Questions about Lenses and Distance

[TheFlyingScotsman]

I thought I had this figured out, but I guess I don't. Let me see if I can even ask the question.

First, I have a Nikon D5100. I have two lenses: the 18-55mm kit lens that came with the camera and a new 35mm Nikon 1:1.8 prime. The first thing I noticed when I used the 35mm prime is that my pictures turned out a LOT better - cleaner, sharper and with more detail. Which leads to my first question:

1. Is there a difference in "glass"? Are some lenses just better than others?

The reason for question 1 is my kit lens, the one that came with the camera, takes nice pictures, but not "great" pictures. It could be the lens quality, or it could just be me not knowing what I'm doing. Even if I set all the settings the same: set the kit to 35mm, set the stops, the aperture, the ISO the same, I can see the difference. But is it because of the kind of lens or is one just better "glass" than the other?

2. Can you use these lenses to shoot to infinity?

I went out last weekend and shot some exposures around the Great Salt Lake. I was shooting across the lake towards the mountains on the other side. I used both lenses and the images turned okay but not clear and crisp. Here are two examples:

Example 1

Example 2

In both cases, the focal point was along the distant horizon. Also in both cases, I pushed my stop up to f/22 to maximize the depth of field. But is there a point (a distance) beyond which these focal points don't work well (55 mm is the max I have now on the kit lens)? I've looked at a depth of field calculator and, obviously, I'm shooting to infinity here. Are these the wrong lenses for this?

3. Should I consider buying a new lens?

Here are two I'm looking at:

Option 1

Option 2

The thing is these aren't considered "landscape lenses." So am I misunderstanding how these lenses work? Wouldn't they bring the image closer and make it sharper?

I feel like I'm really having a problems getting sharp, clear images (like I see other people taking). Sure, I can sharpen them in Photoshop or Lightroom, but I'd prefer to learn to take the sharpest detailed pictures I can take before post-production.

Thanks in advance for any suggestions.

TFS

[rcastillo]

1. yes, of course some lenses are better than others.. they're more expensive too..
2. i can't see the photos you posted, but to answer your question, yes, they do go up to infinity..
3. get a lens that's best suited to your needs(research research research).. i shoot canon, but i think nikon's 17-55 2.8's IQ is great for an all-arounder..

[sk66]

1. yes, some lenses are better and more expensive. But I'll bet the kit lens can take pictures virtually indistinguishable from the 35mm if used properly. I did a long post about "Know Your Gear".

2. You generally don't want to focus on the horizon for those types of shots. There is just too much atmospheric stuff and lack of detail for the camera to focus particularly well. Over-simple answer is to focus 1/3 into the scene.

Use a wider aperture. At f/22 you are probably seeing diffraction looking at that fine detail level. (I would use "hyperfocal settings" for that type of shot, but 1/3 in would have worked fine)

3. Probably not....certainly not due to the results in those images. Maybe eventually, once you know how to use what you have to it's maximum and find it limiting.

[TheFlyingScotsman]

Originally Posted by rcastillo

1. yes, of course some lenses are better than others.. they're more expensive too..
2. i can't see the photos you posted, but to answer your question, yes, they do go up to infinity..
3. get a lens that's best suited to your needs(research research research).. i shoot canon, but i think nikon's 17-55 2.8's IQ is great for an all-arounder..

1. Right - and I guess I understood that. Perhaps the better worded question would be do more expensive lenses make that much difference and would a more expensive lens fix my clarity problems.

2. Try this link: Flickr: The Reluctant Fisherman's Photostream. I've checked twice and it works. The images are on the first page.

3. Would be any difference between the 17-55 2.8 and my 18-55 3.5 other than the former is a slightly faster lens?

@ sk66: Thanks for the link. Reading now . . .

[rcastillo]

Originally Posted by TheFlyingScotsman

1. Right - and I guess I understood that. Perhaps the better worded question would be do more expensive lenses make that much difference and would a more expensive lens fix my clarity problems.

2. Try this link: Flickr: The Reluctant Fisherman's Photostream. I've checked twice and it works. The images are on the first page.

3. Would be any difference between the 17-55 2.8 and my 18-55 3.5 other than the former is a slightly faster lens?

@ sk66: Thanks for the link. Reading now . . .

1 & 3 - again from a canon lens perspective.. try this link showing the IQ between the kit lens and a 17-55, change focal lengths/apertures and mouseover the images to see the differences..

2 - i'll check it out when i get home.. i'm at work.. lol..

[RichardTaylor]

Edit: Written whilst the above posts were being posted.
Would a more expensive lens fix your problem?
Only if your technique is up to scratch, and up to a point the shooting conditions mainly the light and atmospherics.
-----------------------------------------------
In adiition to the posts above.

