Can we take this to extreme and say--if only sharpness and contrast are
considerations, not focal length, not depth of field, not a wide
aperture--that a photo taken with a Canon 50mm 1.8 taken at it best f/stop
will be sharper than a picture taken with any other Canon lens?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 7:40 PM
> To: Ken Durling
> Subject: Re: EOS Lens Comparisons
>
>
> --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ken Durling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <snip>
> > Just what is it that gives a lens "contrast?" And why should there
> be
> > a difference between primes and zooms?
>
> The more elements you have, the more opportunities there are for
> internal reflections (flare) which is what really *kills* contrast.
> Zooms tend to be much more complex optically, they always haver more
> elements and groups. Antireflective multicoating has helped a lot,
> but when it's applied to the primes too, guess who still has more
> contrast?
>
> <snip>
> > Sharpness my lay mind can understand, because of the relative
> > stability of the elements (at least that's what I think) but
> > contrast?
>
> The simple act of light passing through a bunch more glass tends to
> knock down the difference between the lightest parts of the picture
> and the darkest, which is what contrast really is. All things being
> equal, a lens with a simpler optical formula will exhibit more
> contrast than a more complicated one with more elements.
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
