Which lens is fast and which is not?

[Fota]

Hi,

I often read comments about this and that lens is not fast. But I very seldom read any comments about a lens actually being fast. I presume fast means that the AF is fast.

Also, does the lens affect how good the AF is? I mean, not how fast but how able it will be to find focus.

I have just tested a D200 with a 24-120 lens. I tested it indoor with low light. I found it great and very fast. But, I was comparing it to my Oly 7070. Maybe any D-SLR lens is great and fast compared to that!?

So, which lenses are fast and which are not (when talking about D-SLR)?
Sure, it's relative, but lets be relative. Which are the fastest and which are the slowest and which comes in between?

So what do you say about:

Nikon
18-200 VRII
24-120 VR
60mm macro
105mm macro VR
12-24mm
...

Sigma
...

Tokina
...

etc


/Fota

 

[cerich]

a fast lens can be identified by a lower aperature number.

For example you can get a 70-210 f4.5-5.6 Canon lens for a couple hundered bucks, or you can get a 70-210 f3 lens fron Canon for a few thousand and it will be big and white.

The smaller number means the aperature opens more to let more light in allowing you to shoot in lower light conditions.

Fast isn't the only consideration or difference however, there are also how many elements (or pieces of glass...) in a lens, the coatings on the lens and how aspherical a lens is that all are part of a good lens.

One thing you can normally be sure of, a mid range NIKON or Canon lens will 99% of they time be of better quality than a mid range Sigma, Yokina, etc. However the Mid ranged Sigma, et all will be about the price of a low range Canon, Nikon and many times will perform better than the low range "big name". Both Sigma and Tokina make some excellent lenes.

Putting any lens in a housing and shooting underwater, well if the lens onthe housing isn't high quality it doesn't matter what lens you use, the housing port is the limiting factor.

 

[Fota]

a fast lens can be identified by a lower aperature number.

For example you can get a 70-210 f4.5-5.6 Canon lens for a couple hundered bucks, or you can get a 70-210 f3 lens fron Canon for a few thousand and it will be big and white.

The smaller number means the aperature opens more to let more light in allowing you to shoot in lower light conditions.

Fast isn't the only consideration or difference however, there are also how many elements (or pieces of glass...) in a lens, the coatings on the lens and how aspherical a lens is that all are part of a good lens.

One thing you can normally be sure of, a mid range NIKON or Canon lens will 99% of they time be of better quality than a mid range Sigma, Yokina, etc. However the Mid ranged Sigma, et all will be about the price of a low range Canon, Nikon and many times will perform better than the low range "big name". Both Sigma and Tokina make some excellent lenes.

Putting any lens in a housing and shooting underwater, well if the lens onthe housing isn't high quality it doesn't matter what lens you use, the housing port is the limiting factor.

Thanks for your reply. Even though your comments were interesting, I would very much like this thread to be about speed of the AF.

But, while we are at it , the glass of an uw-housing is not something you can choose. Is it? I mean, if you go for e.g. Ikelite, you will use their lense port.

Do you have any comments on lens ports that are not good enough to be used by a good quality Nikon lens such as the 60 or 105mm macro?


/Fota

 

[cerich]

Thanks for your reply. Even though your comments were interesting, I would very much like this thread to be about speed of the AF.

But, while we are at it , the glass of an uw-housing is not something you can choose. Is it? I mean, if you go for e.g. Ikelite, you will use their lense port.

Do you have any comments on lens ports that are not good enough to be used by a good quality Nikon lens such as the 60 or 105mm macro?


/Fota

Normally among photo buff, fast is a reference to the aperature.

Fast AF, I shoot Canopn, one reason I choose Canon many years ago over NIKON was that the Ultrasonic AF was quicker than Nikons AF. Now with a few thousand bucks of Canon lenes I just stick with them.

I haven't done any research on the AF speed comaparison in a few years so wouldn't want to mak eany statement on what the current situation is.

Honestly I wouldn't pair high end with Ikelite. They make a good product at a great price point.

Mid range I would look at Sea and Sea

High end, you'll know what you want when you get there! Sounds corny but somewhat true.

 

[Cacia]

the housing port is the limiting factor.

hmm. Don't hear this too often. I can see what you are saying though.

 

[cerich]

hmm. Don't hear this too often. I can see what you are saying though.

Sure you take a thousand bucks of multi element APO lenes and slap them behing a piece of 3mm tempered glass and all the extra goodness of the lens is gone....you may as well have bought the $200 Sigma

Then you have to consider the water itself.

There are very high end u/w set ups, however unless you are shooting at the VERY top levels technique will win over equipment everyday.

 

[HowardE]

Fota - The VR on the lenses you've listed are for "vibration reduction" it is Nikon's "steady shot" which works pretty well topside, but you really shouldn't notice a difference with VR or non-VR lenses under water. Most of your UW shots are close up, with a strobe, and at speeds above 1/60 of a second, so you shouldn't have "shake"

the VR comes in handy if you're shooting with a 200 mm lens at speeds below 1/200 and you're zoomed in all the way. Typically, you'd have problems with motion blur if you're hand holding a zoomed in lens like this and shooting at slower speeds. VR makes this less of an issue.

 

[Fota]

Fota - The VR on the lenses you've listed are for "vibration reduction" it is Nikon's "steady shot" which works pretty well topside, but you really shouldn't notice a difference with VR or non-VR lenses under water. Most of your UW shots are close up, with a strobe, and at speeds above 1/60 of a second, so you shouldn't have "shake"

the VR comes in handy if you're shooting with a 200 mm lens at speeds below 1/200 and you're zoomed in all the way. Typically, you'd have problems with motion blur if you're hand holding a zoomed in lens like this and shooting at slower speeds. VR makes this less of an issue.

Doesn't VR come in handy when shooting uw without a strobe too?

That may not be the most common case with the 105, but with a wide angle lens, and even normal lens, I can think of many situations where I would like to shoot with no lens. Also, if shooting in more shallow water (lets say <= 10m) with the magic filters even with 105, the VR would come very much in handy. Well at least that's what I thought?


/Fota

 

[Cacia]

unless you are shooting at the VERY top levels technique will win over equipment everyday

whew, I am safe then....there are benefits to not being ambitious. I like the Aquatica myself. So..are the better ports glass or still cast acrylic?

 

[cerich]

whew, I am safe then....there are benefits to not being ambitious. I like the Aquatica myself. So..are the better ports glass or still cast acrylic?

I have some of both, I'm not so good to notice , the glass don't scratch as easily.

I have the same setup from 1999 for photo, a rebel 2000 and a sea and sea housing with ys-90's