Hmmm nah, not really. Most kit lenses have the same F stop range, honestly. It’s very common. The only ‘kit lens’ I know of that has a lower aperture range is the 18-55 2.8-4, which is a banger btw.
It’s probably due to the power zoom feature. If you’re solely a photographer, PZ is no ideal. Not to mention the focusing is fly-by-wire. That was during a time where fly-by-wire focusing rings weren’t common and not ideal. Now they’re a lot more common but still not preferred. But that’s just a guess. I like that lens. It’s super compact and easy to carry. Plus, it goes down to 16mm instead of the usual 18 for a kit lens. That’s pretty cool imo
Yeah I think I only saw Sony lenses with a variable range. But they were also much smaller than the ones from like Tamron and Sigma.
hmmm, is it because it resets to 16mm whenever you turn it off? I do find it a bit annoying since I cant set it to a specific value and just let it be there. Although a big perk is that it is tiny when turned off.
Is there a reason for why most go to 18? This goes to 17mm though.
I believe most people recommend either that Tamron or the 18-50mm F2.8 Sigma as an upgrade/replacement from the sony kit lens.
I should have been a bit more clear with the terminology - When I said kit lenses I mean the lenses that come with cameras. Tamron and Sigma lenses aren’t kit lenses as they’re not included with cameras, obviously. These are some examples of ‘kit’ lenses.
You always wanted to zoom your lens to the shortest physical length it can go. Sometimes, it’s the lowest focal length. you never want to leave your lens extended in a bag. That’s a recipe for disaster. If you have a lens that has an internal zoom mechanism then you don’t have to worry about that but, that’s usually reserved for the more expensive options. But I can see why it can be annoying.
That’s a banger of a lens. 17-70 @ f2.8 is nuts… just a few years ago that wasn’t even possible. The ONLY down side to something like this is the overall image quality will take a small hit because of lens manufacturing limitations. Having a 17-70 constant 2.8 has to mean there’s probably 24+ elements inside that lens, unless Tamron are doing some black magic. That’s why some photogs, like me, shoot with prime lenses. Because they don’t zoom and only have to correct the image for 1 specific focal length, there can be less elements. Usually less than 15. If you’re really lucky, less than 10.
There’s more to lenses than just sharpness. There’s also micro and macro contrast, bokeh quality, corner sharpness, aberration control… there’s a lot lol
Wait, isnt kit lens referring to lenses that can zoom? Opposite of prime lenses that only have that one focal length?
oh I would have totally done that lol.
Yeah afaik Prime lenses are better at that ONE focal length it is using, usually smaller and cheaper? While zoom lenses are more versatile but bigger/heavier and more expensive?
No, sir. Kit lenses are exactly how I just described them - they come in a kit lol you’re referring to… zoom lenses haha
Prime = no zoom
Zoom = literally can zoom
No guess work involved in that one.
Prime lenses are usually better just in general. They’re usually cheaper, smaller and lighter, sharper with better contrast and better corrected BUT they’re way less versatile. I’m old school so I only shoot with primes.
My eye has adjusted to 35mm and 85mm so much that I can frame a shot with my eyes before I bring the view finder up to my face.
Yeah, will see what I think about prime lenses, that 40mm macro from TTartisan is a prime lens and I believe it should work for non-macro stuff so I can get a taste of a regular prime lens with it?
No worries, there’s a lot of terminology with photography. I still don’t know so much.
And yeah, for sure. That 40mm is going to be nice for you. Equivalent to a 60mm on the 6100 so it’ll be good for portraits as well. It’s a 2.8, right? So decent low light gather abilities to boot. You’re going to learn this on your own but, when shooting macro shots, try stopping the lens down to f5.6 or higher to get a larger focus zone. That’ll be better for getting more of the object in focus
yep F 2.8, although for macro pics I would have a lot of external light, a high F value is probably not that big of a problem? I also bought a tripod, since my current one does not work with the camera (cant tilt it with the camera).
hmm interesting, is it because the subject is physically close to the camera, it would benefit from less bokeh (higher F value)?
Dont know much about Aperture since thats something I couldnt do anything about on my phone.
This was taken on my LG G7 with my macro lens adapter iirc. If this was taken on my camera, and i increased the f value, would the corners of the iem have been more in focus and not bokehd?
You’re all good then, brother. You can stop your lens down to f/10 if you’d like, because shutter speed isn’t going to matter if the camera and subject are both stationary. You still need a sufficient amount of light to avoid excess noise in the shadows, but if you’re shooting jpeg anyways, that won’t matter as much since the processing in the camera will clean that up automatically.
Yes, exactly. Stopping your lens down, or increasing the f stop value, will give you a deeper DOF and allow for sharper corners most of the time. Just don’t go over, say, f/12 as anything above that will cause something called diffraction. That just means that the light will literally have to bend around the aperture blades in the lens to reach the corners of the sensor and some weird stuff happens where it goes the opposite way and softens your image instead of making it sharper.
With modern lenses, usually you want to live in between f4 and f8 or f11 for optimal sharpness.
I get you, music is usually a mirror on how you are feeling but I also gotta say that it can be an enhancer aswell which is not always helping…
I was listening to a lot of brutal satanic metal, which i still love from time to time but I just can not listen to it for too long because it transports this negative energy and I don´t want to victimize myself with that
There are many death metal bands that are brutal, but few of them are “satanic”. I don’t even like satanic bands because they are more black metal, which I can’t stand. Besides, the lyrics of most “brutal” bands make more sense than today’s pop duds.
I love the technicality of these bands, but that doesn’t stop me from listening to jazz, pop, etc.
Peace and love…
I also do like the technicality of stuff like Archspire for example…Decrepit Birth is also very nice without slaughtering people and raping corpses in their lyrics
hmm looks like I may get the macro lens tomorrow!
Anything I need to know before I get it? I assume there is nothing more special I need to do than swapping out the current lens with the macro and done?
You got it, sir. Just swap out the current lens with the macro and you’re good to go.
No need to change any settings or anything. Looking forward to your new shots!
So accurate it’s not even funny.
There are times where I push my self to listen to more upbeat music and I can instantly notice a change in my mood lol it’s quite weird… my wife always says that I was “happier” when I listened to the Beatles more often.
While I can confidently say the new Letshuoer Mystic 8 isn’t for me, I can be equally as confident in saying they are a beautiful IEM with a stunningly solid build of a all Titanium and a smooth and easy fit with no pressure build up being appear ant whatsoever.
The Low end is just too limp. I have no issues with an IEM tuning making the low end take a back seat in favor of the high end and technicalities, but I do expect there to be some tactility and texture there to accompany the wonderful technicalities and treble. Unfortunately, I didn’t get any of that with the Mystic 8.
However, if you’re looking for an IEM with sweet female vocals that are never harsh or exhibit any glare, even when the vocalist is pushing to grab that last high note, an included accessory package that’s very good (except that included cable, what the heck is that?!), and a very satisfying build for under $1000, look no further.
Thank you to my buddy Darren for sending these out for me to demo! I do appreciate it, brother. I’ll have some more thoughts posted on a full review in the coming days, but I wanted to share my quick thoughts here for all to read.
Should still help I assume? For example for people wanting to zoom in a LOT, I guess an actual zoom lens would help more than what i assume to be digital zooming?
Not sure what other lenses would be helpful for the majority of smartphone users which just uses the quick and easy auto modes. Maybe a macro lens could help? But not sure how different that is from a dirt cheap macro lens adapter like the one i used…
