What is Digg?61 Comments
- kilofox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23What difference does it make if its Canon or Nikon? Everything the guy states applies to any DLSR. Nikon sells full-frame and cropped body, sells variable and constant aperture lenses.
You guys are making a mountain out of a mole hill. - KbKnight, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Ken Rockwell is a complete idiot. He's usually just plain wrong. Even when he has half a point he still manages to get something wrong.
Most annoying of all is his writing style. It's like reading a 1st grade reader:
"Jane has a Nikon camera. See Jane shoot Nikon pictures. Nikon pictures are good. I don't hate Canon, but Canon sucks. See Jane shoot the nice Nikon." - vaticdart, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15@falldog
Actually, most photographers spend far more on their lenses than they do on their bodies. Camera bodies come and go, break, are outdated, get stolen, etc... but it's the lenses that really make up the bulk of your investment into a particular camera system (Canon EOS, Nikon, Minolta, Leica, whatever) and stay with you as you move from one body to another. - grahamcase, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Obviously the guy shoots Canon, so he uses Canon as an example. All his points still hold for any other camera system on the market.
- Liembo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14#6: You get what you pay for.
- vaticdart, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9#1 Buy primes.
#2 Buy primes.
#3 Buy more primes.
#4 Buy a few more primes.
#5 Save up and buy a really good zoom ($1000+).
This from someone who shoots with a Canon 10D, a Nikomat FTN, and a Canon Rebel Ti (film Rebel), and could definitely not afford anytime soon to spend $1000+ on a lens. - GrahamStw, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Okay some Nikon-centric points:
1) What's My Lens Mount?
It'll be an F-mount. They've used basically the same mechanics for the mount for 30 years. If it's a Nikkor lens and is marked AF then it will work on just about any Nikon you can find. If you are using a modern Nikon then ideally you'll be after an AF-S lens, as this designates the newer "silent wave" lenses. Have a look at http://www.bythom.com/lensacronyms.htm for a bit more interest.
2) What's My Camera's Crop Factor?
On a Nikon DSLR it is 1.5x (also known as the APS-C).
3) What's My Subject?
If you are shooting any kind of portrait shots then I heartily recommend a Nikkor 50mm prime. The f/1.8 version is readily available, cheap (new for £79GBP/$115USD), has nice bokeh and is a great lens for the money. The f/1.4 version is also really good, but more expensive.
See the list of recommended lenses on Thom Hogan's site: http://www.bythom.com/Recs.htm - KevinWhite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Two words: AdBlock Plus
- Falldog, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@ primehifi
I noticed that too when reading the article, but it sorta makes sense that people talk about one or the other. Photographers generally stick to one brand with their cameras and lenses. If the guy spends a ***** load of money on a nice Cannon, he’s probably not going to Nikkor lenses that probably don't have the same mount, and therefore can't really recommend any reasonably.
At least, that made sense to me. But then again, you could be right too. - skytimelapse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"To a newbie I'd suggest stabilization of some sort. Not primes."
Let me put that a different way:
To a newbie I'd suggest at tripod of some sort. Not IS. - KbKnight, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"SLR lens" is not redundant. A SLR lens is a lens for a Single Lens Reflex camera. If you just say "SLR" you are talking about a particular type of camera. If you just say "lens" you could be talking about a lens for just about anything (telescope, medium format, twin-lens reflex, Aunt Mary's eye glasses) .
- acomj, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Generally correct.
However It doesn't talk enough about maximum aperture.
although a 70-200mm f4 canon IS costs about a third of what the 70-200mm f2.8 canon (same focal lengths).
The main advantage of the f2.8 is it can shoot in lower light and can blur the background slightly more wide open (f.2.8) The disadvantage is that is heavier and more expensive. The zoom range is the same. - kernelhappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I treat Ken Rockwell like I do any other source of information regarding photographic equipment; with a skeptical eye and tons of salt. Photography in general is full of misinformation and biased articles, why should Rockwell be any different. As much as I wish there was a quality, unbiased source of information regarding photographic hardware, I've yet to find one. In photography the closest to an unbiased source you'll find are those dedicated to photographers and/or the art itself, eschewing the hardware side of it.
Magazines and websits that concentrate on hardware are blatantly evasive of criticism because they don't want to piss off advertisers. There are a small number of websites that do not bring in advertising money from the manfuacturers, but they tend to either lack the expertise, discipline or credibility to be truly valuable as objective testers.
User opinions are also of limited credibility. Often a user opinion lacks sufficient supporting arguments or contrast with alternatives, compounded with the fact that people are often blinded zealots regarding their brands (Canon, Nikon, Ford, Chevy, B&W, MartinLogan) refusing to admit they could have made a better purchasing decision.
