kevistopheles
Top Veteran
I have for years always been on the lookout for "better" lenses. I collect and use legacy glass so it's pretty easy to do and even being as frugal as I am there are a lot of options available. I have a number of lenses that I have collected over the years and my 11 year old asked why I had so many. I told him "well they all have different qualities that I like and each produces an image that if unique". He asked me to show him so yesterday I snapped some images of a wilting carnation next to the bed in order to prove a point. The only point that it proved was that lens differences was more perception than reality.
It didn't matter what the lens was (expensive or cheap) the differences were so small that they were meaningless. That doesn't mean the lenses aren't different. Some are faster than others, some have different bokeh, some had color that was warmer or cooler but when it comes right down to it they weren't all that different. I shot the image like I would if I were shooting normally. I set the aperture for f4 (which is pretty standard for me) and off I went. Granted most lenses look pretty good stopped down but it got me to thinking that much of the value that we place on lenses is in our head. I look at a lens like my Super Takumar 50/1.4 and value it because it's a FAST lens but in reality I will almost never shoot it wide open. I honestly can't recall when I shot a lens wide open. About the widest I ever shoot is f2.8 and even that isn't all that often because the DOF is too shallow for my needs. Almost all of my shots are f4 or f5.6. If I am shooting on the street it's f8.
Now, I realize that some folks needs are different. I have a friend that ONLY shoots wide open. She does a lot of portrait style shots and I'm not even sure she could make herself stop the lens down. She'd probably come down with a fever if she did. I love her photos so it clearly works for her but it's a foreign land for me. Why is this important? For me it's significant because it makes me realize how easy it is for me to lose sight of the real purpose of photography in my life. I make images because I need to and when I keep true to that I am much happier. When I slide into being a gear collector (which is very easy for me) I don't make images because I am spending my time acquiring stuff. Thankfully I don't have the disposable income of some folks so my inner gear acquirer has a natural predator.
I worked for years as a print, imaging and prepress professional. I know a little bit about imaging and have been doing it for years. There ARE differences that gear bring to the table but by far the biggest factor in image quality is the person behind the lens. Unless you are talking about really high end glass I am not convinced the differences between the many flavors of lenses is enough to be able to see without a cheat sheet. I am also not convinced that even top end glass like Leica or Zeiss is all that much better than it's lesser cousins. When I first started out I worked selling high end HiFi and we used to have a scale for sound quality. We used to say that $500 would be a huge step up from the stuff you bought at Penny's, $1000 would be a another step (albeit smaller), then $1500, $2000 and $2500 with each one being a smaller step better than the previous one had been. One you got to $2500 that was the point where you stopped getting any real value. The sound of a $5000 system was better than a $2500 but not by much. There was no question that the more expensive gear sounded great and you COULD hear the difference but that was in a well set up acoustically neutral room. Once it got out into someone's house with all the surfaces and ambient noises you would never hear that infinitesimally small bit of better. In photography there are so many factors that come into play when making an image I really doubt I could pick out an image taken with a Summicron over anything else.
I'm not against high-end gear. I have been lucky enough to be able to have some high end stuff from time to time and it's nice. I have a couple of old English integrated amps that probably fall into that category and I love them but their value is based as much in my perception of their quality as any real superior sonic qualities they might possess. With lenses I think there are tangible things like build quality, longevity, durability of coatings or even how the things feel in hand but they don't necessarily translate into any better images. That I think is a little lie that it easy to tell ones self in order to justify a purchase. I can think of a few things I have that fall into that category
.
In the end I realized that better is a moving target and it really depends on what you value. My better may seem ridiculous to someone else and its easy to get caught up in notions of better and best.
Just thought I'd share.
It didn't matter what the lens was (expensive or cheap) the differences were so small that they were meaningless. That doesn't mean the lenses aren't different. Some are faster than others, some have different bokeh, some had color that was warmer or cooler but when it comes right down to it they weren't all that different. I shot the image like I would if I were shooting normally. I set the aperture for f4 (which is pretty standard for me) and off I went. Granted most lenses look pretty good stopped down but it got me to thinking that much of the value that we place on lenses is in our head. I look at a lens like my Super Takumar 50/1.4 and value it because it's a FAST lens but in reality I will almost never shoot it wide open. I honestly can't recall when I shot a lens wide open. About the widest I ever shoot is f2.8 and even that isn't all that often because the DOF is too shallow for my needs. Almost all of my shots are f4 or f5.6. If I am shooting on the street it's f8.
Now, I realize that some folks needs are different. I have a friend that ONLY shoots wide open. She does a lot of portrait style shots and I'm not even sure she could make herself stop the lens down. She'd probably come down with a fever if she did. I love her photos so it clearly works for her but it's a foreign land for me. Why is this important? For me it's significant because it makes me realize how easy it is for me to lose sight of the real purpose of photography in my life. I make images because I need to and when I keep true to that I am much happier. When I slide into being a gear collector (which is very easy for me) I don't make images because I am spending my time acquiring stuff. Thankfully I don't have the disposable income of some folks so my inner gear acquirer has a natural predator.
I worked for years as a print, imaging and prepress professional. I know a little bit about imaging and have been doing it for years. There ARE differences that gear bring to the table but by far the biggest factor in image quality is the person behind the lens. Unless you are talking about really high end glass I am not convinced the differences between the many flavors of lenses is enough to be able to see without a cheat sheet. I am also not convinced that even top end glass like Leica or Zeiss is all that much better than it's lesser cousins. When I first started out I worked selling high end HiFi and we used to have a scale for sound quality. We used to say that $500 would be a huge step up from the stuff you bought at Penny's, $1000 would be a another step (albeit smaller), then $1500, $2000 and $2500 with each one being a smaller step better than the previous one had been. One you got to $2500 that was the point where you stopped getting any real value. The sound of a $5000 system was better than a $2500 but not by much. There was no question that the more expensive gear sounded great and you COULD hear the difference but that was in a well set up acoustically neutral room. Once it got out into someone's house with all the surfaces and ambient noises you would never hear that infinitesimally small bit of better. In photography there are so many factors that come into play when making an image I really doubt I could pick out an image taken with a Summicron over anything else.
I'm not against high-end gear. I have been lucky enough to be able to have some high end stuff from time to time and it's nice. I have a couple of old English integrated amps that probably fall into that category and I love them but their value is based as much in my perception of their quality as any real superior sonic qualities they might possess. With lenses I think there are tangible things like build quality, longevity, durability of coatings or even how the things feel in hand but they don't necessarily translate into any better images. That I think is a little lie that it easy to tell ones self in order to justify a purchase. I can think of a few things I have that fall into that category
.In the end I realized that better is a moving target and it really depends on what you value. My better may seem ridiculous to someone else and its easy to get caught up in notions of better and best.
Just thought I'd share.
