Zoomed vs up-close details

hamlet

No longer a newbie, moving up!
Joined
Sep 12, 2013
Messages
2,894
Reaction score
435
Location
Belgium
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
I would like to talk about zooming versus standing closer to the subject of interest. Lets say there is a leaf on the ground and you are about to take a picture of it with two lenses that are optically identical quality wise. The fixed lens is up-close to the leaf to where the leaf occupies most of the shot and The zoom lens stands farther but it is zoomed to look like it stands just as close as the fixed lens. Now will the leaf on both images contain the same amount of detail as each other?


I guess what my question boils down to: is it better to zoom or is it better to stand closer if you can?
 
Last edited:
I think you already had this discussion in another thread started by you talking about full frame vs crop. However, do a search on 'PERSPECTIVE DISTORTION.' Different lenses can and will cause different effects regardless of distance to your main subject.
 
That was about zooming with crop i think? But this isn't about distortion. My only question is in regards to detail on the leaf like its veins. Now if they are distorted or not is irrelevant.
 
Once again, you can't arbitrarily decide whether certain factors are irrelevant or pertinent because they ARE pertinent. Lens distortion is going to affect the rendering of the detail so what Joe stated is most assuredly not irrelevant. You can't just say "A" prime lens and "A" zoom lens because all lenses are not created equal. Specifically WHICH prime lens and WHICH zoom lens?

That said, with ALL factors being equal (which is a virtual impossibility) the prime lens will have SLIGHTLY better sharpness than the zoom lens because of the compromises involved in lens design. Modern lenses have dramatically limited those issues, that decades ago were significant, to the point that it is hardly noticeable with high-quality lenses.

You also have to take into consideration the circumstances. What if that leaf was 10' out in a lake? How are you going to get closer?

I don't even own any prime lenses for my DSLR bodies, they are all zoom lenses. The flexibility of a zoom lens, for me, outweighs the difference in resolution.
 
My questions are most of the time hypotheticals that i'm trying to seal up as much as i can from any other factors. But if it weren't for the flaws in the design of the zoom lens, the pictures would look identical detail wise. Is that right SCraig?
 
The problem with getting too much isolated theory is that you'll overload yourself with theories that work in isolation and when you come to actually take a photo you'll muddle yourself. Too many theories each one important and each one that won't work exactly as it should.

You can't ignore perspective distortion in this kind of question because its a key part of the fundamentals of the optical quality difference.
Just like you can't ignore the depth of field changes and background blurring that will take place. With the difference in distance from the subject you'd be using different apertures if you want the same depth of field, which will change how the rendered photos look and the quality of the shot from the lens. Furthermore if you don't keep the depth of field the same and instead keep the apertures the same you'll see a shift in the overall depth of field between the two.

It's complicated and in the end most photographers would just take a shot with each lens and compare them or compare the specific lenses from other peoples viewpoints. It's almost impossible to give an accurate answer without specific lenses because lenses perform differently and there is no standard to theory build off easily.
 
My questions are most of the time hypotheticals that i'm trying to seal up as much as i can from any other factors. But if it weren't for the flaws in the design of the zoom lens, the pictures would look identical detail wise. Is that right SCraig?

No, because as Scott has also said that no two lenses are created equal. Each lens WILL render a different image both in perspective and quality. I think what you are asking has more to do with megapixel count and the overall resolution of an image. Again no two lenses are created equal and that is how they get away with charging so much for higher quality...because they know we will pay a premium for quality and how the image is rendered.
 
I think i understand now. My questions don't really make any sense now that i look at it from this light.
 
Do you take any photographs?
 
Not as much now. I'm trying to process all the pictures i took in lightroom, none of my pictures look right. I am messing up my bokeh in post.
 
Not as much now. I'm trying to process all the pictures i took in lightroom, none of my pictures look right. I am messing up my bokeh in post.

I am not exactly sure what you mean but generally a fixed prime lens is considered better than a zoom. Zoom lenses perform better or worse at different focal lengths but a lot of this is only applicable in the "lab" so to speak. If you look for faults you will find faults. Take nice photos and enjoy
 
Not as much now. I'm trying to process all the pictures i took in lightroom, none of my pictures look right. I am messing up my bokeh in post.

How do you mess up bokeh in Lightroom? Bokeh is a characteristic of lens design, not something that you can really mess up in Lightroom.
 
I'm trying to figure this out. I'm messing around in lightroom a lot, but i don't like any of my work. Its very frustrating.
 
I'm trying to figure this out. I'm messing around in lightroom a lot, but i don't like any of my work. Its very frustrating.

Playing around in lightroom isn't going to help. Taking better pictures will (e.g. learning how to focus).
 

Most reactions

Back
Top