What is pixel density with low res lenses?

[hamlet]

I'd rather take pictures.
Just caught Neptune and Uranus up in the night sky. And I was just using a 70-300vrii @ 300 ... had to crop like crazy, but they're there. So pretty good resolution for that lens on a d600 @ 6400 ISO, 1.3 secs f/5.6

I saw some planets. That is a pretty neat image with what for you had to work with.

 

[gsgary]

Why are you worrying about thing like this, this is just another one of your stupid questions

 

[hamlet]

Why do you think it is a stupid question?

 

[gsgary]

I appreciate your feedback, but the technical side of photography also has a place in tpf where people can exchange ideas and talk about doubts they have about things. But i think it is best we don't go into talking about who can do what, so let's keep the discussion about lenses.

Didn't mean to put a like, talking about stuff like this is pointless just get out and shoot

 

[hamlet]

Let me put this into perspective for you. This is a hobby that can become very expensive, fast. Knowing where you are relative to what is out there can help you avoid a lot of heartache in the future. This thread is not about getting the most expensive lens, rather, it is about having the best toolset to help you navigate your purchasing decisions. What is pointless, is not contributing factual information one way or the other. Why is this pointless? What did we miss? What is a better way to sort through all this information?

 

[jaomul]

You worry about numbers to much

Well numbers matter depending on what you are doing with your photos. I could be wrong, but the ones that come to my mind are: large print photos, birdsters & sportsters who crop.

I didn't mean my statement as an insult, it seems a few smart answers came afterwards also. Numbers are important for cropping etc but if you read many comparison reviews between lenses etc, some lenses do worse on charts than others. These lenses often get higher "people" ratings because the chart stats dont seem to matter in real life photos. The same can sometimes be said of cameras and their sensor statistics.

The Nikon 85mm f1.4 d is a very highly regarded portrait lens, but it is known not to be super sharp. On these charts that you put up on links this lens would likely fair poorly, but in real life taking photos of real people its a gem. So in a non insulting way, due various parameters i say you worry to much about numbers

 

[greybeard]

First of all, I see nothing wrong with this question or discussion. After all, this is a photo/camera forum and this is the sort of thing we discuss here. Now that 24mp has become pretty much the standard for at least Nikon, it probably is a stretch for any lens other than a top drawer prime to be sharp enough to do the sensor justice.

 

[gsgary]

While you keep discussing it I'll be out shooting with my 24mp camera and primes and film cameras because most on here don't print so it doesn't matter I do print big and have no problems

 

[hamlet]

You worry about numbers to much

Well numbers matter depending on what you are doing with your photos. I could be wrong, but the ones that come to my mind are: large print photos, birdsters & sportsters who crop.

I didn't mean my statement as an insult, it seems a few smart answers came afterwards also. Numbers are important for cropping etc but if you read many comparison reviews between lenses etc, some lenses do worse on charts than others. These lenses often get higher "people" ratings because the chart stats dont seem to matter in real life photos. The same can sometimes be said of cameras and their sensor statistics.

The Nikon 85mm f1.4 d is a very highly regarded portrait lens, but it is known not to be super sharp. On these charts that you put up on links this lens would likely fair poorly, but in real life taking photos of real people its a gem. So in a non insulting way, due various parameters i say you worry to much about numbers

Why would you think that i was offended? I'm just trying to get a discussion going is all. The 85 1.4/1.8 score incredibly high on the list with the most expensive lenses up there.

Here is the list: Lens scoring versus Optical Metrics - DxOMark


This is an example of knowing where you are. If aren't able to afford expensive lenses, the 85 1.8 could do the job like some of the best out there. The Sigma 35mm F1.4 hsm is another lens that knocks it out of the park at a humble price.

 

[jaomul]

I'm talking about the d version

 

[hamlet]

I'm talking about the d version

My mistake.

 

[astroNikon]

Why would you think that i was offended? I'm just trying to get a discussion going is all. The 85 1.4/1.8 score incredibly high on the list with the most expensive lenses up there.

Here is the list: Lens scoring versus Optical Metrics - DxOMark


This is an example of knowing where you are. If aren't able to afford expensive lenses, the 85 1.8 could do the job like some of the best out there. The Sigma 35mm F1.4 hsm is another lens that knocks it out of the park at a humble price.

The only problem here is you are looking at some things from purely a technical aspect.
In portraiture you don't want RAZOR Sharpness.
Getting a razor sharp lens will give you the best sharpness and clarity. But in some cases you don't want that.
You may be after other attributes of a particular lens.

In the above case the 85mm/1.4 AF-D is better than the G versions for portraiture due to the smoothness it creates for modeling. OF COURSE you still have to get your lighting and everything else correct, and good posing, etc etc etc.

I've stuck with my 85 AFD lens for portraiture because I don't want the razor sharpness of the G version. From what the experts have all said the G version, due to it's sharpness, is good for landscapes, etc. and the AF-D is good for portraiture.

So, even thought technically the G is a more modern and sharper lens, it's not as good as the AF-D version for portraiture.


some lenses may be razor sharp but not in the corners, or have pincushion, etc. Some things can be corrected in post processing, etc. Just find the best lens for what you are looking for.

When you move up to FF what options will you have in Nikon? There's only a couple options. You have to pick the best one for what you want to do.

The same with the lenses. You can always rent them and test them yourself.

I looked at the Dxo link you had. Interestingly the 24-85/2.8-4 AF-D was high on that list.

 

[hamlet]

First of all, I see nothing wrong with this question or discussion. After all, this is a photo/camera forum and this is the sort of thing we discuss here. Now that 24mp has become pretty much the standard for at least Nikon, it probably is a stretch for any lens other than a top drawer prime to be sharp enough to do the sensor justice.

Right, it is a valid observation. Nikon pushed the bar so high, that people haven't mentally fully caught up with what has really transpired. They removed the low-pass filter in nearly all of their cameras to get more out of all of the lenses.

 

[astroNikon]

and the low pass AA filter was there for a reason until the higher mp sensors kinda made it not really needed.

 

[hamlet]

The only problem here is you are looking at some things from purely a technical aspect.
In portraiture you don't want RAZOR Sharpness.
Getting a razor sharp lens will give you the best sharpness and clarity. But in some cases you don't want that.
You may be after other attributes of a particular lens.

In the above case the 85mm/1.4 AF-D is better than the G versions for portraiture due to the smoothness it creates for modeling. OF COURSE you still have to get your lighting and everything else correct, and good posing, etc etc etc.

I've stuck with my 85 AFD lens for portraiture because I don't want the razor sharpness of the G version. From what the experts have all said the G version, due to it's sharpness, is good for landscapes, etc. and the AF-D is good for portraiture.

So, even thought technically the G is a more modern and sharper lens, it's not as good as the AF-D version for portraiture.


some lenses may be razor sharp but not in the corners, or have pincushion, etc. Some things can be corrected in post processing, etc. Just find the best lens for what you are looking for.

When you move up to FF what options will you have in Nikon? There's only a couple options. You have to pick the best one for what you want to do.

The same with the lenses. You can always rent them and test them yourself.

I looked at the Dxo link you had. Interestingly the 24-85/2.8-4 AF-D was high on that list.

Yeah, a lot of what you want is at the end of the day a creative decision. You use the equipment to get the desired end product, and that product isn't always the best and sharpest. I for example have a couple of projects drawn out that i'm going to be doing with my 11-16 tokina on full frame, so i get what you are talking about with the 85d.