Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-15-2010, 03:12 PM   #16
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
Zxaar

Do you mean you never take any photos at smaller apertures than F4-5.6 between the range of 18-55mm?

I hardly think this is the case

While I agree that there are a lot of shots taken in the range I pointed out above. Many of these are great shots. Surely you don't want to not take great shots just because it is in a range that an ordinary consumer is capable of taking?

Great shots are taken by great photographers not great equipment

10-15-2010, 03:26 PM   #17
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: kobe/japan
Posts: 510
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
Zxaar

Do you mean you never take any photos at smaller apertures than F4-5.6 between the range of 18-55mm?

I hardly think this is the case

While I agree that there are a lot of shots taken in the range I pointed out above. Many of these are great shots. Surely you don't want to not take great shots just because it is in a range that an ordinary consumer is capable of taking?

Great shots are taken by great photographers not great equipment
humm. There are two type of photography that i am supposed to do. One which is for family which are normal and it is because it keeps my wife happy.

Other type is what i do for myself. The things that i would like to take prints of. For this this is my arsenal.

10- 17 fisheye. 135mm F2.5, 50mm F1.2
(80 t 90% of time above three). Other than fish eye i mostly use them wide open.

And one lense in range you mentioned , which is 28mm takumar.

But since for landscapes i prefer 10 -17 fisheye , 28mm tak is used only some times.


I have taken pictures in the range you said and i think i can make pretty good pics in that range. But i really like to avoid it as much as possible.

PS: For landscapes i must admit i have been contemplating using kit lense at 18mm and at f8. But still haven't started using it, may be in near future.
10-15-2010, 03:59 PM   #18
Pentaxian
reeftool's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,156
QuoteOriginally posted by zxaar Quote
I would rather take antipodal view to article in OP.

I would like to argue that Kit lense is the one thing i would avoid at all costs.

There are hundreds , thousands and millions of cameras sold very year. A great amount of which are used with the lense that comes with it. Lets call it a kit lense. (coupling fixed lenses too).
These hundreds , thousands and millions of buyers take pictures just as you and me would do.

And exactly this is the reason i would avoid kit lenses, because with kit lense i would take pictures that these masses are taking. If i have to differentiate i need to find angle, framing , view different that what these masses are doing. This is why I would like to spend money on ultrawides (10mm types,) fisheyes. Ultra teles. Ultra fasts like 1.2s or 1.1s or 1.0.

I would like to make pictures that everyone can not make. I would like to be different.

PS: I actually try to follow what i have written.
Actually, if you don't take a lot a photos in the 18-55mm range then that is a good reason to own the kit lens. Why spend a grand on a lens that will gather dust and only get occasional use?
10-15-2010, 04:12 PM   #19
Forum Member




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: LA
Posts: 89
Interesting, but directly opposite to what I believe.

I think nice glass is one key to unlocking a photographer's potential.

Most lenses are great when stopped down, but how creative can you be when you are always shooting at f/8?

But, I am still unsure about what the average amatuer photographer knows and doesn't know. I still see most dSLR users shooting with kit lenses or cheap super-zooms. I suspect most set their cameras to green and the word "aperture" never crosses their mind.

10-15-2010, 04:20 PM   #20
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
It depends on how much you're willing to spend to be how happy?
Hmm, about 50 dollars. That's how much my 55 1.8 cost . It's a little more finicky, but it does everything I want IQ wise, which is what I have to show for at the end of the day.
10-15-2010, 04:55 PM   #21
Site Supporter
SpecialK's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,904
QuoteQuote:
cropped and diddled...
total accidents....
move around
look at subjects from different viewpoints...
All that applies to any lens. And I do all of that. I had MF primes in my film days. They seem restrictive, now, however. My point is any particular prime will only condition you to look with that FOV, when others might be as good or better.
10-16-2010, 02:40 AM   #22
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by zxaar Quote
And exactly this is the reason i would avoid kit lenses, because with kit lense i would take pictures that these masses are taking.
Wrong. You only replicate their pictures if you stand where they stand and aim where they aim. The optics mostly don't matter. What you see and do matters. Here is a list of the factors in photography, in DECREASING order of importance:

1) Photographer: If you don't know what you're doing, your pictures will suck.
2) Subject: With a lousy subject, even the best gear can't get a good picture.
3) Light: Without proper lighting, even the best subject and gear won't work.
4) Lens: Good shooters can work with lousy lenses, but good optics are nice.
5) Camera: A box upon which to hang a lens. Even the best can't work magic.

