14-45 lens limiting.

[pellicle]

Ron

I understand that but @ 14mm the birdhouse would be insignificant in the picture, not the subject.

of course .. its all related to subject - distance relationships, you just need to get closer ... anyway, I'm sure that the kid in you just wants to climb that tree

PS ... I think it would make a better picture that way too. You know, if your pictures aren't looking good enough, your not close enough to the subject ... or something like that ;-)

(PPS to quote FoghornLeghorn "I say that's a Joke son")

 

[pellicle]

Hi

How can one compare the DOF of a wide angle lens to a tele photo lens?

well, I don't recall doing such ... I was simply pointing out that when Ron said:

so I was quite taken back to find my maximum aperture was 5.6

that the lens was not a constant max 5.6 and that DoF did not really need to be so deep ...


I thought that it was clear that one would not need to point out that 14mm wasn't where he wanted to be ... perhaps I just have my sence of humor on backwards today ... or is that my undies? oh dear

:thumbs:

 

[Ron Evers]

Oh Joy - the sun came out today

Well, we got sun this morning, enabling me to try a similar shot with my Minolta 55/1.7. I had to get a little further away than with the 14-45 to get a similar field of view. Here is what I got @ f1.7, much improved DOF in my opinion.

I also shot it again @ 5.6 as with the 14-45 & I think the background tree is clearer than with the Pany lens.

 

[Jonas]

(...)
Luckily, I have the choice, whereas I know others don't. I can also use my EF 50 f/1.4

Diane

Ouch! Hi Diane. That image shows why there are very few EF50/1.4 images in the FM "Admirable" blur thread. Well, to my taste that is, and what I think. OTOH, it can be used for some effects...

regards,

/Jonas

 

[gme109]

Thats true to an extent but people are often misled by it as well.

Consider the following scenario - suppose you are taking a head-and-shoulders portrait of someone using 45mm @ 2.8. Lets say you have determined that you need to stay at a distance of 6 feet to get that shot with the 45mm lens. Our DOF calculator says you will get DOF = 0.45 ft in this case.

Now if you stay at the same point and put your 200mm 5.6 lens on, the DOF calculator says that DOF is now only 0.04 ft. Now thats a wow!!!. However unfortunately we no longer have a head and shoulder shot. With 200mm at 6ft, we are really zoomed into a part of the face. As a result you will have to move back to around 27ft to get a similar head and shoulder shot with the 200mm lens as you got earlier with the 45mm lens. The DOF in this case is only 0.9 ft !

Moral of the story: If you shoot the same subject (at a similar size) using the 45mm lens @ 2.8 lens and 200mm lens @ 5.6, the DOF will be shallower for the 45mm 2.8 lens. The only case when 200mm 5.6 will give a shallower DOF is when you actually use it to zoom further into the subject and capture smaller details.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. That obvious point escaped me at the time. :banghead:

 

[wonderer]

Oh yeah, I have no doubt about the need for a fast 45mm as your exampleand Ron's later example so clearly show. Its just that far too many people are misled into believing that just using a longer focal length will automatically result in a shallower depth of field, and thats why I wanted to clarify

Personally I will never carry a zoom like the 14-45mm with me and will prefer to cover this range with a 20mm 1.7 with foot zoom as much as possible. Or possibly pair it with the Voigtlander 40mm 1.4 (though I hate to change lenses )

wonderer

yes, but I think Ron was after something more like this sort of DoF look from his 45mm:

this is from a FD 50mm f1.4 at 1.4

 

[Diane B]

Ouch! Hi Diane. That image shows why there are very few EF50/1.4 images in the FM "Admirable" blur thread. Well, to my taste that is, and what I think. OTOH, it can be used for some effects...

regards,

/Jonas

:ROTFL: :ROTFL:

 

[bruderadler]

How can one compare the DOF of a wide angle lens to a tele photo lens? Also, wide DOF may be considered a 'feature' by others, not necessarily a 'limitation' . Yes, a Formula One race car cannot even have room to carry a large piece of luggage, but I won't consider it is a limitation and is not as good as a truck. This is one of the beauties of the M4/3 camera: you have lots of choices of lenses, a lot more than any other cameras,

DOF being relative to focal length is a photography myth that tends to live forever...

DOF is a mathematically calculated value that depends ONLY on magnification and aperture value. The focal length comes into the formula indirectly i.e. if the distance is the same the longer focal length will give a smaller DOF for the same aperture value because the magnification is higher. But if the object (e.g. face) covers the same area on the sensor with WA and tele, the DOF is exactly the same if the aperture is the same. The wider FOV of the WA lens "fools" the viewer because the background has more detail and seems to be more sharp.

Now, because we have to enlarge a picuture taken with a 4/3 camera two times more to make it equal to a FF picture at normal viewing size (e.g. 8x10" print), the perceived DOF is "only" two times the DOF of FF, if we use the same FOV (e.g. 25mm lens with 4/3 and 50 mm lens with FF, but the same aperture and distance). The mathematically calculated value (i.e. using the same circle of confusion for both cases) would show four times difference in DOF at the same magnification.

Crystal clear :lecture:

 

[Vivek]

Olympus Pen F 40/1.4 on G1.