(1) Try shooting around f11 and see how that goes. You may have lens difraction problems at smaller apertures like f22.

(2) Remove any unneded filters which my degrade the image.

(3) Use a lens hood to help reduce flare.

Were you using a tripod for the 1/40 shot (pic #2)?

Re the lenses. I am also a Cannon shooter so I have no experince of the performance of Nikon lenses, howver;

(1) The 18-105 w8ill bring subjects closer than your 18-55 (they will look like they are twice as close)

(2) The 55-300 will bring them even closer ... It will be like looking through a 10x binocular.

Depending on the atmospherics and your shooting techniques the images may be sharper.

You can use almost any lens for landscapes. You will just take a different style of photograph.

You may find this DPS lens tutorial of interest.

Lenses #1 - Introduction to DSLR lenses.

[TheFlyingScotsman]

Originally Posted by rcastillo

1 & 3 - again from a canon lens perspective.. try this link showing the IQ between the kit lens and a 17-55, change focal lengths/apertures and mouseover the images to see the differences..

2 - i'll check it out when i get home.. i'm at work.. lol..

Right, sorry. Thanks for the link. I see your point.

Originally Posted by RichardTaylor

(1) Try shooting around f11 and see how that goes. You may have lens difraction problems at smaller apertures like f22.

(2) Remove any unneded filters which my degrade the image.

(3) Use a lens hood to help reduce flare.

Were you using a tripod for the 1/40 shot (pic #2)?

Re the lenses. I am also a Cannon shooter so I have no experince of the performance of Nikon lenses, howver;

(1) The 18-105 w8ill bring subjects closer than your 18-55 (they will look like they are twice as close)

(2) The 55-300 will bring them even closer ... It will be like looking through a 10x binocular.

Depending on the atmospherics and your shooting techniques the images may be sharper.

You can use almost any lens for landscapes. You will just take a different style of photograph.

You may find this DPS lens tutorial of interest.

Lenses #1 - Introduction to DSLR lenses.

Thanks for the link. Yes, a tripod was used on all images. Thanks for the suggestions.

[inkista]

There are a couple issues going on, and if what you're really asking is, "if I swap out my lens, will that fix all my sharpness/clarity issues?" the answer is, sorry, no. It's never quite that simple.

The first thing you need to learn about is aperture and lens/sensor performance. Lenses are usually at their weakest when used wide open. Most lenses do not perform identically across the aperture range The performance of a lens typically starts to improve 1 stop down from max. aperture, and may continue to improve for another stop or so. The exact "sweet spot" on any lens is individual (test data can be great for this), but most of us would recommend stopping down at least one stop from wide open. And as a rule, f/8 is almost never going to look bad on any lens. f/8 and post-processing can make any lens look more expensive.

This is why photographers like fast lenses. A stop down from f/1.8 still gives you available light room, while a stop down from f/3.5 does not.

Secondly, happy medium. There is, as others have noted, a problem at the opposite end of the spectrum as well. If you stop down too far, diffraction on high-density sensors can come into play and cause softness. So, you can think of it as the farther you wander way from the f/4-f/8 range, the more tradeoffs you have to balance.

Wide open usage can also exacerbate things like vignetting, purple fringing, lateral chromatic aberration, and softer corner performance.

But on top of that. There are other factors that can cause you to perceive an image as being sharper or not sharper that have nothing to do with actual sharpness.

Noise is one. Using a lower iso is great at reducing noise. But if you underexpose, and if you then adjust the exposure to be brighter in post processing, you can actually create more noise than if you'd use a higher iso level.

Contrast and saturation increases can also make a picture seem sharper. Which is why shooting into the sun never seems to look quite as nice as when the sun is over your shoulder, and shooting bright colors always seems nicer than shooting more muted tones. I have a Zeiss lens that looks crisper than all my Canon glass, and it has nothing to do with per-pixel/resolution (that's why Leica glass looks sharper ), and everything to do with contrast and color rendition.



Of course, certain lenses are going to be sharper, and usually they're more expensive. Prime lenses tend to be optimized for the single focal length they have. Zooms may be as sharp at their "sweet spots", but could vary performance across the focal length range. Variable-aperture zooms tend not to be as nice as constant-aperture zooms, mostly from a usage standpoint, but sometimes from an optical one as well.

But even with "better" glass, you still have to take the same precautions in terms of aperture use. The Planar 100 I used for that shot above? If I use it wide open, I get very strong longitudinal (front-to-back, vs. the side-to-side of lateral) chromatic aberration, and it's softer than when stopped down to f/4.

Lastly, there's also a huge difference between judging sharpness at your delivery size, sharpness at the image level, and sharpness at 100%. Sharpness at 100% is magnifying past the bounds of most hobbyist printing/viewing. It is, in essence, a super-extreme test. Make sure you're not falling into the trap of pixel-peeping to judge quality.