Look at the kit lens galleries here and you will see LOTS of fine work. Don't blame the tool; learn to use it. Many great photos were shot with much worse lenses. If you want to see through it in different ways, hang stuff on it: wide and fishy and close-up adapters, IR and actinic-light and standard B&W filters, a ringlight, etc. Shoot at angles into imperfect mirrors. Deliberately shoot in ultra-high contrast. Et cetera.
10-16-2010, 05:15 AM   #23
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: kobe/japan
Posts: 510
QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
Wrong. You only replicate their pictures if you stand where they stand and aim where they aim. The optics mostly don't matter. What you see and do matters. Here is a list of the factors in photography, in DECREASING order of importance:
Really, optics don't matter.

Stand as you wish, shoot this with your kit lense.

10 -17 fisheye at 10 mm, 180 deg view:




optics matter and length of lense also matters. If it were true every one would buy 50mm F1.2 or F1.1 and done with it. No need for zooms just stand at correct place to frame properly.


The point is there are hundred of people who visit this place with their kit lense. And none of them would have taken this picture. I use different lenses and hence standing at same place i frame things differently and hence take different pictures.

It is easiest way to differentiate. Off course a person with kit lense could also take wonderful pictures. But that i can also do, if i think kit lense is good enough. But the guy with kit lense can not do many things special lenses are designed to do. For example angle of view of fish eye. DOF of ultra fast lenses.


Last edited by zxaar; 10-16-2010 at 05:41 AM.
10-16-2010, 01:15 PM   #24
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
QuoteOriginally posted by zxaar Quote
Really, optics don't matter.

Stand as you wish, shoot this with your kit lense.

10 -17 fisheye at 10 mm, 180 deg view
I don't mean to be rude - that is a nice photograph you have taken there.... but I think you are mistaking novelty for creativity. It's that sort of mentality that makes people mistake Requiem for a Dream for creative genius, and say the cinematography of Traffic "boring". This is why I would agree that the photographer is the most important part.

Attachment 73425

Now I'm no great artist, but I think I have a good appreciation for art. This is a good standard which illustrates my point - normal focal length, natural lighting. But what is amazing here is the subject, which really tells a story, and the photographer, who came up with the idea for this image and was able to work with her subject, and have the skill (and timing!) to take this shot at jus tthe right time to capture his emotion. The story goes that Ms. Arbus frustrated the boy to no end to get him to make this expression - and a famous photograph was born.

I'm sure that if she was using the kit lens at 35mm, it would have be no less a famous and powerful photograph.

Last edited by paperbag846; 11-23-2010 at 10:47 AM.
10-16-2010, 02:28 PM   #25
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eureka, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,977
QuoteOriginally posted by zxaar Quote
I would rather take antipodal view to article in OP.

I would like to argue that Kit lense is the one thing i would avoid at all costs.

There are hundreds , thousands and millions of cameras sold very year. A great amount of which are used with the lense that comes with it. Lets call it a kit lense. (coupling fixed lenses too).
These hundreds , thousands and millions of buyers take pictures just as you and me would do.
Well, that's one approach. But I don't think the problem is that everyone is using the same lens. If a lens is used creatively, it can take very different pictures. The problem with the kit lens is that it is outclassed by nearly every lens that shares a portion of its focal length, whether prime or zoom; so that any talented photographer using a kit lens is not maximizing his talent. He is capable of doing better work — if he had a better lens.

“Sharpness, usually considered the single most desirable quality in a lens, varied little between the $1,000–$1,500 pro and $100–$450 entry-level zooms. In fact, based on sharpness alone, we couldn’t determine whether 11×14 test prints were made with budget or pro glass. And that’s only half the story. . .”

This is potentially deceptive. If the quality of the test prints wasn't so great, of course you're not going to notice any difference. I can't attest to the quality of Nikon or Canon kit lenses; but I have a number of lenses that are sharper than both versions of the Pentax kit lens, including the DA 12-24, the K 28/3.5, the M 50/1.7, the M 50/2, the M 28/2.8, the A 35-105/3.5, the K 200/4, and the DA* 300/4. Most of these lens are also superior in terms color rendition and micro contrast.

