What's new
By:
Photoshop Gurus Forum

Welcome to Photoshop Gurus forum. Register a free account today to become a member! It's completely free. Once signed in, you'll enjoy an ad-free experience and be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Lenses and image quality


hoops

hoops

Member
Messages
15
Likes
9
Hi. Basically im wondering what the difference in image quality would be like {if any} between two lenses.

Say i take one shot @F8 with the 18-55, and then take another with the 35mm 1.8 @F8, same exposure, same body ofc.
Would the 35mm have better image quality ? Ultimately i suppose my question is, Is the actual glass of higher quality ?
 
Better lens = higher quality images The question is how much better and can that justify the additional cost. For average shooters, probably not. For professionals, yes.
 
In the specific example you gave, ie, at f8 (and above -- f11, f16, f22, etc.), one would be hard pressed to see any difference whatsoever in sharpness between two shots taken with lenses of modern design (ie, designed in the last 10 years) and from one of the major camera mfgr (eg, Nikon, Canon). However, the prime might do better than the zoom if there are bright lights in the frame (ie, "resistance to flare"), or whether straight lines are rendered as straight or slightly curved (ie, "lens distortion").

If, on the other hand, you were comparing a kit zoom near its maximum aperture (say, f3.5) to the prime at the same aperture, the prime would likely be noticeably sharper, again assuming both were from the same company, both of modern design, both on a tripod, etc. etc.

However, if you were comparing a modern pro zoom (say, a Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 - $1900) at f/2.8 and 35 mm to say a Nikon 35mm f/2 AF-D (ie, designed in the 1990's, currently being sold for around $325 new) at f/2.8, the newer zoom would clearly be superior to the prime.

To further complicate lens purchasing decisions, one also has to factor in vibration reduction / image stabilization. When one is shooting hand-held, and the light is so low that one has to use wide apertures, it usually also means slow shutter speeds. In the range of 1/2 second down to about 1/60th of a second, a lens with VR/IS (used hand-held) will make a non-VR lens look silly, even if when mounted to a tripod so the VR isn't needed, the VR lens is slightly less sharp than the non-VR lens.

If you are interested in a particular lens, just Google reviews of that lens. There are a huge number of people who obsess over lens performance and many websites do reviews.

Tom
 
Cheers guys. Cheers for the extra detailed response Tom.
Looking for a bit more advice if I may.

The reason I ask. Im going to be photographing a mini festival in 2months time. Mostly djs but some bands too. Theres about 70 acts I believe. Its not a paid job and not any criteria to meet in particular.
My mate djs at it. Ive managed to blag my way in just for the experience. Basically been given the opportunity to go out and shoot away.
Sadly I only have d40x atm. With the 18-55 and a 55-200mm. So im going to treat myself to a 35 1.8 I think.
Theres going to be lots of acts playing in tents and with the poor iso performance of the d40x im looking for a faster lens to give myself a boost amap.
However il be needing to catch some shots outside. I.e. groups of party people who will be attending. The 35 @ 1.8 wont be ideal for groups right? 2or more. didn't want to bee changing lenses too often.
But should I use the 35mm for in the tents and my kit for outside? That was why the question arose.
I thought it may come down to a decision between image quality vs focal length options. Obviously id have went for quality and used the 35 and my feet and popped on the kit lens now and again for wider shots.

Gig photography wise would you say the 35m is good yeah? Will be 50mm ofc on my body too right. up for any other faster lens recommendations with a £200 budget :eek: ?
 
Last edited:
Yes the 35mm will be the equivalent of 56mm on a full frame camera a close to 1/1 ratio.
If you're going to have complete access and be able to get as close as you need to take your shots the 35mm may be OK.
If not you may have to crop the images so much in PS to get the framing you want, the quality may be unacceptable.
You may be better off with a slower zoom, a higher ISO and use a noise reduction program.

Why not consider renting a lens.
You can rent a Canon 2.8 70/200 for 3 days for $58 at Borrow Lenses.
 
If the festival is during the daytime, unless the tents are darker than I've ever seen, it's quite unlikely you will need the speed of an f/1.8 lens. However, if all or some of the event is at night, it's quite likely you will want the extra light gathering power.

I do a lot of event work. One of the biggest hurdles you will be facing is obtaining effective and compelling compositions, specifically, trying to deal with all the uncontrolled / uncontrollable confusing backgrounds at an event like this. You want to select a subject and have it be obvious what the subject is, not have a lot of other people and things competing for your visual attention. Basically, there are two ways to do this. The first way is to stand way back with a long, wide aperture lens (like the one Steve very appropriately suggested) and use the narrow field of view and narrow depth of field to isolate your subjects.

The second way is to get in really close to your subjects (ie, with a wide angle lens). With a wide angle, you'll have a much larger depth of field, and, well, a wide angular field of view, so the main way to reduce the visual importance of the background is to get very close to your subjects so that they appear considerably larger than people and things in the background -- not just a little bit larger, the effect you get with a more normal FL lens.

So, my recommendation would be to forgo the 35 (which, as Steve pointed out, is essentially a "normal" FL for your camera), and instead, rent the lens Steve recommended + something possibly even wider than the short FL end of your kit zoom. Something equivalent to a 28mm in a full frame camera. Use the tele when you can't get in close (ie, when people are performing on stage and you don't want to obstruct the view of the audience), and the WA when you can get within a few feet of your subjects. The combination of wide angle and tele shots will also add considerable variety to your shots - much more than if you don't have these options available (eg, if you use your kit + a 35 prime).

Just my $0.02,

Tom
 
Last edited:
I used to do festivals, musicians, and people....In the days of 35mm.

Favorite kit was a 21mm and a 180 f2.8 EDIF on my F2 With just these two fixed lenses, they made you think your shots thru, YES grab shots were the norm, but you couldn't switch your lens, so you had to think your shot, or waste film....Made for great images
 
Exactly, Mike!

I used to carry essentially the same kit, but in the last 5 - 10 years started carrying two zooms to cover the WA and Tele ranges (a 16-35/f4 VR and a 70-210/2.8 VR), and never missed the middle focal lengths.

T
 
Back
Top