The World's sharpest 250mm lens?

petersmart

petersmart

Messages
5,001
Edit My Images
Yes
Interesting comments on that article there regarding the fixed aperture making it more a scope than a lens and a suggestion that the kickstarter campaign is more a marketing ploy given that William Optics are a well established company.
 
It's a good example of how many things are wrong with KickStarter these days IMHO.
 
For similar money you can get some fantastic old MF tele lenses, like the Canon FD 300mm 2.8. I'm willing to bet that stopped down it'll be as sharp as this thing. Also wtf with the shiney red? makes it look cheap and toy-like
 
Craigus said:
The photography world has gone mad with 'sharpness'.
Click to expand...

It's nice to have it, but it's certainly not the most important factor in a good image. Photographers have obsessed over it for decades, I think AF speed, bokeh and 'colour science' [something that I had never heard tell of until recent years] are what drives them mad these days

It's not so much sharpness that would attract me to something like this [if it weren't so pug ugly and restricted for photography] - more the apochromatic claims
 
Last edited:
Craigus said:
The photography world has gone mad with 'sharpness'.
Click to expand...
I must admit, that no one has ever said to me (or if they have, it's a very rare occasion) 'that's not sharp enough' (missed focus aside) and I don't use the most expensive lenses, sometimes I still use my kit lens. I would like to think the content of the photo is good enough to not worry about critical sharpness.
 
Olympus made a 250mm f/2 in the days of the OM system that was sharp enough for NASA to take on Shuttle flights.
 
Cagey75 said:
For similar money you can get some fantastic old MF tele lenses, like the Canon FD 300mm 2.8. I'm willing to bet that stopped down it'll be as sharp as this thing. Also wtf with the shiney red? makes it look cheap and toy-like
Click to expand...
Corporate colour for WO.
 
Yep....no one other than fellow photographers have ever mentioned how sharp something is or isn't....they either like the photo or they don't....
 
Cagey75 said:
It's nice to have it, but it's certainly not the most important factor in a good image. Photographers have obsessed over it for decades, I think AF speed, bokeh and 'colour science' [something that I had never heard tell of until recent years] are what drives them mad these days

It's not so much sharpness that would attract me to something like this [if it weren't so pug ugly and restricted for photography] - more the apochromatic claims
Click to expand...

Photographers have always obsessed over sharpness, and always will. I think we're all guilty to some extent, but it's certainly not the defining aspect of a good photograph or even the most important. Nobody but us notices. Pretty much all modern equipment is capable of more than sufficient sharpness but AF accuracy is vital, as anyone using fast apertures knows, and that is still a challenge both for cameras/lenses and users. Missed focus is something everybody notices.

That daft red thing - 'apochromatic' is a historical buzz word which actually means nothing (all modern lenses are designed to be apochromatic) and looking at that blue bird image posted on the DPR link, there is evidence of chromatic aberration. I'm not sure TBH, it's hard to identify clearly and only a sample of one of course, it's been over-sharpened which can create some colour fringing (around the beak) and it might have been further photoshopped (cut out?) making things worse. I wouldn't trust any KickStarter claims now.

Sharpest 250mm lens? How many other directly comparable modern 250mm prime lenses are there? Not sure there's anything current and there are certainly sharper 200mm and 300mm lenses available. Full marks to the manufacturer for finding a marketing niche they can spin among gullible photographers, and for exploiting KickStarter so effectively.
 
HoppyUK said:
Photographers have always obsessed over sharpness, and always will. I think we're all guilty to some extent, but it's certainly not the defining aspect of a good photograph or even the most important. Nobody but us notices. Pretty much all modern equipment is capable of more than sufficient sharpness but AF accuracy is vital, as anyone using fast apertures knows, and that is still a challenge both for cameras/lenses and users. Missed focus is something everybody notices.

That daft red thing - 'apochromatic' is a historical buzz word which actually means nothing (all modern lenses are designed to be apochromatic) and looking at that blue bird image posted on the DPR link, there is evidence of chromatic aberration. I'm not sure TBH, it's hard to identify clearly and only a sample of one of course, it's been over-sharpened which can create some colour fringing (around the beak) and it might have been further photoshopped (cut out?) making things worse. I wouldn't trust any KickStarter claims now.

Sharpest 250mm lens? How many other directly comparable modern 250mm prime lenses are there? Not sure there's anything current and there are certainly sharper 200mm and 300mm lenses available. Full marks to the manufacturer for finding a marketing niche they can spin among gullible photographers, and for exploiting KickStarter so effectively.
Click to expand...