Ultimatley I read all reviews for camera equipment just like I read any other review out there, I don't look for someone to say "OMG THIS IS IT", instead I look to see what multiple source praise about a product and spend even more attention to what they complain about a product. Ultimatley I choose the product with flaws less likely to irritate or affect me.
Nothing in this world is perfect, it's all about finding compromises you can live with. If a camera has a slow AF system but better color rendition, ask yourself what's more important. Relying on someone else's opinion of what is better to them sells yourself short. Yes Ken Rockwell is an ass, and so is everyone else out there reviewing equipment with very subjective qualities. - kb244, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@KBKnight
The best example I can think of where you would have several lens between different plane sizes yet still keeping the same focal length numbers would be along the lines of large format. For example you can have a 90mm, 135mm, 150mm, 210mm, 300mm and so forth on a 4x5 inch camera, the same lens are still addressed by the same focal lengths when used on say a 5x7 or 8x10 inch view camera. The difference being only in that of the film plane size has increased, as such did the "circle of confusion", but also a matter of which focal lengths will cover the film area.
For example a 90mm may cover a 4x5 fine, but the same 90mm may not cover the entire 8x10 plane, despite its still a 90mm. The large format shooters do not confuse things by saying that a 90 is more like a 65 on a 4x5, but rather they simply say terms like "210 is portrait to slightly telephoto on a 4x5, but normal on a 8x10" or how a 135mm to 150mm is somewhat wide to normal on a 4x5, but may be ultra wide to wide on a 8x10, they don't confuse the matter by changing the focal lengths, because it does not change. - kernelhappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Primes are not the end all be all of photography. Just like with any other craft, different tools for different uses. Primes in general are sharper and faster than zooms but modern zooms have come a long way closing that gap. Often any trade offs may be rationalized by shooting style or conditions, sometimes they're not. I find myself shooting with my zooms more and more. That's not to say I don't use my prime glass but I use them where they are needed to do things my zoom lenses can't.
Blanket statements like prime prime prime are never accurate and do not do a newbie reader much justice. - ryansinn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5If there was an article between all those ads I couldn't find it...
- etruscan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Unless your camera manufacturer keeps changing the mount. I've heard rumours (as far as I know they're rumours) that Canon was thinking about changing their mount again. Nikon's bayonet F-mount has been around for years, however... so sometimes that lens investment can be blown away by something simple like this.
- KbKnight, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Primes aren't the answer for everyone. Without EXIF you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference in the final picture between decent primes and decent zooms. The convenience of a zoom far out weighs the marginal improvement in quality you -might- get from the prime under ideal and controllable conditions (such as a studio). Most people are going to be more interested in the general purpose zooms.
Sure, the price of a good zoom is a lot higher than a good prime. But after following you advice and buying 5+ primes, it's actually cheaper to buy a good zoom or two to cover the same range. - TTLKurtis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is just a primer for the comprehensive (read: that means very detailed and long...) guide to lenses. That article is going to be like a small book...
- themouth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@masgrada
Image Stabilization is overrated, especially in the zooms vs. primes debate. As someone who owns two very expensive IS lenses (canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS and 70-200 f/2.8L IS), I will say that IS has very limited functionality. It DOES do great when shooting pretty-much stationary objects hand-held (not on a tripod or monopod). But when talking about sports, wildlife, etc, I find that I shoot with IS off most of the time to gain the quicker AF time.
A wider aperture will allow for a shorter exposure time (read: less motion blur) ALL THE TIME, and primes often if not always have much larger apertures. - TTLKurtis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I guess equivalent does say it better... /me edits
- masgrada, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2To a newbie I'd suggest stabilization of some sort. Not primes.
- lopolis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Given that Digital SLRs are so affordable these days and there are so many beginners and amateurs running around with one, they will indeed be hard-pressed to tell the difference between a good prime, and a "really good zoom" for $1000+. Some of the basic, consumer-level zooms are well below $1000, and they produce some quality images.
We all know photography isn't about the gear, it's about the photographer and how well he can use what he's got. People are quick to blame their lens quality, or camera price on the resulting quality of their image. The person behind the camera is maybe 90% of what makes a photo, light is another 9%, and I'd say gear is the remaining 1%. - TTLKurtis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Synfinatic... this was an article geared towards people who don't want to read a huge detailed article. I specifically said that the crop factor is more complicated than I described in the article. And what I did describe was accurate, it increases the "EFFECTIVE" focal length of your lenses; in my upcoming comprehensive guide to lenses I'll go in-depth about how exactly the whole 'crop factor' thing works...
- KbKnight, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@TTLKurtis & GrahamStw
TTLKurtis is right about the focal length not changing. The whole idea that the focal length is somehow different depending on what camera you put it on is flawed. What changes is field of view.
