[Coeurdechene]

the thing I do know is if you are shooting sports, you need a fast lens which usually cost big bucks for the best results.

That falls on the specialized camp of spending...it's the same with UWA's, fisheyes or wildlife lenses...you pay money for lenses designed to do something you cannot normally do with other, and on those there isn't so much fuss really...just opinions and analisys of wether they are suitable for their purpose or not and if the price/quality ratio is good.
I think the fuss is more into the mid range of focal lenghts...
One thing i liked about this forum when i decided to join it was that there were all this clubs about lenses, filled with photos and where the feel of some lenses was considered (like with the soviet lenses club, or the adaptall mount one,the vivitar, the takumar club,...) in those it wasn't about the sharpness/ best lab IQ but much more about the feel the lenses had, in term of colors, contrast,bokeh...and in those the value and advantages of the lenses is considered in their own merit and not in the light or comparing with top-notch ultra expensive glass.

[timo]

Yes, we do fuss too much. Much of the money spent on lenses would be better spent on air tickets. Content is worth a lot.

[RioRico]

We fuss over gear because we're gearheads -- or else we wouldn't be here.
We fuss over gear because *some* objective measures exist, unlike aesthetics.
We fuss over gear because it's what we spend money on, and we fret over money.
We fuss over gear because we mostly have different kits, and we like to compare.
We fuss over gear because it's easier than getting out there and SHOOTING.
We fuss over gear because, frankly, it's more fun than repairing plumbing.

[Schraubstock]

At f/8, all lenses are pretty much equal

I generally don't like "sweeping" statements even though I agree up to a point, because some are more equal than others.

Greetings

[dadipentak]

I think the basic premise that the qualitative difference between good and super-good lenses is largely irrelevant for many of us. It's certainly true in my case: I rarely print and my lenses are way better than I am. In addition, the K-5 moderates the need for super-fast lenses to some extent.

But I agree with Lee:

Crushing someone's LBA is just wrong!

[Spotmatic]

That falls on the specialized camp of spending...it's the same with UWA's, fisheyes or wildlife lenses...you pay money for lenses designed to do something you cannot normally do with other, and on those there isn't so much fuss really...just opinions and analisys of wether they are suitable for their purpose or not and if the price/quality ratio is good.
I think the fuss is more into the mid range of focal lenghts...
One thing i liked about this forum when i decided to join it was that there were all this clubs about lenses, filled with photos and where the feel of some lenses was considered (like with the soviet lenses club, or the adaptall mount one,the vivitar, the takumar club,...) in those it wasn't about the sharpness/ best lab IQ but much more about the feel the lenses had, in term of colors, contrast,bokeh...and in those the value and advantages of the lenses is considered in their own merit and not in the light or comparing with top-notch ultra expensive glass.

Agreed..but it is heading towards Peter Piper picked a peck of peeped pixels/FA Limited fondling/worship.

[icypepsi]

We can talk all day about rendering, "pixie dust," 3D effects, and on and on and on . . . but more expensive glass really can get you some tangible benefits regardless of print size. Among them:

Faster aperture

Better flare resistance

Better contrast

More resistance to chromatic aberration and various geometric distortions

Better sharpness and resolution (particularly important when you're cropping aggressively)

That's just off the top of my head. Of course, even expensive lenses don't always perform WELL on some of these measures, but sometimes they do!

All that having been said, I agree an $800 lens isn't necessarily 4x better than a $200 lens. Diminishing returns certainly do come into effect.

I'll add to this list with image stabilization. Although not for Pentax (thankfully, someone used their God given head!), here the manufactures are forcing buyers to shell more money or fret over not being able to afford it. Do you think Canikon is stupid enough not to realize that the technology could be in a single body instead of every lens?

[SpecialK]

Canikon

But the in-lens stabilization is better. Just ask them.

[RioRico]

but the in-lens stabilization is better. Just ask them.

[icypepsi]

But the in-lens stabilization is better. Just ask them.

I'm sure it's better for them

[selar]

Can't remember the last time I used f8 max I will go to is 5.6 and that usually only for zooms

[Spotmatic]

Problem? I don't have a problem. Do you? I just made a statement.

[Stone G.]

I appreciate that a great lens is better then just a good lens. But when it all comes down to it, if you don't pixel peek and only use your monitor for your photos, doesn't printing reduce most the advantage an expensive lens has over a cheaper one?
A printer can only reveal so many colors and detail, the rest is an overkill if it -------------
just looking for a debate about the merits of a high performance lens vs bang for the buck lens

any opinions welcome!!

cheers and thanks

Thank you for intiating this debate. I think that we do fuzz too much on a great many occasions. I am member of another (domestic) forum where some 50% of image critisim or endorsement goes on "sharpness" and very little about the light capured, the story told, the scene spotted...... And quite a few of those images endorsed for their "sharpness" (there are thousand of tame park ducks in that forum) have obviously been sharpened in Photoshop or similar - regardless of the lens used!

Sometimes, I feel almost embarrased to confess that a (to most people) decent photograph of mine was taken with my Tamron 18-200, because you can find reports highlighting where and how big the distortions are with that lens. But I do use it a lot (in parallel with my Pentax FA 28-80) because such lenses are easily carried along and they are always there, when you need them.

In that repect, today's possibility of pixel-peeping is a mixed blessing. When I started to photograph (in 1960) my finest "instrument" for quality control was an Agfa Gucki viewer, as I couldn't afford a real loupe.

That said, there are situations, where I would definitely not be without my more specialized lenses for

- low light & fastness
- finest detail
- lack of distortion
- special applications such as astrophotograhy

And, finally, one should not overlook the sheer joy (if you are a collector or gadget-minded and believe you can afford it) of having and using quality made gear. I think, I know a few who own a 4WD vehicle but never leaves central town, and I have a few (vintage) lenses that I just had to buy.......

B.R. / Steen G. B.

You will never see how good a lens is on a computer screen. A top notch print is where a good lens and a bad lens becomes apparent. There aren't that many bad lenses.

I would agree and disagree. I've seen differences apparent quite easily on my 27" monitor. One example is bokeh. On a 'lesser' lens it can be nervous and harsh, and on a 'better' lens it can be smooth and pleasing. Colour is another area and though you can post-process, there are differences. But certainly it's when you print large that you start to see.

I think that great shots can be gotten with a $50 18-55mm lens, and really bad shots can be taken with a $1,000 lens. I also know that I can use narrow depth of field as a crutch on a faster lens but can also use it to artfully create something beautiful.

My final answer? Yes, we fuss to much.

We should take more photos and talk about the photos more than the lenses that might take the photos. And I'm guilty of that as much as anyone.

And indeed the Internet fuels LBA. Boy oh boy, does it. But it fuels anything if you let it. Hi, my name is Mr_Canuck, and I just bought another lens.......

[GeneV]

I started a thread like this about a year ago, with the question whether edge sharpness is overrated. Edge sharpness is often where the better lenses differentiate themselves.

My take is that edge sharpness is overrated and we do fuss too much. Being there and having the vision are the most important. If you can be there with some great glass, then all the better, but we often obsess about that part of it.