Brian Blankenship doubted thusly --
>Ok I know I'm no lens expert but, how the heck does a small >aperture range make a "better" lens?
Did anyone here say this was a better lens in any respect ? I
certainly did not.
>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.
. Go and read a few tests of cheap zoom lenses. If you do not
have any at hand, and a trip to a magazine stand is not possible, I
will be more than happy to mail some for you to read. Better yet,
if you have any of these zooms, test this for yourself.
Cheap zooms are not the same as with single-focal length lenses....but if you think about it....it is still close: The old bromide runs that lenses are 'sharpest' 2-3 stops down from max aperture, right ? This zoom, for example, has an f/4-5.6 max aperture. Using your professor's advice, that would mean f/11-f/16, no ?
>Also a lens with such a small range of apertures offer VERY little in >the way of creative abilities. (Blurring backgrounds and such)
Absolutely. There are few free rides in photo-physics, and this
is not one of them. Zooms provide usefulness that no single
focal length can provide, but there are drawbacks, too. With the
cheapest zooms, the drawbacks are noticeable and limiting.
You do get an eminently useful focal range in an unbelievably small
and light package at a bargain basement price, though.
I'd advise Charles to save more money and get a better lens,
unless he can live within the limitations of this one, or needs that
focal length RIGHT NOW.
--- Luis
