What Z lenses are you looking forward to or hoping for

1235»

Comments

  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,491Member
    PB_PM said:

    Doesn't seem to match what I see in the back of my home, (which faces north). Even on a bright day I'll be hitting ISO 12,800 at F5.6. We have to keep in mind that there is more to light transmission than just the set aperture, it's the total lens design. More lens elements, smaller maximum aperture means less light. That lens will bring in more light than a theoritical 50mm lens that has a aperture of 6.3 by design alone. I can see this with lens I own today, I don't get the same metering on the same scene with a 50mm F1.4 as I do the 24-70mm F2.8 at 50mm. The amount of glass makes a big difference.

    Hmmmm......something more to research.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,337Member
    edited July 2020
    It's kind of logical if you think about it. Hold up a series of anything, like tissue paper against a bright light. Each layer you add reduces the light transmission, the same is true for the glass and elements that make up modern lenses. Obviously the amount that modern glass optics cut down compared to semi-transparent objects is not the same, but the the principle remains true.

    Optics manufacturers add more elements to correct for optical errors, CA, and such because people are pixel peepers and demand them to get rid of it all so they can have the perfect lens. Problem is, that doesn't exist, although we are closer today, but just like modern prescription drugs, there are possible side effects. One of which is reduced light transmission. There are plenty of tests out their showing the older, simpler optical designs have superior light transmission, this isn't something that hasn't been talked about in the photography community before.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,491Member
    PB_PM said:

    It's kind of logical if you think about it. Hold up a series of anything, like tissue paper against a bright light. Each layer you add reduces the light transmission, the same is true for the glass and elements that make up modern lenses. Obviously the amount that modern glass optics cut down compared to semi-transparent objects is not the same, but the the principle remains true.

    Optics manufacturers add more elements to correct for optical errors, CA, and such because people are pixel peepers and demand them to get rid of it all so they can have the perfect lens. Problem is, that doesn't exist, although we are closer today, but just like modern prescription drugs, there are possible side effects. One of which is reduced light transmission. There are plenty of tests out their showing the older, simpler optical designs have superior light transmission, this isn't something that hasn't been talked about in the photography community before.

    Ah! You got it. We Nikonistas are drug addicts. Commonly referred to as GAAS.
  • PistnbrokePistnbroke Posts: 2,246Member
    Now come on lads you have been told by photobunney only to talk about lenses you want not released lenses.You will get a wack on the head from Mr Spray.....Only joking all that discussion is very valid.
  • photobunnyphotobunny Posts: 326Member
    PB_PM said:

    It's kind of logical if you think about it. Hold up a series of anything, like tissue paper against a bright light. Each layer you add reduces the light transmission, the same is true for the glass and elements that make up modern lenses. Obviously the amount that modern glass optics cut down compared to semi-transparent objects is not the same, but the the principle remains true.

    Optics manufacturers add more elements to correct for optical errors, CA, and such because people are pixel peepers and demand them to get rid of it all so they can have the perfect lens. Problem is, that doesn't exist, although we are closer today, but just like modern prescription drugs, there are possible side effects. One of which is reduced light transmission. There are plenty of tests out their showing the older, simpler optical designs have superior light transmission, this isn't something that hasn't been talked about in the photography community before.

    If lenses where measured using their T-stops or total light gathered, we might see a very different optical design. Perhaps the Nikon 200-500 would be f/5.6 to f/6.3 given the 500mm f/5.6 seems to take in more light. Or perhaps that 500 is f/5.0. f-stop always seems to be a good indication of light gathering on a photography lens but not the most accurate. For instance and unless I am very much mistaken, some/all 600mm f/4 lenses let in a lot more light that a 50mm f/4.
  • snakebunksnakebunk Posts: 961Member
    Is there any reliable source of T-stops for various (not cinematic) lenses?

    I don't think it is as simple as more elements equals higher T-stop because elements come in different dimensions and materials.
  • photobunnyphotobunny Posts: 326Member
    snakebunk said:

    Is there any reliable source of T-stops for various (not cinematic) lenses?



