Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I saw an interesting comment in an article on the differences between FE lenses and E lenses.

It made the point that the best part of the glass is usually towards the centre (I guess this is especially true on cheaper lenses) so using FE lenses on APSC cameras, or cropping down on a Full Frame camera can give better results than the equivalent E lens. - obviously you lose the benefit of a smaller, lighter unit. Still, worth thinking about, particularly if you have both types of body.

Edited by thebeardedgroundsman
Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a point to some degree. It's not neccesarily worse glass towards the edges but the effects of mechanical vignetting and refraction are more significant there, causing more optical defects toward the edge of the frame.

What you should understand is that the pixel density of a crop sensor camera is often much higher than a fullframe camera. The lenses designed for crop sensors must therefore be able to resolve this higher pixel density and are molded/ground to a higher precision than regular fullframe glass. Only fullframe lenses that perform well on an A7RIV-camera are capable of resolving well on APS-C sensors, but these are often very big and expensive.

So generally speaking, it's not good practice to buy FF glass to use on your APS-C camera, thinking you get the best results.

Though sometimes his assessments are questionable, Tony has some good points on this matter:

https://youtu.be/S8-vfiq33R4

Edited by Pieter
Link to post
Share on other sites

There's some general truth to this, but requires some consideration.

On most lenses, when used at wide apertures, the resolution is better in the center than at the edges.  So using only the center portion of the image would yield better resolution than the same lens with a larger film/sensor.  That, of course, assumes that the two cameras have the same Mega Pixels

But, if you look at the resolution charts/tables for many lenses, as the lens is stopped down, the resolution in the edges increases and can be equivalent to that of the center.  Here's just one example:

http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/e-lenses3.pdf

It also depends on the design of the lens.  Lenses with wider image circles (for larger film/sensors) typically have more elements/groups (reducing resolution), and smaller apertures to reduce costs -- they are also typically larger and heavier, as mentioned.

So it's easy to end up comparing apples and oranges.  It's easy to armchair philosophize about what a lens might or should or probably will do.  The best thing is to run some simple tests.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It just goes to show how even experts have differing views.

But what I am hearing is that the lenses designed specifically for one type of camera or another are probably the best for that job - makes sense.

At the end of the day, if the image produced pleases the photographer (or client , if professional) then it's doing it's job.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Posts

    • I've been using this lens extensively without any sharpness issues. At long focal lengths, you'll have to factor in the need for a faster shutter speed (< 1/500-ish at 350mm) and other factors like atmospheric distortion, fog/dust haze, etc. All these factors contribute to a deterioration of image quality at longer focal lengths.
    • That's supposed to be a pretty good APS-C lens. Can you try it on a different camera just for the heck of it? Friend? Camera shop? The lens is noted for sharpness, so if you're having as much trouble as you say, you may want to look into a replacement or repair. 
    • Hi everyone, I’m reaching out to the community because I’m facing a persistent image quality issue with my Sony 70–350mm f/4.5–6.3 G OSS lens, and I’d like to know if this is normal behavior or if my copy is defective. Problem description: I’ve extensively compared the 70–350mm G OSS with my Sony 18–135mm f/3.5–5.6 OSS, using a Sony A6700, under controlled conditions: • Identical lighting and background • Same subject and position (LEGO figure, consistent framing) • Tripod or steady support • Manual focus or AF with center point • Same shutter speed (e.g., 1/200s), similar ISO (ISO 4000–6400), RAW + JPEG • OIS turned on (and also tested with OIS off) My observations: • At 135mm, the 70–350mm G OSS delivers softer, flatter images than the 18–135mm, even when stopped down. • At 350mm, the sharpness drops significantly – the center is soft, and textures (like LEGO tiles or fabric) appear blurred or smudged. • Contrast and micro-detail are noticeably inferior across all focal lengths. • The 18–135mm at 135mm (even cropped) retains better edge sharpness and detail definition. • Both JPEG and RAW files confirm the issue – this is not just JPEG processing or noise reduction. Question to the community: • Have others experienced similar softness with the 70–350mm? • Is it possible I have a decentered or optically misaligned copy? • Is there a known issue with OSS introducing softness at long focal lengths? I wanted to love this lens due to the range and portability, but currently it’s unusable for anything where image quality matters. I’m considering returning or sending it for service. Thanks in advance for any feedback or comparison results you can share.  
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...