The image circle and depth of field produced by a particular lens is EXACTLY the same no matter what camera you put the lens on. What differs is how much of that image circle a particular camera captures. The "crop" cameras capture a smaller rectangular portion of the circle than a 35mm film (or equally sized digital sensor) camera.
Cropping (as compared to a 35mm sized camera) is really what is happening here. The image on the image circle is the same - the difference is how much of it is captured or cropped out. The focal length is not altered in any way.
I think the root of the confusion comes from the fact that many photographers who were used to shooting 35mm film are used to a particular focal length producing a particular field of view. That assumption breaks if the sensor size changes. How do you explain this difference to photographers?
A lot of the camera companies used to refer to the "crop factor" as the "zoom factor". Sounds a lot better to say you're getting free zoom than to say the new expensive digital camera captures a smaller part of the image circle from that expensive lens, doesn't it? So in essence it was a marketing ploy. The camera companies told you the field of view you get is like zooming in to a higher focal length - and the math is easy.
Thankfully the term "zoom factor" is almost dead. However, as a hold-over we get this "focal length" math confusion. Since the focal length is an important number in calculating things like depth of field, it's a bad idea[tm] to pretend this changes when it really doesn't.
It's a field of view crop... that's it - that's all there is - nothing more. It has nothing to do with focal length. - vaticdart, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@KbKnight
I used to think the same thing, until I got into making my own larger B&W prints and then into digital. I have a cheapo Tonkia 24-200mm zoom, and while it's a nicely built lens (with the exception of the manual focus ring, which always suck on modern lenses unless you go expensive), the optics' softness definitely starts showing up once you are looking at your photo at 8x10 or larger, or looking at the digital image at 100%. Now I do almost all my shooting with a 50mm prime.
Granted, for a parent or otherwise average Western World photographer (kids, vacations, events, and so on) who is never going to be enlarging any photos beyond 8x10, and if they do don't exactly have a discriminating eye, cheapo zooms are fine and convenient and all that good stuff. But for anyone who treats photography as a hobby or professionally, those lenses really just don't cut it unless you need the zoom (which sometimes you do) and can't afford something better. - aidwiz, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Yeah, Ken Rockwell have cleanly separated the best lens from the crap.
- Changa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2
If you can... I do recommend spending $1000 on a lens.
I just picked up a Canon 17-55 2.8 IS and I am extremely happy with it.
My bank balance is not as happy though. - aweblogs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Dugg, good article..plus Maria Sharapova rocks..i mean Canon rocks. :P
http://flickrville.com - BaltoAaron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1One of my friends is HUGE Ken Rockwell fan. You cannot get into a camera discussion with her without hearing his name at least 10 times. I finally checked his website out and my feeling is... not impressed. Not impressed with his photos and even less with his web design. I agree with Suckfone's automatic and 'vivid' comment.
- kb244, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1At least he's not taking the Olympus approach of saying a 300mm lens is a 600mm on their new digital cameras XD (Way to go for Olympus to take a flaw and turn it into a marketing approach).
- suckfone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1While I don't necessarily think the guy is a complete idiot or anything, I've never really been a die-hard fan of ken rockwell either. Ever since I read his article where 99% of his shots are done in program automatic mode with the "vivid" setting turned on with his D50, I kind of lost respect for the guy.
- HunterTV, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Technically that's three words. It's just that AdBlock is smashed together in that hip InternetApp bastardized English speak.
- KbKnight, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@vadicdart
That Tokino you mention is a cheap lens. I didn't mean to imply you could get a good zoom for the same price as a good prime.
By "good zoom" I really mean a "good zoom". Something like the Canon 70-200L 2.8 IS or the Tamron 28-75 2.8 (at about $350-$400, the Tamron is a great value) would be good zooms. In the Nikkor lenses the Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 VR would be a good zoom and you can get the same Tamron in the Nikon mount. Sigma also makes a 70-200 2.8 that is a good value and available for multiple mounts.
A decent place for hardware reviews is fredmiranda.com The forums there are an even better place to hang out with photographers at all levels and learn. - jmeeter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Hehe, I started out with a Pentax K1000 as well. Now I shoot a Canon Rebel K2 35mm.
- fotoman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@vaticdart Now, when you say 'primes' do you mean PRIMES or do you mean fixed focal lengths(FFL)? :) They are not the same, even though they are confused all the times (just like dpi and ppi)
FFL lenses have their place and yes @KbKnight, sometimes you can tell the difference. Snag your 28-70 f/4.0 zoom lens and I'll grab a 50mm f/1.4 and we'll see the difference.
Larger f/stops not only mean you can shoot in lower(crappier) lite than slower lenses, but your viewfinder is brighter as well. A HUGE plus to AF and composition.
