Difference due to quality? — OZONE Asylum, home of the Mad Scientists

Difference due to quality?

This page's ID: 15171

Edit Post

Who can edit a post?	The poster and administrators may edit a post. The poster can only edit it for a short while after the initial post.

Your User Name:
Your Password:
Login Options:	Remember Me On This Computer

Your Text: Insert Slimies » Insert UBB Code » Close Last Tag \| All Tags UBB Help	oddly enough, it might turn out to be a draw in the situation you describe. Lenses don't perform at their best at wide apertures. All other things being equal, the f5.6 lens at 5.6 might be "sharper" that the f2 lens at 2. And there's a fair chance they would be a dead match at f8. But there's a shutter speed issue that complicates things. A speed of 250 is likely to be sharper than a speed of 60 (assuming you are hand holding it). The faster lens used to be an advantage back when humans focussed cameras. It was nice to have that f2 if you needed it for low light, but it was even nicer all around to have the viewfinder 2 stops brighter. There might be other factors here, such as design and construction, but if you don't typically find yourself pushing the envelop in low light situations with the lens wide open all the time, the money the faster lens costs might be a luxury rather than a necessity. In the early days of zoom lenses it was felt that fixed focal length design was superior to zooms and the compromises involved in designing them. I dodn't know if advanced design has narrowed that gap or people figured zooms were worth the penalty. In any case, comparing a 5.6 zoom with a 2.0 fixed focal length is a little hard to do fairly. [This message has been edited by Steve (edited 03-09-2004).] Loading...
Options:	Enable Slimies Enable Linkwords

« Backwards — Onwards »

Show Forum Drop Down Menu