08-03-2012, 10:20 AM
Hi anurag,
One can really only find out by reading a lot on lenses wanted, and testing this oneself.
Often different brands approach this in different ways, f.e., most Zeiss lenses, unless designed for a very specific function (macro, portrait) work best at middle to long distances, i.e, are great for general shooting and landscapes, but not so great for close-up shooting. A good example of this is the Zeiss 50 F/1.4, which is mediocre at best in close up, but is the one to beat at anything beyond 8-10 m from F/2.8 upwards.
This is also true for other lenses. Many Canon lenses are optimal at middle ground distances (for that particular FL), although L-lenses generally perform a bit better over multiple distances, and several are just excellent allround.
It really is a matter, if you want to go into that much detail, of figuring out what distance is most important for you, and select a lens specific for that.
In your case, if you want a 180 mm which performs exceptionally wel at or around infinity, an adapted Leitz 180 F/2.8 or F/2.8 is the way to go, for the middle ground the Nikon 180 F/2.8, and for the short distance any (150 to) 180 mm macro lens <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.
Of course there may be equally important characteristics for you, such as optical aberrations (CA, astigmatism, coma, flare, vignetting, etc.) and mechanical ones (mechanical vignetting - cats' eyes, manual focusing, aperture control), bokeh, general rendering, colour, contrast etc. If you buy any decent lens, the sharpness and resolution really become moot points, because lenses resolve more than any sensor, despite comments to the contrary on the internet (certainly at apertures larger than F/16 for FF and F/13 for APS-C), and what IMO becomes most important is whether one likes the overall rendering of a lens as influenced by the characteristics mentioned above.
From that POV, if you want quality, I reckon the Nikon 180 F/2.8 is one h**k of a lens, and absolutely nothing to complain or worry about.
As with all photographic equipment (and a lot of other things too), it really is just a matter of getting used to it and knowing how to work within its characteristics for your type(s) of photography. Or of course get several lenses for different types of shooting (as we generally already do with FLs <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />).
HTH, kind regards, Wim
One can really only find out by reading a lot on lenses wanted, and testing this oneself.
Often different brands approach this in different ways, f.e., most Zeiss lenses, unless designed for a very specific function (macro, portrait) work best at middle to long distances, i.e, are great for general shooting and landscapes, but not so great for close-up shooting. A good example of this is the Zeiss 50 F/1.4, which is mediocre at best in close up, but is the one to beat at anything beyond 8-10 m from F/2.8 upwards.
This is also true for other lenses. Many Canon lenses are optimal at middle ground distances (for that particular FL), although L-lenses generally perform a bit better over multiple distances, and several are just excellent allround.
It really is a matter, if you want to go into that much detail, of figuring out what distance is most important for you, and select a lens specific for that.
In your case, if you want a 180 mm which performs exceptionally wel at or around infinity, an adapted Leitz 180 F/2.8 or F/2.8 is the way to go, for the middle ground the Nikon 180 F/2.8, and for the short distance any (150 to) 180 mm macro lens <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.Of course there may be equally important characteristics for you, such as optical aberrations (CA, astigmatism, coma, flare, vignetting, etc.) and mechanical ones (mechanical vignetting - cats' eyes, manual focusing, aperture control), bokeh, general rendering, colour, contrast etc. If you buy any decent lens, the sharpness and resolution really become moot points, because lenses resolve more than any sensor, despite comments to the contrary on the internet (certainly at apertures larger than F/16 for FF and F/13 for APS-C), and what IMO becomes most important is whether one likes the overall rendering of a lens as influenced by the characteristics mentioned above.
From that POV, if you want quality, I reckon the Nikon 180 F/2.8 is one h**k of a lens, and absolutely nothing to complain or worry about.
As with all photographic equipment (and a lot of other things too), it really is just a matter of getting used to it and knowing how to work within its characteristics for your type(s) of photography. Or of course get several lenses for different types of shooting (as we generally already do with FLs <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />).HTH, kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
