Less dof from more lens elements?

Home · Register · Search · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

FM Forum Rules
Wedding Resource List

FM Forums \| Wedding Photographer \| Join Upload & Sell
1 2 end

Archive 2011 · Less dof from more lens elements?

Chris Beaumont
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · Less dof from more lens elements?

I can understand the difference between f and t stops, but is there any reason the number of pieces of glass in a lens would effect depth of field? I'm convinced my 35mm at f/2.8 has noticably less dof than my 24-70 at the same aperture.

Nov 16, 2011 at 08:01 PM

S-Man23
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · Less dof from more lens elements?

I think Focal Length has more to do with it than elements, that and lower aperture. The 24-70 will have less DOF at 70mm/f2.8 than the 35@f2.8
Not sure which will have more at the same FL though. I'm interested to hear the facts on this.

Nov 16, 2011 at 08:15 PM

Robin Usagani
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · Less dof from more lens elements?

I am pretty sure Chris meant 24-70 @ 35mm. I hope so

Nov 16, 2011 at 08:18 PM

lisy78
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · Less dof from more lens elements?

Shouldn't take too much to set up a test shot with a ruler and a tripod.

I would venture to guess that the following is going on:

1. the two lenses are not reporting aperture correctly... and by that I mean that 2.8 for one isn't identical to 2.8 for th ohter. For instance I remember reading that Sigma's 85 1.4 isn't really 1.4

2. the FOV markings on the zoom may not be entirely accurate either ... so maybe when you think you're @35mm on the 24x70 you're really more like @32mm

3. the two lenses may have a different AF performance characteristic. Since DOF is a function of hte focusing distance I suppose that if you were backfocusing a tad on the 24-70 the DOF would look wider.

the three things combined could account for your perception. That or you just need to drink less while shooting.

Edited on Nov 16, 2011 at 08:27 PM · View previous versions

Nov 16, 2011 at 08:25 PM

amonline
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · Less dof from more lens elements?

My guess is that it is due to the additional elements as they are needed to hit the sub 2.8 range. With those elements in place, the image is bound to get more blurry outside the focused range due to the bending light. This comes across as additional DOF.

Nov 16, 2011 at 08:26 PM

lisy78
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · Less dof from more lens elements?

amonline wrote:
My guess is that it is due to the additional elements as they are needed to hit the sub 2.8 range. With those elements in place, the image is bound to get more blurry outside the focused range due to the bending light. This comes across as additional DOF.

and by additional, Alan means "less"

Nov 16, 2011 at 08:28 PM

amonline
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · Less dof from more lens elements?

lisy78 wrote:
and by additional, Alan means "less"

Yea, I actually had "or however you put it", but I deleted it.

Nov 16, 2011 at 08:30 PM

jcolman
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #8 · Less dof from more lens elements?

When in doubt, shoot a test.

While I don't have the 24-70, I do have a 35L and 28-75

35L @ f/2.8

This image is copyrighted by the owner

28-75 (at 35mm) f /2.8

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Nov 16, 2011 at 08:30 PM

lisy78
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · Less dof from more lens elements?

Jim, there's a HUGE framing difference between the two. Either you were NOT on a tripod (or the tripod moved) or indeed one of the two lenses lies when it says it's 35mm

Nov 16, 2011 at 08:34 PM

jcolman
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #10 · Less dof from more lens elements?

lisy78 wrote:
Jim, there's a HUGE framing difference between the two. Either you were NOT on a tripod (or the tripod moved) or indeed one of the two lenses lies when it says it's 35mm

I did not use a tripod but I had the camera set on the edge of my pool table. I set the mm on the 28-75 according to the markings on the lens so it could be off a bit.

But hey what do you expect for free?!!

Nov 16, 2011 at 08:42 PM

hardlyboring
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #11 · Less dof from more lens elements?

I think you need to send the 35L in ... it should be WAY WAY WAY sharper than that compared to the 28-70....

Nov 16, 2011 at 09:02 PM

amonline
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · Less dof from more lens elements?

hardlyboring wrote:
I think you need to send the 35L in ... it should be WAY WAY WAY sharper than that compared to the 28-70....

HAHA I thought the exact same thing when I saw that.

Nov 16, 2011 at 09:14 PM

Chris Beaumont
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · Less dof from more lens elements?

Robin Usagani wrote:
I am pretty sure Chris meant 24-70 @ 35mm. I hope so

.

Yeah, I figured that was a given, not even I'm stupid enough to shoot it at 24 and wonder why!

Nov 16, 2011 at 09:33 PM

hardlyboring
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #14 · Less dof from more lens elements?

amonline wrote:
hardlyboring wrote:
I think you need to send the 35L in ... it should be WAY WAY WAY sharper than that compared to the 28-70....

HAHA I thought the exact same thing when I saw that.

Yeah.
The 28-70 is a good lens but not great.
At 2.8 the 35L is so sharp it can cut marble that has not been quarried yet.

Nov 16, 2011 at 09:36 PM

BKphotography
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · Less dof from more lens elements?

Dorky geek nerds!

Nov 16, 2011 at 09:40 PM

jcolman
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #16 · Less dof from more lens elements?

hardlyboring wrote:
I think you need to send the 35L in ... it should be WAY WAY WAY sharper than that compared to the 28-70....

Nah. These are jpegs right out of the camera without any sharpening applied. I just have a very good copy of the 28-75

Nov 17, 2011 at 01:51 AM

S-Man23
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · Less dof from more lens elements?

Is that the Tamron, Jim?

Nov 17, 2011 at 02:28 AM

jcolman
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #18 · Less dof from more lens elements?

S-Man23 wrote:
Is that the Tamron, Jim?

Yes. It's my second copy. I sold my first one so I could try the 24-70, didn't really care for it so I sold it and picked up another tammy 28-75.

Nov 17, 2011 at 02:48 AM

Mescalamba
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · Less dof from more lens elements?

DOF can change, its lens dependant, not F-stop dependant. It shouldnt be too much, but in real life some F2 lens have DOF like F1.4 and some like F3.5. Might be tied to number of elements, but it might be also tied to fact that official focal length isnt always real focal length. (eg. lens can have 186mm and advertised as 200mm, or should be 25mm but in real life its more like 27mm).

I think that especially at wide-angle settings, zoom can be bit inaccurate as far as focal length settings go.

Canon 24-70mm f2.8

Transmission part - its pretty consistent, so it probably really is f2.8 with it appropriate light gathering capability, but it doesnt say how much DOF it has. Metrics for 35mm f2 are unfortunately unavailable, so no clue if it transmits more or less at f2.8.

Nikkor 24-70mm f2.8

Gives clue, that not all lens are made same, maybe Canon 24-70mm f2.8 isnt "that much f2.8" .. which could explain less DOF.

Bit too many variables here..

Nov 17, 2011 at 02:56 AM

deepbluejh
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #20 · Less dof from more lens elements?

I think it has far more to do with the design and grouping of the elements than the number of them. Also keep in mind the actual focal length of certain lenses may be slightly less or slightly more than what is indicated. This is true for both primes and zooms.

Nov 17, 2011 at 03:20 AM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Wedding Photographer \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end