Quote:
Originally Posted by Teshi
I think you might need to reword that. By simply having a lens with a fixed aperture does not automatically give you better quality.
All the fixed aperture lenses will do vs a floating aperture lens is the fact you will lose x amounts of stops worth of light. It will help yield a faster shutter speed but still can result in bad IQ.
|
BUT the point that is being missed is that fixed aperture lenses have to have more front glass and the more glass you have the more light transmission you get to your film plane. Also fixed aperture lenses will have fewer elements for the light to pass through. These compact "super zoom" lenses can only get away with their mechanics by utilizing a floating f-stop system and by having more elements. The more elements you have the more glass that light has to pass through and as light passes through glass there is an inherent loss of quality (much like zeroxing a copy of a copy)
As a photographer you can get around shutter speed issues in most cases but you cant get around the added clarity, sharpness, depth and just brilliance that a fixed aperture lens provides. Hence why I shoot prime lenses whenever I can get away with it.
The big point that should be made is people in general should put their money more into their lenses than their bodies. I have always said to buy the best lenses that your budget will allow you even if it means you buy a "lesser model of a body" In film days this was particularly true and with the huge leaps of the digital age most all modern consumer and prosumer bodies will yield excellent results. Its always the lens that is the weak link...