> -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Blankenship [mailto:brian@bngraphics.com] > > Ok I know I'm no lens expert but, how the heck does a small > aperture range > make a "better" lens? I mean let just point out the bad > points here. the > smaller aperture means you need either longer exposures, or > much faster > film. Also, every teacher I have ever asked about this has > said that the > smaller the aperture is the lower the image quality. Now I > can see how that > could just be a preference thing but, you can't change the physics of > having a small aperture and needing more light or faster film. > > Also a lens with such a small range of apertures offer VERY > little in the > way of creative abilities. (Blurring backgrounds and such) Ok. Well the way I understood Luis' post was that he was not suggesting one use a lens with only 2 aperture settings (f11 & f16). I think he was saying that this lens (like most lenses) will provide the sharpest results at f11 or maybe f16. I have heard that nasty old diffraction takes hold of images when the aperture is very small and when the aperture is wide open all those evil lens aberrations take hold. So f11 provides the best balance between the two extremes as far as sharpness goes. Small apertures do mean you need longer exposures or faster film but if you need the absolute sharpest image possible with a given lens, well you've got to make some concessions. At least that's the way I understand it. Greg Fraser http://www.geocities.com/fraserg1962
