Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-25-2011, 01:31 PM   #31
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,314
The real answer is the person looking through it at the instant the shutter is pressed.

Unfortunately we are not interested in reality, so we talk contrast, sharpness , resolution, pixie dust, and all sorts of other adjectives

04-25-2011, 01:49 PM   #32
Veteran Member
jaieger's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 586
QuoteOriginally posted by asdf Quote
All you are saying is that lenses of different focal lengths may potentially be suitable in different situations. I don't think anybody is disputing this, nor is anybody bashing lomography here.
Focal length is one argument I made, among others. I also talked about lens characteristics, such as being paper-perfect vs not, and tactile/mechanical attributes.
04-25-2011, 01:52 PM   #33
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,255
QuoteOriginally posted by jaieger Quote
Focal length is one argument I made, among others. I also talked about lens characteristics, such as being paper-perfect vs not, and tactile/mechanical attributes.
Fine, and nobody is disputing the fact that ergonomics are important.
04-25-2011, 01:58 PM   #34
Veteran Member
jaieger's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 586
QuoteOriginally posted by asdf Quote
In his textbook on photography, Ansel Adams recommends to buy a lens of high optical quality. A Joe Blow on the internet tells me to spend potentially thousands of dollars on something that "feels" good. Hmm....
QuoteOriginally posted by asdf Quote
Fine, and nobody is disputing the fact that ergonomics are important.

.



sidenote: what would you possibly spend thousands on for something that feels good that doesn't provide knock-out optical quality?

04-25-2011, 02:08 PM   #35
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,255
QuoteOriginally posted by jaieger Quote
.

Originally posted by asdf
In his textbook on photography, Ansel Adams recommends to buy a lens of high optical quality. A Joe Blow on the internet tells me to spend potentially thousands of dollars on something that "feels" good. Hmm....
Originally posted by asdf
Fine, and nobody is disputing the fact that ergonomics are important.


sidenote: what would you possibly spend thousands on for something that feels good that doesn't provide knock-out optical quality?
The "feelings" to which I was referring were not specified by the poster to whom I was responding. As far as I understood it, they were meant to be mystical. I assumed that if he meant ergonomics, he'd say ergonomics.
04-25-2011, 02:17 PM   #36
Veteran Member
jaieger's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 586
QuoteOriginally posted by asdf Quote
The "feelings" to which I was referring were not specified by the poster to whom I was responding. As far as I understood it, they were meant to be mystical. I assumed that if he meant ergonomics, he'd say ergonomics.
If that's the case, my mistake. Though I took 'feeling' to be the overall image experience - from actually using it, to the rendition of the image having a certain look that appeals to the user. Which, back on topic, is I guess what LBA is hunting for, and what makes a good lens in the hand of the beholder - a lens that feels great from the start to finish in the production of an image.

Last edited by jaieger; 04-25-2011 at 02:36 PM.
04-25-2011, 02:28 PM   #37
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
QuoteOriginally posted by asdf Quote
The "feelings" to which I was referring were not specified by the poster to whom I was responding. As far as I understood it, they were meant to be mystical. I assumed that if he meant ergonomics, he'd say ergonomics.
I meant ergonomics. You should read my first post.

Ansel Adams also operated in a time where a bad lens was *BAD* and a good lens was of decent quality by today's standards. You can buy high optical quality for less than 500 dollars. The rest if ergonomics.
04-25-2011, 02:36 PM   #38
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,255
QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
I meant ergonomics. You should read my first post.
I see.

QuoteQuote:
Ansel Adams also operated in a time where a bad lens was *BAD* and a good lens was of decent quality by today's standards. You can buy high optical quality for less than 500 dollars. The rest if ergonomics.
From what I've seen first hand, the DA 55-300 at 300mm is noticeably inferior to my DA* 300 f/4, without pixel peeping. I would never use DA 55-300 in place of DA* 300mm unless I wanted consistently inferior photographs.

04-25-2011, 02:44 PM   #39
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
QuoteOriginally posted by asdf Quote
rom what I've seen first hand, the DA 55-300 at 300mm is noticeably inferior to my DA* 300 f/4, without pixel peeping. I would never use DA 55-300 in place of DA* 300mm unless I wanted consistently inferior photographs.
Neat.

DA* also costs a hell of a lot more AND is more heavy.

Therefore, I would suggest that the DA* is for those who need that extra 10% performance, but for the average user, performance from the 55-300 might be more enjoyable?