It's even worse when one compares the DA* 300 to a consumer grade telephoto zoom, like the Tamron 75-300. The DA* 300 is much sharper; there's no way you wouldn't notice it in an 11x14 print.
10-16-2010, 02:41 PM   #26
Pentaxian
reeftool's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,156
I will never argue about the creative potential of the DA 10-17. I own one myself and I use it a lot. It is always with me and probably gets used the most of all my lenses on the shorter end. I do a lot of telephoto shooting (wildlife and sports). It's not acceptable for everything however. Not every photo I take is a work of art or is it intended to be. While the snapshot may be looked down upon by some, my friends and family members certainly appreciate them. Paperbag is 100% right. A good photo can be shot with any lens or camera. Galen Rowel's mountaineering photos were published in magazines like Outside and National Geographic for years and he shot most of them with a Kodak Instamatic.
10-16-2010, 07:37 PM   #27
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: kobe/japan
Posts: 510
you guys are mis-understanding me.

I am not arguing that kit lense could not take good photographs or stunning ones.

And one can be creative in many ways.

What i am arguing is that if you want to differentiate then using a lense that everyone does not use is one of the ways to do it.

Off course in the end it is photographer that matters, i have seen guys making wonderful pictures from a simple point and shoot with 4 to 6mp cameras.

But innovation and creativity comes from going outside of boundaries of norm. There are many ways to do it. Easiest is to change your lense.
10-16-2010, 08:33 PM   #28
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,236
- Composition and framing
- Lighting
- Overall subject, idea, or thought
- Point of interest
- Tools

I think the tool is a big aspect as sometimes a person's idea requires a special tool to make it happen. As someone pointed out, the 10-17mm Fisheye produces a unique effect that can't be replicated with a kit lens. That also goes for trying to create images of extremely small objects, which require 1:1 or larger magnification and most likely a decent add-on flash with a diffuser.

I'm not going to drive steel nails into solid wood with a plastic toy hammer. Okay, kit lenses are not as extreme as the example because they can suffice for their given range.
10-16-2010, 09:51 PM   #29
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by zxaar Quote
But innovation and creativity comes from going outside of boundaries of norm. There are many ways to do it. Easiest is to change your lense.
And I'll argue that creativity often emerges from dealing with constraints, limitations. Changing a lens may be an easy way to achieve something different, but what's the challenge? That's like winning an auto race with a bigger engine, not better driving. And if better optics trump everything else, why aren't the media dominated by shots from Leica users? [Hint: Because most working photographers don't use such exquisite bling.]

Don't mistake me. I am not a minimalist. I own too many lenses. Most didn't cost me a lot. I think I have some decent glass. I often try to use the best for a given situation. But I'll also devote time to a less-than-stellar lens, to find its limitations and try to work with and bypass them. I use one fogged lens because I know I'll get a "mystical glow" in the right light, or a few lenses with apertures stuck wide open because I like their center sharpness and don't care about edges.

Or I'll impose other limits on myself. Like shooting in B&W with a light violet CC filter, to emulate the earliest photo emulsions that couldn't see green-yellow-orange-red but only 'actinic' UV-violet-blue light. Or like cutting a square cardboard mask to fit around a lens, to give the captured image a Holga look. You may notice some competitions like "one-lens-a-month" -- competitions often have constraints, like engine sizes in auto races. Find how to finesse those limits -- THAT'S creativity! Buying a new lens isn't usually a very creative act, unless lies must be invented...
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, consumer, k-mount, lens, lenses, pentax lens, slr lens, vs
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Using old lenses on new digital camera sissy64sonny Welcomes and Introductions 9 06-05-2010 10:03 AM
Pro Digital 2000 Warning Rush2112 General Talk 21 03-25-2010 12:14 PM
difference between hoya pro-1 HMC and pro-1 DMC (digital)? Spock Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 10-22-2009 01:56 PM
Digital Filters in Pentax Digital Camera Utility 4? lawsonstone Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 0 07-19-2009 04:44 PM
Is making middle end consumer lenses crappy a common thing? Vulpix Photographic Technique 11 03-13-2007 11:34 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:46 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top