Simple Question for photographers who have the very best of equipment. I presently own Nikon N/F 80 with 28 - 105 and 70 - 300 ED lenses. My destination is to achieve best possible image quality on 4x6" proof that is going to be used for greeting cards. Will I see any difference in an image quality between my lenses and AF-S series lenses or should I switch to Pentax 645N ?

-- Alois Lazecky (alois_lazecky@pch.gc.ca), May 08, 2001

Answers

If you only need to go to 4 X 6, then 35mm is fine. If the highest possible quality is desired, I would not use these zooms myself, as I am sold on fixed focal length lenses. The zooms you are using are consumer grade lenses, optimized for performance and price... leaning towards price. If you look at a fixed lens from within each of the zoom lens ranges, you could realize the highest potential quality. For example a 35mm or 50mm lens for the 28-105, and say an 85mm for the 70-300mm zoom.

I have all of these lenses, and can assure you they are superior to the zooms, especially if you consider several points. For example, most lenses perform best at 2-3 stops from the maximum. The 35mm f/2.0, the 50mm f/1.8 and the 85mm f/1.8 closed down to f/4.0 or f/5.6 will be at or close to their best performance, while the zooms at the same stops, (virtually wide open taking into account the variable apertures), will be at there lowest performing apertures. While zooms are pretty good these days, the fixed lenses will still have lower distortion, which is important if you wish for truer representations of linier subjects.

The fastest, cheapest way to get superior quality would be to buy the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AF. Brand new they are right at 100 Dollars, and will give you noticeably higher quality for the price of a half a dozen rolls of fill and processing. Many zoom users on another Nikon site I visit are astonished by the image quality upon hesitantly buying one, while those of us who were into photography before the advent of consumer grade zooms already know... price to performance... you can't beat the moderate aperture 50's. Even if you use the zooms for 80% of your shooting, having that cheap 50mm lens in the bag will get you shots in many situations... I'll take a window light portrait with a fast lens anyday over a slow zoom with a "mugshot" flash. Exposures of f/1.8 at 1/30th instead of f/4.something at 1/8th will allow natural light images that will look different than the artificial look of front flash.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), May 08, 2001.

Alois,

Incase you might think I am alone in my opinion of the validity of acquiring a fixed fifty to add to your arsenal's quality, go to the below website and you can read about 40 other people's opinions. Many feel it was the best money they have spent, and some even swore off of zooms after seeing the difference. The thing that is interesting is the repetition and consistency of the reviews.

http://photographyreview.com/reviews/35mm_lenses/product_4654.asp

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), May 08, 2001.

I must disagree with the other posters on a few points and agree on others. Yes it is true that consumer zooms are a big compimise of quality for price. If you were to purchase let's say an 80-200 2.8 it would be difficult to see the difference between this lens and the fixed 180mm 2.8. However the fixed lens might look beter when comparing MTF charts or technical number mumbo jumbo. You can test and test and therorize all you want but you are wasting film and in my case valuable time. Go out and shoot. Remember you get what you pay for {there are reasons why the 2.8 zooms are pricey}. As for 35mm most work printed should be 4X6, 8X10 or 11X14. 16X20 with a fixed focal length lens. Finally as for a 50mm lens go for the 60mm micro. I gives you more options than a plain 50mm like the ability to focus from infinity to a working distance of 1 to 1 and is a damn sharp lens. Hope this helps.

-- john (dogspleen@juno.com), May 09, 2001.

Broadly speaking, I agree with Al here, but there are a couple of other considerations I'd like to mention.

First though, agreement. The AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 has a long established optical design and genuinely good optical quality. The zooms you have are by no means bargain basement lenses, and I think you did well to buy mid-range lenses. I also think you will notice the improvement available from the prime lens -- it will comfortably provide the modest 4x enlargement you are asking of it. Medium format would be overkill for this size of enlargement.

The other considerations are processing, tripods, and film.

The biggest improvement, bar none, that you can get in your prints is to use a professional lab. The quality of inexpensive processing in the UK goes from variable to terrible ... and I understand that North America is no different. For this reason, many keen amateurs use slide film and avoid the disappointments of printing. If you need a 4"x6" print, however, for your purpose, use a professional lab that provides a service for your local wedding photographers.

The next largest improvement you can make is to use a tripod. Once again, with a 4x enlargement, you don't need a multi-kilogramme studio unit, but using a tripod improves sharpness at all but the very highest speeds.

The third largest improvement comes from using a slowish film. If you can use slide film and like Fuji then consider Velvia for landscapes and Astia for portraits; if you prefer Kodak then consider Elite Chrome Extra Color for landscapes and Kodachrome 64 for portraits. If you do have to use a print film, then consider Fuji Reala or NPS, or Kodak Supra 100 or Portra 160 VC.

Only when you have all these three factors controlled, and are going for enlargements of more than 8x, do you need to worry about comparisons between different prime lenses.

Later,

Dr Owl

-- John Owlett (owl@postmaster.co.uk), May 09, 2001.