[TheFlyingScotsman]

Thanks to everyone for the replies. Reading through the posts and links now, but thanks for the info. You've cleared up a couple of issues already.

Originally Posted by inkista

There are a couple issues going on, and if what you're really asking is, "if I swap out my lens, will that fix all my sharpness/clarity issues?" the answer is, sorry, no. It's never quite that simple.

Gotcha. If only it were that easy.

Originally Posted by inkista

The first thing you need to learn about is aperture and lens/sensor performance. Lenses are usually at their weakest when used wide open. Most lenses do not perform identically across the aperture range The performance of a lens typically starts to improve 1 stop down from max. aperture, and may continue to improve for another stop or so. The exact "sweet spot" on any lens is individual (test data can be great for this), but most of us would recommend stopping down at least one stop from wide open. And as a rule, f/8 is almost never going to look bad on any lens. f/8 and post-processing can make any lens look more expensive.

Test data - now that was fairly amazing. I've bookmarked that page.

Originally Posted by inkista

This is why photographers like fast lenses. A stop down from f/1.8 still gives you available light room, while a stop down from f/3.5 does not.

Secondly, happy medium. There is, as others have noted, a problem at the opposite end of the spectrum as well. If you stop down too far, diffraction on high-density sensors can come into play and cause softness. So, you can think of it as the farther you wander way from the f/4-f/8 range, the more tradeoffs you have to balance.

I see - again. So maxing out the aperture was a mistake. In defense of myself - if there's any defense other than I'm still learning and often have no clue what I'm doing - I did read somewhere (probably on the internet) that shooting at f/22 enhanced overall sharpness because it increased the focal depth of field.

Originally Posted by inkista

~ snip ~

I have a Zeiss lens that looks crisper than all my Canon glass, and it has nothing to do with per-pixel/resolution (that's why Leica glass looks sharper ), and everything to do with contrast and color rendition . . .

Just for giggles, I priced Zeiss glass for my camera. Then I thought about how much the legislature pays me to teach college students the difference between Lewis and Lovecraft, and to avoid running on their sentences . . . and I sighed.

Originally Posted by inkista

~ snip ~

Lastly, there's also a huge difference between judging sharpness at your delivery size, sharpness at the image level, and sharpness at 100%. Sharpness at 100% is magnifying past the bounds of most hobbyist printing/viewing. It is, in essence, a super-extreme test. Make sure you're not falling into the trap of pixel-peeping to judge quality.

Okay, I admit it - I am doing a little bit of that - the pixel-peeping, that is. It's a habit I picked up because I learned to use Photoshop before I learned to use a camera. One of the visual (and intellectual) adjustments I need to make is the idea that everyone else's images look FANTASTIC and they do so right out of the camera! On the other hand, mine do not.

And even thought I know this, I still can't help but do it.

Great reply, thanks.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by TheFlyingScotsman

I see - again. So maxing out the aperture was a mistake. In defense of myself - if there's any defense other than I'm still learning and often have no clue what I'm doing - I did read somewhere (probably on the internet) that shooting at f/22 enhanced overall sharpness because it increased the focal depth of field.

You probably got this from the Bryan Peterson book, Understanding Exposure which gets quoted and requoted across the web. He pushes f/22 all over the place in that book, and the only difference for the new 3rd editions is that he finally makes a footnote about diffraction at smaller apertures. To be fair, though, he was a film shooter first, digital second. And on film/full-frame, the issue is less critical than on a crop body. And sometimes, you can get too wrapped up or concerned about specific issues.

And there are going to be times you think the diffraction is worth it to get the DoF, or to get the slower shutter speed. f/22 also has its place, as does shooting wide open.

Just for giggles, I priced Zeiss glass for my camera. Then I thought about how much the legislature pays me to teach college students the difference between Lewis and Lovecraft, and to avoid running on their sentences . . . and I sighed.

Grin. My Planar 100 is not the ZE version. It's an old Contax/Yashica lens that I've slapped an adapter ring on to. It's the earlier AE version. It cost me $700. Which, I admit is not cheap, but it's nowhere near the price of a new ZE Makro-Planar 100/2.

I also leave you with a shot that I took from a (then) $230 C/Y Zeiss Distagon 28mm f/2.8 on my Canon XT. Today, it's probably closer to $350-$400, though, thanks to student filmmakers.


Canon XT. adapted C/Y Zeiss Distagon T* 28mm f/2.8. iso 100, f/8-ish?, 1/400s.

The other bargain is the C/Y Planar T* 50mm f/1.7.

One of the visual (and intellectual) adjustments I need to make is the idea that everyone else's images look FANTASTIC and they do so right out of the camera!....

Yup. Everybody post-processes. Everybody edits.