Back when I shot film, my 'main' lenses were a 24mm f/2.8, 35-70mm f/4.0, 50mm f/1.4, 80-200mm f/2.8, 400mm f/2.8, and 2 1.4x TC's. I also had a 24mm f/2.0, and an 85mm f/1.8. Oh, and I shot with 4 bodies.
With digital(shooting Canon for over 20 years, I had to get new lenses), I've got a 17-40mm f/4.0, 50mm f/1.4, 70-200mm f/2.8, 400mm f/2.8, and a 1.4x TC. Planning on getting an 85mm f/1.8, 45mm f/2.8 TS, and would love a 200mm f/1.8. I shoot with 2 bodies Canon 1D, and 1DmkII.
Most of the shooters I know have a mixture of FFL and zoom lenses. I have 2 of each type :-D You pick lenses that fit what you want to accomplish. - GrahamStw, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@TTLKurtis: the focal length of the lens stays exactly the same, regardless of crop factor. What you are talking about is how to calculate the "equivalent" focal length on a 35mm system. That is not the same thing as "effective" focal length.
- sputza, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1If you are a Canon user, a great lens to use is the Canon F2.8L 24-70mm. Great speed, great glass and just awesome!
- kb244, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1As a shooter of half frame 35mm rangefinders, 35mm rangefinders, medium format folding cameras, range finders and SLR, as well as 35mm SLR and 4x5 view and field cameras, I can say your "opinion" to say that SLR is the main way to go is pretty closed minded. Theres a lot out there and not all of it is right for the situation, an SLR is not always the primarily answer to every solution. Back when SLR started hitting it big, they filled two main niches, close up photography work and telephoto work, the rest was typically fine for rangefinder users for the most part, but they did not fill that niche market that we take for granted now. SLR are not any more complicated than a rangefinder, both point and shoot, both have a lens and a focusing system, there really is not much to it, so again I say your comment that SLRs are "Definitely the way to go" is a tad closed minded.
- SuperJimmyJimbo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0not always. Picked up a Canon 50mm 1.8 for $80. Sharp as a tack.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=12142&is=USA&addedTroughType=search - dafragsta, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Only negative about that 50mm f/1.8 is that it will eventually get dust in between the elements. It's a super sharp and fast lens, but it's built like a crackerjack prize. It's still usable even then though. The dust doesn't show up in the pictures. It's too blurred.
- kb244, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Basically theres the equivalent Field of View, focal length remains the same.
- synfinatic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0*Sigh* Yet another article that confuses crop-factor and focal length. It's statements like:
"We already know that the lens mounted on a 5D will give an actual focal length of 70-200mm. But on the 30D the lens give you an effective focal length of 112-320mm. It is for this reason that some people prefer to have a cropped body (long telephoto lenses are very expensive)."
Which confuses people into thinking that a cropped body increases the focal length of lenses- it doesn't! - ardklg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I'm an old Pentax K-1000 user - classic no-frills film camera. When I moved to DSLR a couple of years ago I bucked the Canon-Nikon trend and went with Olympus and their great Zuiko glass, and I couldn't be happier. I've played with the others (and I respect them), but after doing so I always end up being really glad about my choice. The Zuiko mid-range lenses (designed for digital) are equivalent to the others' high grade, and are fantastic.
- QuantumLo0p, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Wow, what a drive by Canon plugging. I didn't even get a reach-around. Decent article for newbs I suppose.
No digg but no bury either. - edstate, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I have a Nikon F2 and a ton of A++ lenses and have been holding out for an easy convert to DSLR... but it's more about price and selection at this point.
- afx1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1FTA: "I like to tell people what to do. It makes me feel powerful. Strong. Like a small pony."
Small ponies...truly the symbol of strength. - Th0Rr, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3You sound like a Level 1 Photographer: Equipment Measurbator
- lostspyder, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3This is pathetic; it reduces to "get a lens that fits your camera". Anyone who doesnt know what lens fits their camera doesn't need to spend the money on a fixed apature or a prime lens. And what cannon is the only company who makes camera lenses/cameras? What about nikon, KM, pentax, sigma, tamron, tokna?
It doesn't say anything about seeking out a quality lens, people who read this will think theres nothing diffrent from a 25$ tamron 35-80 and a high end lens with a similar reach. This isnt an article, its a joke. - neom, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1People who don't know anything about photography or camera equipment should not write pointless articles about them. Next time write it and send it to your mother, I'm sure she would care about us much as the rest of us.
By the way, there are OTHER camera manufacturers outside Canon, such as this little company called Nikon, oh.. and.. uh.. pentax, olympus, sonly Minolta.
This is drivel. -
Show 51 - 60 of 60 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is