    I don't think it is as simple as more elements equals higher T-stop because elements come in different dimensions and materials.

    I think you have to measure each lens, perhaps even on an individual level. At the very least you can put two f/?? lenses that match on a camera in controlled lighting and you'll see that something like a 105 a f/2.8 may bring in a lot more than a 85mm. There is a chap over on a other forum that went into all the nitty gritty. The big example I know of is the 200-500 being 1/3rd of a stop darker than the 500mm PF. It may also not be a 500mm. Like a lot of the 100-400mm lenses end at 380mm.
  • PistnbrokePistnbroke Posts: 2,246Member
    edited July 2020
    DXO gives you the T stop for all tested lenses.
    I don't understand why you cannot take photos inside without flash ..I have been taking photos in 13th century churches lit with 60-watt bulbs for years at F8 and 1/30 auto iso without problems ..usually come in at 2500 iso
    Post edited by Pistnbroke on
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,337Member


    If lenses where measured using their T-stops or total light gathered, we might see a very different optical design. Perhaps the Nikon 200-500 would be f/5.6 to f/6.3 given the 500mm f/5.6 seems to take in more light. Or perhaps that 500 is f/5.0. f-stop always seems to be a good indication of light gathering on a photography lens but not the most accurate. For instance and unless I am very much mistaken, some/all 600mm f/4 lenses let in a lot more light that a 50mm f/4.

    There is nothing wrong with using F-stops as a measurement, it’s accurate at telling you the size of the aperture, which from a photographic standpoint is also relevant. Manufactures often round down the real F-stop to make a lens look better than it really is, particularly with zooms, but that’s a different issue altogether. After all, F-stops are also useful for figuring out the desired depth of field, which is in some ways more important in practice.

    T-stops are used on pro video gear because they need to be sure different cameras being used to shoot different parts of a scene have the same exposure, which is less important for still shooting.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,491Member
    T-stops are not really relavent to photography except on a forum like this. I want to know the f-stop because it will effect the image. All the t-stop effects is shutter speed, which is likely less of a concern then f-stop if you are concerned about f-stop.
  • snakebunksnakebunk Posts: 961Member
    The aperture is much more important than minor variations in T-stop, but I still find it interesting. Thanks pistnbroke for the reference to DXO.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,491Member
    PB_PM said:

    Doesn't seem to match what I see in the back of my home, (which faces north). Even on a bright day I'll be hitting ISO 12,800 at F5.6. We have to keep in mind that there is more to light transmission than just the set aperture, it's the total lens design. More lens elements, smaller maximum aperture means less light. That lens will bring in more light than a theoritical 50mm lens that has a aperture of 6.3 by design alone. I can see this with lens I own today, I don't get the same metering on the same scene with a 50mm F1.4 as I do the 24-70mm F2.8 at 50mm. The amount of glass makes a big difference.

    I also think that we often forget about the benefits of VR. To me it is the single biggest feature of my 24-70 2.8E. It is not even the same lens as the 24-70 2.8G because of the VR.

    With one stop of improvement, ISO of 12,800 (I don't know were you get that - seems off) becomes 6,400. Two stops and you are at 3,200 which for many uses is very decent IQ and light years ahead of a cell phone. Four stops becomes ISO 800.

    I think that a 6.3 lens, coupled with modern high ISO performance and VR, is a non-issue.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,337Member
    VR doesn’t stop you from getting blurry shots of kids. Slower shutter speed are fine for still life, and would sure help with posed adult phots without question. A flash and a faster aperture lens are the only option for the scenario I gave on the last page. I guess I’m in the age group of people who see these things among my peers. I get it most people here are older, have a larger disposable income and all that jazz, and buying expensive high end gear is like a drop in the bucket to you. Thing is Nikon needs to attract younger buyers to insure their future, so you guys can keep buying fancy gizmos.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • JustMe01JustMe01 Posts: 2Member
    On my wants list are a z 105mm micro and a z 80-400mm F5/6
Sign In or Register to comment.