ems@amdahl.UUCP (ems) (01/22/86)
Well, I went and did it. I bought a new camera. My Canon FT QL is
now sitting forlorn and lonely on the shelf next to the stable
of lenses that fit it. I have a new mistress, the Minolta Maxxum 7000.
(I will still keep and use the Canon. It has served my well and will
be a great back-up camera; but after 16 years, it deserves a rest.)
But I digress. What I would like to ask of the net is this: Does
anyone have data on the relative sharpness of the different Maxxum
lenses? As of now there are no aftermarket lenses, though I have
heard this will change about April. But for now, I need more than
the 35-70 f/4 zoom that I bought with the body. I talked with a
local camera shop and they stated that the 50mm f/1.4 was *sharper*
than the 50mm f/1.7 !! And claimed the 24mm was the sharpest.
The f/1.7 is about $58 and the f/1.4 is about $150 locally at
discount stores. Does the extra cash buy an all around superior
product?
My hope is to avoid buying a bunch of lenses just to find out
that I would have been better served by concentrating my money
in one or two higher priced lenses. i.e. If the 50mm f/1.4
is really both faster *AND* sharper, I would buy it. If it
is only faster, I would take the f/1.7 for sharpness and use
my Canon f/1.2 for seeing in the dark ....
I am also interested in the 70-200 f/4ish zoom. Does anyone have
any particular advice/experience with the Maxxum lenses?
--
E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems
This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything.ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) (01/23/86)
> But I digress. What I would like to ask of the net is this: Does > anyone have data on the relative sharpness of the different Maxxum > lenses? As of now there are no aftermarket lenses, though I have > heard this will change about April. But for now, I need more than > the 35-70 f/4 zoom that I bought with the body. I talked with a > local camera shop and they stated that the 50mm f/1.4 was *sharper* > than the 50mm f/1.7 !! And claimed the 24mm was the sharpest. > The f/1.7 is about $58 and the f/1.4 is about $150 locally at > discount stores. Does the extra cash buy an all around superior > product? Sharpness isn't everything. In practice, contrast may be more important. Consider: the limiting factor on sharpness with most hand-held photographs is camera motion, even at 1/250 second. The next limiting factor is often the quality of the processing (if prints) or projector lens (if slides). Just about any decent lens will deliver images nearly as sharp as the film can handle if stopped down to f/8 or so. However, lenses seem to vary greatly in contrast. Factors that influence contrast include the number of elements, the type and quality of the lens coatings, the type and quality of optical glass used, and the extent to which physical design has reduced internal reflections. To convince yourself of this, take your camera outdoors on a sunny day. Point the camera at a shady spot, in a position in which direct sunlight can strike the lens but the sun is not visible in the finder -- not even almost visible. Look at the contrast in the image in the finder. Now hold your hand (or have a friend hold a hand) so that it casts a shadow on the lens. Since the sun isn't visible in the finder, the hand won't be either. But watch how much the contrast picks up! Food for thought: All other things being equal, a lens with fewer elements will have less internal reflections than one with more elements. Unfortunately, all other things are rarely equal. Often the most important thing you can do to improve contrast is to use a lens hood. A good one, designed for that particular lens. Keep your lens clean! If you use a filter over the lens to protect it, consider removing it. It just introduces two more surfaces to generate reflections and degrade contrast. In 20 years of 35mm photography, I have found that a good lens hood does a perfectly adequate job of protecting my lenses while I'm using them, and a lens cap does an excellent job when I'm not. While modern zoom lenses are as sharp as their fixed counterparts, they are often much less contrasty. If you are trying to choose between an f/1.7 and and f/1.4 lens, ask yourself whether you will often use the f/1.7 wide open. If so, go with the f/1.4. The extra aperture will make it somewhat easier to focus in dim light, and the 1.4 is likely to be sharper than the 1.7 when both are used at 1.7. On the other hand, faster lenses are often less contrasty than their slower counterparts when stopped down. Not always, just often. Perhaps your dealer will let you take one sample of each lens outside for long enough to take a few pictures with it.
jimd@hp-pcd.UUCP (jimd) (01/25/86)
With respect to the Canon products, the salesman may indeed be correct about the sharpness of the various flavors of 50mm lenses. My perception is this: 50mm f1.8: Cheapo 50mm - reasonable quality 50mm f1.4: The "standard" 50. Excellent image quality. Many lenses are compared to this. 50mm f1.2: Faster than the f1.4, but sacrifices a little image quality. Better than 1.8. 50mm f1.2L: Expensive, but the best 50mm ever built. Also, the Canon 24mm f1.4L is within a split hair of being the best "pretty wide angle" lens you can get. I'm sure Nikon has a equal :-) I'm not sure how all these trends (will) compare to Minolta - just thought I'd mention it. Jim (I've gone broke buying camera gear" Donnelly ihnp4!hplabs!hp-pcd!jimd
smh@mhuxl.UUCP (henning) (01/30/86)
**** **** From the keys of Steve Henning, AT&T Bell Labs, Reading, PA mhuxl!smh The latest issue of Popular Photography reviews the Minolta Zoom lens for the new Minolta Maxxim cameras. I am a happy Minolta user, but I find the review to indicate that the Maxxim zoom is just another zoom lens with many compromises on image contrast due to all the glass they have to use. Personally, I will continue to lug around 6 fixed focal length lenses and know that I am going to get the best image that I can afford. My Celtic telephoto is better than a Maxxim zoom any day and my Rokkor 100mm macro is better than any zoom made for less than $2000.