At what point is a really good lens too good for the DVX?

[Krunko]

I was thinking that the quality of our picture is ultimately limited to the quality of the stock lens on our camera since all light has to go through the stock lens on our camera. (DVX in my case)

So I'm wondering, at what point is it not worth paying the mega extra bucks to get a super nice lens if our stock lens is going to kind of set a limit anyways on the quality?

Thanks,

Chance

[Kholi]

Adversely, the stock lens (if a limitation at all) is a good reason to spend money on the best glass you can afford. The worse the glass is, the quicker it shows up. That's what I think, anyway.

[Tim Joy]

If you get the best lens you can afford, maybe someday you'll upgrade the camera, so it would be nice to keep using the same great lens.

I think buying a lens is similar to other things. You pay $300 (pulled out of thin air) for a Very nice lens, instead of $30 for an OK one, but to get to the next level, you have to spend $3000, and you get something that IS better than the $300 lens, but the difference is not as significant as the jump up from the $30 lens. I choose that upper midrange gear that keeps food on the table.

I Just recently started using a DOF adapter, and those nice, clean, FAST lenses are worth their weight in gold. And if you had to sell them, you could get just about what you paid.

[Krunko]

Thanks for the input. When people say 'fast' lens does that referring to aperture? For instance an f1.4 is faster than an f2.8?

[Oedipax]

When people say 'fast' lens does that referring to aperture? For instance an f1.4 is faster than an f2.8?

Yep, you've got it :)

[Krunko]

I'm curious to why it is referred to as fast. I would think fast would be referring to shutter speed.

[armisiano]

I'm curious to why it is referred to as fast. I would think fast would be referring to shutter speed.


Well actually it is referring to the shutter speed. If you use a faster/brighter lens (say f2 as apposed to f4), you can use a higher/faster shutter speed and still not loose too much light, whereas with a slower/darker lens (i.e. f4), you have to use slower shutter speeds to get the same bright picture. Make sense, yeah?

[Ol23456789]

Never!

[davide]

It's hard to say. Case in point: when the first DSLRs started coming out people said that you wouldn't need to bother putting really good glass on them because they could only resolve 4-6mp anyway. But it turned out that these really low-resolution dslrs still produced much better images with more expensive glass.

Part of the issue is that quality when it comes to lenses isn't just about overall resolution. It's about lightfall off and holding resolution throughout the corners of the image and at all apertures. These are things that you are going to notice whether you are shooting SD or HD. Although admittedly, stuff like resolutioon fall of in the corners of the image isn't as noticablble in SD.

[mburgh]

I was thinking that the quality of our picture is ultimately limited to the quality of the stock lens on our camera since all light has to go through the stock lens on our camera. (DVX in my case)

So I'm wondering, at what point is it not worth paying the mega extra bucks to get a super nice lens if our stock lens is going to kind of set a limit anyways on the quality?

Thanks,

Chance
The DVX lens is outstanding, and any thing you use on it, if it is good quality, is outstanding. Nikon glass is first rate, and in combination with the Leica glass of the DVX lens (which is the most expensive component on the camera) you will get excellent images. Faster lenses allow for greater flexibility, especially for indoor work, where any 35mm is a light hog. The key thing to remember is that you have many options to consider; the apeture of the lens, the apeture of the DVX lens, the focal length of the DVX, and the DOF of the lens. You can zoom into any part of the ground glass with the DVX, or you can zoom out, to a certain point.

[Ted Spencer]

In theory a better adapter lens is better, period. What it's competing with is - air - nothing. Any lens you add will degrade the image, it's just a matter of how much. So, better = better. At least that's how I see it...

On the other hand, a higher rez camera will probably show a bigger difference. So it comes down to cost/benefit, and that's pretty hard for anyone to gauge for someone else. For the LEX adapter kit on my HVX200a I have a Zeiss 50mm 1.4 and two Nikon ED zooms (17-35 and 80-200). All expensive SLR lenses, but nowhere near the most expensive. It was what seemed like a good compromise within my budget. So far I'm happy with my choices.

[Leo Versola]

I'm with Ted and the others on this; use the best glass you can that fits within your budget.

I use almost the same lenses as Ted with my LEX and am very happy with the results; a Nikon 20-35/2.8 and 80-200/2.8 along with a Voigtlander 58mm 1.4 filling in the middle.

The 20-35 gets used the most frequently for the type of content I shoot; an excellent lens which can sometimes be found at very good prices if you're patient. The Voigtlander is very similar to the Zeiss and can be picked up for under $400.