News For camera nerds only

Lindsey got pissed off with me in Devon because I kept saying "I fucking love that tripod."

Jealous wench.

And you are a how-many-legs kinda guy?

I've taken my missus on photography outings before, was a recipe for disaster. I go myself now but I prefer it that way; I can stand around for hours if I need to and not feel like I'm boring her shitless.

Besides, photography isn't really a spectator sport. I do like standing around nerding it up with nature.

That's partly why I bought a GF2 - make little photo projects etc whilst out and about without having the "How long are you going to be?" conversation.

I made one whilst walking to the Ystumcegid burial chamber: http://www.dbphotographic.com/Ystumcegid2011/

HAH, true

I've put all my Canon gear on ebay tonight and pre-ordered a D800E with an assortment of lenses.

Come on now G, you're a few minutes early.

the lower the f rating of a lense the better ?

No. The lower the number, the more light it lets in.

So... better, then. The important point is - the f-numbers work from high numbers (narrow - less light, longer exposure times, higher ISO to compensate, not so good) down to low numbers (wide - more light, shorter exposure times, lower ISO, generally considered better).

More light in does not equate to better .

The Canon 50mm f1.2L is not as sharp as the Canon 50mm f/1.4.

Sure, it lets in extra light, but that does not mean it produces better images. In addition, the larger the aperture for a given focal length, then you're talking bigger / heavier glass required which may make it less purposeful. The Canon 400mm f/5.6 is an easily hand held and portable due to it's weight (about 1.2 kg). The 400mm f/2.8 weighs nearly 4 kg.

I know this is the "nerds" thread but I really think you're over-analysing the question.

It cannot be argued that a wider max aperture is not a contributing factor to a "better" lens (with better IQ, better bokeh, better low-light performance) with maybe a couple of anomalous exceptions (and by all accounts the infamous 50 f1.2 isn't even that bad at f1.2 and is super-sharp when taken down a stop - never so much as touched one myself though).

More glass and more weight are side-effects of this but the resulting lenses are still considered "better". You don't see sports photographers lugging around anything except the widest lens they can get in each focal length.

If Moriath was simply asking which way round the f-number scale goes and which end of the scale is "better" for a max aperture of a lens then yes, it's lower.

Nerd.

I'm not over analysing - it's plain wrong; a wider max aperture does not make it better at all, it only lets more light in. Sometimes the resolution figures wide open are so bad that it's effectively useless. There is so much more to what makes one lens better than another - resolution, distortion, chromatic aberration, vignetting, quality of bokeh (larger aperture also does not mean bokeh quality is better, factors such as aperture blade shape and the number of actual aperture blades play a large part - the Canon 50mm f/1.8 has nasty looking pentagonal bokeh)

Take these two lenses:

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/580-canon_200_28_ff?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/612-canon400f56ff?start=1

Ignoring the focal lengths, by your logic the 200mm f/2.8 is a better lens right? Have a look at the review, it's anything but. My point is that Lens X at f/2.0 compared to Lens Y f/3.5 does not make it a better lens, unless maximum light into the lens (astrophotogpraphy) is your number one priority.

AFRIL POOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

The Canon TSE-II is f/3.5 is considered one of the best and that's against the 1.4 and 1.2 lenses. There are many factors to consider. People pay alot for a constant wide aperture across a zoom range. These are 35mm lenses though. The medium and large format lenses often do not have such wide apertures e.g. max f/5.6 and are superb. Not sure if this helps!

Absolutely, I'd take that above any other wide prime because it's absolutely flawless; in your face Distagon f/2.8.

I said a contributing factor.

Good nerd discussion though, that's what this thread is all about .

And I still believe the wide aperture contributes greatly to the quality of the bokeh, once you start getting into the territory of very very narrow DOF and very very creamy bokeh, the curvature and number of blades becomes slightly less significant.

http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/04/canon-ef-24-70-f2-8l-ii-delayed-cr2/

Not such good news if you're looking for a kit bundle with the 24-70mm f/2.8.

It's only a rumour

Mustn't convince yourself that a D800E together with a 24-70 and a 70-200 would improve your life. Not even for a landmark birthday next year.

Spend spend spend!!!!!!!

How much would that cost milou? And would it come out before the above mentioned rumour?

5.5 but I could get some for my kit. Suspect I'd do nowt about it though...!

Your 21st next year?

That's only marginally more than the 5d3 and 24-70.

Hmm.

I don't like this deciding lark. Or waiting lark.

The "not having enough money to make a decision even if I wanted to" lark is much easier to live with tbh.