I've noticed that a 35mm prime lens doesn't deliver the same quality as a 50mm prime lens or higher. The higher I go with the prime lens, the more impressive the foreground becomes. I now own a collection of prime lenses.
Conclusion: The longer the focal length, the higher the quality? Is this a fantasy or a fact?
greeting
(1 votes)
Loading...I'm afraid that my lens might break off the tripod and that's why I wanted to ask how you can tell which ring fits which lens and how you can tell
Hello, I'm trying to connect my printer to the Wi-Fi using a USB cable. I live in a student residence hall where everyone has to log in to the same Wi-Fi network using a personal username and password. The printer doesn't show this Wi-Fi as an option and when I try to enter it manually,…
and what is the difference
Is it a specific brand or can they do a lot or do they just seem to cost a lot.
Hello, I was supposed to meet a friend today, so I put in my one-day contact lenses. But my friend canceled. Can I store the contact lenses in contact lens solution and wear them another day?
However, it is not imprecisely compared, but it is so that wide angle and ultra wide angle make higher demands on the construction to be good.
Six millimeters more wide angle in the lower area (14mm instead of 20mm) are considerably more complicated in construction than 50mm more tele at the upper end (250mm instead of 200mm).
The article deals with the topic and works out, which are partly compared with pears when comparing teleobjectives and wide angle lenses.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://lenspire.zeiss.com/photo/app/uploads/2018/04/Article-Bokeh-2010-EN.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj6rMaTw8EE5AhXa7rsIHfBg0QFno
From page 5 it becomes interesting.
I want to say that a fine adjustment for the focus must be carried out for the combination of camera lens so that an WW or UWW lens correctly reflects the foreground.
“If cameras are poorly adjusted, then it may sometimes occur with very short focal lengths that the sensor is completely next to the flat image; then the whole motif appears slightly unsharp. With a long focal length, on the other hand, despite poor adjustment, it is quite sharp somewhere, though not where you wanted it. This experience also leads to the wrong assumption that short focal lengths would have a small image-side depth.”
Excellent, just excellent! I have raised all the possibilities of theories to clarify the problem with the wide angle. As a community expert, you’re really worth your title. Thank you for your article 🙂
Thank you.
Thanks for the award.
Another question….
The quality has nothing but absolutely nothing to do with the focal length. And with more focal length, the VG is not “impressive” either, because it just goes less. With a lot of focal length, VG and HG are more dazzled. And whether more VG/HG or less is a matter of taste, situation-dependent and not a quality feature. And whether the focal length or zoom does not matter.
The only thing that changes in the focal length is deep compression. The focal length has nothing to do with the quality/sharp, there are equally sharp/unsharp teleobjectives with little imaging errors, as well as sharp/unsharp wide-angle fixed focal lengths with little imaging errors.
And just because you find a motif more aesthetically appealing because of stronger deep compression, it has nothing to do with the image quality, but is just a taste sensation.
If you look at the ranking of lenses at DxO Mark, then the front places are quite mixed with 85mm, 58mm, 55mm, 50mm and even 25mm (Zeiss Batis).
Lenses Database – DXOMARK
Nee,
The longer the focal length, the less depth of the sharpness you have. With portrait 50mm – 80mm then look more supple, 35mm are standard for reportage because just more fits. You don’t need the Bokeh stuff. And if it gets tight you need 20mm.
If you equalize “release potential” with “quality”, then yes
Interesting. Thank you.
The focal length has nix to do with quality. There are also low-light and bad imaging lenses of high focal length.
The larger the focal length, the narrower the image section. …Desto becomes more flatter the sharp area within which you can image appropriately. … Desto longer exposure time needs the image at the same ambient conditions and the same aperture.
“Desto flatters the sharp area within which you can reproduce properly”? Can I ask what camera and lens you do your photos?
This is a Pentax sport with different lenses. This flattening of the depth of focus does not necessarily come from the material, but from the optical laws. The larger the focal length, the more paths the sharp image point returns when the object is removed by a certain path non the lens. An obective with a short focal length only needs a short adjustment path to sharpen from the near to the infinity. The greater the focal length, the greater this path. Therefore, the fish eye can be sharply imaged from near to infinity, while the tele can only image a clearly flatter depth. Significantly distant backgrounds will become unsharp if you want to image in a medium distance. For the same reason, the foreground is inconvenient.
The "fish eye" forms from the near range over medium distances to the distance all quite sharply, because the pixels on the optical axis are very close to one another for 50cm, 5m and 100m distance. The objects are all very far outside the double focal length. Due to the higher focal length, the portrait lens also has a larger adjustment path in order to sharpen near, middle or far range. The objects that do not lie in the optimum sharpening range are imaged with light cones on the image plane and their diameter increases proportionally to the distance to the optimum. in the case of the tele, you can (exaggerated) image the clock sharply, but not at the same time the closer entrance portal.
These are optical laws that cannot be violated, but good imaging lenses can get the maximum possible out, unlike inferior optics.
The imaging of an objective is also twice the focal length of an object from the optical plane of the objective. The further the Objekr moves away from it, the closer his image point moves towards the simple focal length. This can also be represented in a well-illustrated manner when the lens is assumed by a plane perpendicular to the line of sight and then the focal point beam and the parallel beam are drawn. It is also possible to record the medium powder jet. The center beam continues unchanged, the focal point beam becomes the parallel beam behind the lens and vice versa. Thus, one can visualize the different sharpness depths (the reciprocal of depth sharpness).
Not bad. But I can’t really visualize one thing. What or what do you mean? Do you mean that the foreground or the motive is literally flattened? The photos are not 3D capable of being clear to everyone. But do you mean that even the nose and the forehead are pressed more or less flat on the picture?
I don’t think this statement is true.
Are your fixed focal lengths from the same manufacturer and have the same open panel?
The fact is, of course, that with increasing focal length the background blur is intensified and perhaps your guess is based on it?
They are actually from the same manufacturer. The one high focal length is responsible for making the faces more beautiful than sunnst, I was already clear. Therefore, from a 130 focal length, people forography or portrait photography should be used as a measuring bar. After detailed investigations with an OLED screen, frame to frame, I noticed that the quality of the foreground increases massively when the focal length is always higher. However, this phenomenon has been found only in fixed focal lengths and not in zoom lenses.
can be possible