You seem to change the topic a lot for no reason...
04-25-2011, 02:52 PM   #40
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,255
QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
Therefore, I would suggest that the DA* is for those who need that extra 10% performance, but for the average user, performance from the 55-300 might be more enjoyable?
Well, DA 55-300 also fails in the AF department. It's slow and noisy. It fails in the f-stop department also -- which also affects AF performance.

In any event, if you want to go back to the main topic: if you read a photography magazine, a lens is rated based on its optical qualities, mechanical qualities, practical performance and price relative to these qualities. This is nothing revolutionary.
04-25-2011, 03:16 PM   #41
Banned




Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Williston, VT
Posts: 268
QuoteOriginally posted by asdf Quote
From what I've seen first hand, the DA 55-300 at 300mm is noticeably inferior to my DA* 300 f/4, without pixel peeping. I would never use DA 55-300 in place of DA* 300mm unless I wanted consistently inferior photographs.
Holy crap! What a completely ridiculous comparison! Way to go, you win the prize for most irrelevant comparison on this day. I'd create some gimmicky icon that represents this award, but it's not worth my time and effort.

I guarantee you that some people (yes, even professional photographers) would find more use out of the 55-300mm rather than an FA* 300mm F4 FOR THEIR SPECIFIC NEEDS! Your bizarre generalizations derived from archaic Ansel Adams writings are truly baffling.

edit: and anyways, you forgot about pixie dust.

Last edited by Hound Tooth; 04-25-2011 at 03:28 PM.
04-25-2011, 05:05 PM   #42
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,255
QuoteOriginally posted by Hound Tooth Quote
Holy crap! What a completely ridiculous comparison! Way to go, you win the prize for most irrelevant comparison on this day. I'd create some gimmicky icon that represents this award, but it's not worth my time and effort.
Thanks, buddy. I don't know whether you're a raving lunatic or joking. I should invoke Poe's law.

QuoteQuote:
I guarantee you that some people (yes, even professional photographers) would find more use out of the 55-300mm rather than an FA* 300mm F4 FOR THEIR SPECIFIC NEEDS! Your bizarre generalizations derived from archaic Ansel Adams writings are truly baffling.

edit: and anyways, you forgot about pixie dust.
The warning in Ansel Adams's book was specifically about the optical quality of zooms. From what we've seen lately, the warning still applies. Some "modern" ~$600 zooms are still soft at the long end and have significant barrel distortion at the short end -- just look at some of the other new threads on this forum...

edit: The "pixie dust" is mathematics, physics and glass chemistry.
04-25-2011, 05:26 PM   #43
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
asdf - modern zooms are generally better than primes were in Ansel's day.

so please stop arguing. You don't know what you are talking about.
04-25-2011, 05:45 PM   #44
Site Supporter
robbiec's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cork, Ireland
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,206
QuoteOriginally posted by asdf Quote
edit: The "pixie dust" is mathematics, physics and glass chemistry.
Bollocks! the FA Limiteds would be a prime example of a 'Chef' interfering with the ingredients that the computer or mathematician churned out and that is a large part of the reason that they are considered to have "pixie dust"!

Last edited by robbiec; 04-25-2011 at 11:21 PM.
04-25-2011, 05:53 PM   #45
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,255
QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
asdf - modern zooms are generally better than primes were in Ansel's day.

so please stop arguing. You don't know what you are talking about.
You're missing the point I was trying to make. Hound Tooth called someone a measurbator for mentioning basic lens qualities that would've been sought by any member of group f/64. I suppose a mountain peak in the Sierra Nevada is named after a measurbator.

Here's the exchange:
" Laurentiu Cristofor:
A good lens has little distortion, great resolution across the frame, a flat focal field, no chromatic aberrations, resistance to flare and ghosting.
Hound Tooth:
Spoken like a true measurebator..."
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!
k-mount, lens, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Misc 100mm f/2.8 Macro WR Bokeh Bokeh Bokeh! iocchelli Post Your Photos! 3 03-20-2011 02:22 AM
Great 3d of 31ltd and 43ltd, Bad of 35/2 bokeh Mystic Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 44 12-16-2009 10:09 PM
What Makes a Great Low Light Lense? Firebird Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 15 09-09-2009 07:54 AM
Manual lens + K20D makes green? imtheguy Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 06-15-2009 09:55 AM
A Shiba Inu makes a great model m8o Post Your Photos! 2 06-30-2008 05:58 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:34 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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