|
Forum: General Photography
06-18-2015, 04:32 PM
|
| |
Pretty sure I can see an American flag flapping in the breeze there...
|
|
Forum: General Photography
06-17-2015, 04:26 PM
|
| |
I never knew custom lens making was a thing. If you don't mind me asking.. How much was it?
|
|
Forum: General Photography
06-17-2015, 05:23 AM
|
| |
Those photos are amazing, beautiful colours! That's a very good argument against lenses with narrow base apertures performing poorly.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
06-16-2015, 08:58 PM
|
| |
f2.8 14mm would be useful for astrophotography, no?
|
|
Forum: General Photography
06-02-2015, 04:30 AM
|
| |
Yes I have heard that is a good lens, especially considering it's range. Not exactly what I meant by kit lens though and a lot more expensive than one. By the way I'm just asking these questions out of curiosity, not because I am looking to buy a new lens or camera.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
06-02-2015, 04:11 AM
|
| |
Well that all makes sense! Thanks for the detailed reply. Are there any kit lenses from other manufacturers that are sharp at the widest aperture and shortest focal length (18mm), or are they all basically the same design therefore soft at this point? Kit lenses from Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, Samsung, Olympus, etc.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
06-02-2015, 01:42 AM
|
| |
But is there a "physics" explanation for a lens with wide base aperture to inherently have better sharpness, or is it just a manufacturing decision?
Does there exist a lens that starts at f5.6 for example and is really sharp at this aperture?
|
|
Forum: General Photography
06-02-2015, 12:32 AM
|
| |
Hey guys,
Why do lenses that have wide apertures, zooms or primes, generally have better sharpness than small aperture lenses (like the kit lenses)? I'm talking about wide open, ie. the 50mm prime is sharper wide open (f1.8 for example) than the kit lens at 50mm wide open (f5)?
Is it just because lenses with small base apertures are generally cheaper, so the optics are "cheaper" too?
|
