 11, 2009)

Don Kondra said:


> > Canon 24-70 f/2.8 = $1300ish new
> > Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS = $1500ish new
> >
> > Oly's 12-25 f/2.0 is $2200? The 35-100 f/2.0 is about the same cost.
> ...


 
Meant 14-35. 

And Olympus needs the f/2.0 to compete with the f/2.8. At the same equivalent focal distance, their lenses will have less DoF. They also are at a disadvantage for ISO performance, so the one stop might help compare to pretty much every other manufacture out there.

The Canon glass compared is all "L" glass, which is their top of the line. 

Also, one of the lenses, the 70-200 have image stabilization in lens, which kind of deflates the arguement that I hear from every Olympus fan boy on why you should buy their system and not something else. That is, they said that lenses with IS built into them are more expensive. That's not true in all cases. It depends on the lens.

Plus actually compare the 70-200 f/2.8L IS to the 35-100. The 70-200 is a staple among working photographers. It's one hell of a lens, so is a good calibrated copy of the Canon 24-70 f/2.8.


----------

