File :-(, x, )
ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
Heh. Just did a little lens comparison, semi-inadvertently. I took this first shot from my car with my 80-200 suckfest lens, then realized that I kind of liked the look of it so got out and retook it with my 35mm f/2.0 after getting a lot closer.

First shot with the 80-200. I used aperture-priority, so it's not a perfect test (there's some exposure differences between 'em), but it still shows how different a low-end prime looks from an extremely-low-end telephoto zoom.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiLens Size80.00 - 200.00 mmFirmware VersionFirmware 1.1.1Owner NameunknownSerial Number0420104373Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:04:27 18:11:34Exposure Time1/500 secF-Numberf/5.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/5.0Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length103.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3888Image Height2592RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardExposure ModeAv-PriorityFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeCenter-WeightedSharpnessUnknownSaturationNormalContrastUnknownShooting ModeManualImage SizeLargeFocus ModeOne-ShotDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingFineMacro ModeNormalWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed224Camera Actuations-234422208Color Matrix34
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
     File :-(, x)
And again with the 35mm f/2.0

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiFirmware VersionFirmware 1.1.1Owner NameunknownSerial Number0420104373Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:04:27 18:12:57Exposure Time1/640 secF-Numberf/4.5Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/4.5Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length35.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3888Image Height2592RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardExposure ModeAv-PriorityFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeCenter-WeightedSharpnessUnknownSaturationNormalContrastUnknownShooting ModeManualImage SizeLargeFocus ModeOne-ShotDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingFineMacro ModeNormalWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed224Camera Actuations-234422192Color Matrix34
>> Anonymous
What are you trying to say here? That getting closer and taking a picture is better than zooming in from afar?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>170641
No. That the Canon EF 80-200 f/4.5-5.6 is a piece of shit.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
That kind of difference can't be based purely on lens, though.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>170643
Evidence would suggest otherwise.
The only other difference was a small exposure difference: 1/500th f/5.0 vs 1/640th f/4.5. Also, there's the fact that the 80-200 was probably wide open at that point while the 35/2.0 was stopped down significantly. A more scientific test would use full manual mode and stop 'em both down to f/8 or so.

But I think the difference is mostly the lens. The better lens has better color reproduction and contrast.
>> Anonymous
>>170642
Which is a shame, because for some reason the idea of owning an 80-200 sounds much more appealing to me than owning a 70-200. No clue why.

Guess I'll just have to lust after the Leica 80-200/4.

Anyone have any idea how 70-200 got standardized as the pro tele zoom length? Why not 65-210 or 75-180 or 60-200 or the somehow-so-poetic-sounding 80-200?
>> Anonymous
I didn't know lenses affected color saturation and contrast. I thought that was the sensor's job.
>> Anonymous
>>170654
>Saturation

Not saturation exactly, but different lenses transmit color differently. This mattered much more on film than it does on digital, since white balance and saturation are camera raw sliders.

>Contrast

There's different types of contrast. Global contrast is the thing you adjust when you slide the contrast slider. Besides amounts of contrast, different lenses will be contrasty in different ways.

Micro contrast is "pop," how well it shows subtle differences in contrast and tone between two spots. "Local contrast enhancement" lets you increase this difference in a literal, numerical way, but it's not quite the same as when it comes straight from the lens.

Why? Because lenses all "draw" the picture differently. If you take a picture with one design of 50/1.4, it'll look different from another. Try it out. Go on Flickr and search for "50/1.4 Nikkor," "50/1.4 Canon," etc. They put the light onto the sensor differently, based on their design, the type of glass used, what sort of coatings are put on it, and other factors.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>170653
70-200 has a wider wide end than 80-200, so I suppose that must've swayed some people. If not, at least it encouraged Nikon to catch up and switch from an 80-200 to a 70-200 between generations of pro zooms.

Dunno about the other potential lengths - maybe it's just too hard to get the required quality with an even larger zoom ratio?
>> Anonymous
>>170653
probably because pros found that they liked said numbers to be the wide/tele ends of the zoom.
>> Anonymous
they've got 24-70s

makes sense the 70-200 matches it
>> Anonymous
>>170632
Could the colour difference also be partly explained by shooting through the car window in the first one?
>> Anonymous
>>170727

or cloudy vs sunny when he was getting the other lens

that's a pretty massive difference even for a shitty lens
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>170727
That is certainly a possibility. I can't remember if I shot it through the windshield or sticking out the open driver's side window, but I didn't think of that until after posting and then I was too embarrassed at my stupidity to come clean.

Need to do a more scientific test tomorrow.