I wonder though, was it the astrologer crowd who were sucked in more so than the photographers? A lot of the spiel centres around astro-photography, though 4.9 seems a bit dark for that [I don't really understand astro just guessing]

On the apochromatic side - there's often vast differences in CA handling between lenses even of the same FL when shot wide open, if this was actually almost CA fee at 4.9 250mm that would take some beating [at the price point, which seems to be in or around $700] Usually you have to stop down at least a stop to completely clear any purple or blue fringing noticeable in any kind of harsh lighting - which is often with wildlife. In this case you don't have that option so it better be great 'wide open'
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
Photographers have always obsessed over sharpness, and always will. I think we're all guilty to some extent, but it's certainly not the defining aspect of a good photograph or even the most important. Nobody but us notices. Pretty much all modern equipment is capable of more than sufficient sharpness but AF accuracy is vital, as anyone using fast apertures knows, and that is still a challenge both for cameras/lenses and users. Missed focus is something everybody notices.

That daft red thing - 'apochromatic' is a historical buzz word which actually means nothing (all modern lenses are designed to be apochromatic) and looking at that blue bird image posted on the DPR link, there is evidence of chromatic aberration. I'm not sure TBH, it's hard to identify clearly and only a sample of one of course, it's been over-sharpened which can create some colour fringing (around the beak) and it might have been further photoshopped (cut out?) making things worse. I wouldn't trust any KickStarter claims now.

Sharpest 250mm lens? How many other directly comparable modern 250mm prime lenses are there? Not sure there's anything current and there are certainly sharper 200mm and 300mm lenses available. Full marks to the manufacturer for finding a marketing niche they can spin among gullible photographers, and for exploiting KickStarter so effectively.
Click to expand...
Not all telescopes are Apo though Richard, I'd guess they are claiming it's a flat field sharp lens so stars at the field edge don't go rugby ball shaped as they do with a lot of telescopes.
For me it looks like a very pocketable travel scope, so would appeal to someone going on holiday and with a small GEM (Ioptron/Vixen for instance) on a tripod would certainly fit in hand luggage/car boot as opposed to a full sized scope and mount
 
MatBin said:
More likely astronomer crowd I think :)
Click to expand...

Lol, aren't they both into stars? .... I kinda knew as I was typing it that I chose the wrong one but too lazy to double check :ROFLMAO: It is 'astrological' photography they do though right?
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
Have you seen the price of it?
Click to expand...

I have owned its big brother, the 350mm f/2.8 for decades. I suspect that 95% of my published nature/wildlife images over the past twenty years were taken with it. It paid for itself long ago.
 
Darth M said:
I have owned its big brother, the 350mm f/2.8 for decades. I suspect that 95% of my published nature/wildlife images over the past twenty years were taken with it. It paid for itself long ago.
Click to expand...

Nice! I think the F2 is about 3x the price of that even though
 
MatBin said:
Not all telescopes are Apo though Richard, I'd guess they are claiming it's a flat field sharp lens so stars at the field edge don't go rugby ball shaped as they do with a lot of telescopes.
For me it looks like a very pocketable travel scope, so would appeal to someone going on holiday and with a small GEM (Ioptron/Vixen for instance) on a tripod would certainly fit in hand luggage/car boot as opposed to a full sized scope and mount
Click to expand...

If it's actually a lens derived from astro work which is a pretty specialised field, then I'm not sure of its relevance outside that sphere. But they're showing a photo of a bird. Not sure of the relevance of an f/4.9 manual focus 250mm lens for birding either. Rugby ball shaped spheres towards the edges are usually coma and field curvature is very rarely a problem in normal photography beyond macro distances.

Sorry to be negative, but there are reasons to be cautious.
 
HoppyUK said:
If it's actually a lens derived from astro work which is a pretty specialised field, then I'm not sure of its relevance outside that sphere. But they're showing a photo of a bird. Not sure of the relevance of an f/4.9 manual focus 250mm lens for birding either. Rugby ball shaped spheres towards the edges are usually coma and field curvature is very rarely a problem in normal photography beyond macro distances.

Sorry to be negative, but there are reasons to be cautious.
Click to expand...
I cant see it having an application outside of astrophotography, probably has very few elements (3 if it's apo I believe?), would probably flare like it's going out of fashion in daylight (not usually a problem at night :) ).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top