08-12-2011, 06:38 AM
[quote name='Lbam' timestamp='1313108693' post='10656']
I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here...
Typically a longer focal length requires a faster shutter speed for less blurred shots. When I say blurred I'm not talking about background blur, I'm talking about reducing the effect of camera shake.
I'm this regard the Zeiss seems to win on both fronts having both a larger aperture, and a shorter focal length. Obviously the difference is small in both aspects, but it is there.
Regarding background blur, the optical design (shape of glass elements etc) of these two lenses is undoubtedly more important than their focal length/max aperture ratio, but with my calculations I did back in the day, the 125mm focal length trumps the f2.0 aperture... They are so close in the aspect though I considered it not worth mentioning.
Cross sections of the lens designs would perhaps of been a more interesting feature to add to the review.
[/quote]
The background blur AMOUNT depends on the aperture (size of the opening), and those are equal (50mm for both), so neither would trump the other
As for "camera shake", that makes little sense when you talk about it from a portrait lens perspective, wide open you usually always have light enough so camera shake does not even come into the equation.
So, still, I find that one line (or actually, it appears two times in your nice review)) puzzling after your explanation, as typical portrait use has enough light to keep camera shake well out of the equation and especially the camera you use does well at higher ISO settings too....
Which of the two lenses do you own?
I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here...
Typically a longer focal length requires a faster shutter speed for less blurred shots. When I say blurred I'm not talking about background blur, I'm talking about reducing the effect of camera shake.
I'm this regard the Zeiss seems to win on both fronts having both a larger aperture, and a shorter focal length. Obviously the difference is small in both aspects, but it is there.
Regarding background blur, the optical design (shape of glass elements etc) of these two lenses is undoubtedly more important than their focal length/max aperture ratio, but with my calculations I did back in the day, the 125mm focal length trumps the f2.0 aperture... They are so close in the aspect though I considered it not worth mentioning.
Cross sections of the lens designs would perhaps of been a more interesting feature to add to the review.
[/quote]
The background blur AMOUNT depends on the aperture (size of the opening), and those are equal (50mm for both), so neither would trump the other
As for "camera shake", that makes little sense when you talk about it from a portrait lens perspective, wide open you usually always have light enough so camera shake does not even come into the equation.
So, still, I find that one line (or actually, it appears two times in your nice review)) puzzling after your explanation, as typical portrait use has enough light to keep camera shake well out of the equation and especially the camera you use does well at higher ISO settings too....
Which of the two lenses do you own?