[jstevewhite]

Don't even get me started on audiophiles. Before I spent my time learning about photography on forums (amazing how much I have learned from you people in the last year), I spent my time learning about guitars on forums. Guitar audiophiles are *true* emperor's new clothes victims. They're the same people who spend 100s of dollars on oxygen free wires, and buy hand-made amplifiers because "point to point wiring is made with a better type of metal that sounds better".

-snip-

So this was a very long winded way of saying: I agree with Marc. It's pretty damn subjective, and the elusiveness of pixie dust might be due to the fact that it's contingent on you developing a relationship with your lens, and as we all know, love is a personal thing.

Great summation, and in this respect I agree with Marc, as well. But this is not the same thing as saying that there's no unique rendering quality to the FA ltds... *shrug*. Excellent stuff, anyway, with one caveat that I already posted - some folks *can* tell the diff between a CD and vinyl in a blind test...

I feel the same way about guitars - doesn't keep me from wanting a Les Paul and a Telecaster and a Rickenbacher and a... They all *feel* different, and make *me* feel different, but you're absolutely right, they aren't what makes good music.

[Todd Adamson]

Ha, this thread is all over the place. I have to say this:

I guarantee you I can tell the difference between the sound of my Jean Larrivée, my Martin HD-35, and my Korean not handmade Sigma. Every time. When played by an expert, or a beginner. In the next freakin' room. With my head under water. No false positives, ever.

Obviously, technique is critical to getting good sound, but all else being equal, there's a lot that matters in guitar tonality. And it's measurable and repeatable. Hell, if someone even bumped into one of those guitars in next room and I wasn't even paying attention, I could still identify which one it was.

[jsherman999]

I've really done some thinking about this. I like, but do not love, my FA 77. No question that it's a great lens in a technical sense, but I do not connect with it. Therefore, very few pictures I take with it have any magic. Looking through my library of pictures, other lenses really *do* have magic (at least when compared with my other work).

It sounds like you'd be someone who would really appreciate the 77ltd of a FF DSLR more. I suspect you might connect more with that FOV, which is why the 55 feels better to you. Join me in hoping for an eventual K-1.

The one lens that has the most hits is my K55 1.8. There is no good technical reason for this. It's kinda soft wide open, the bokeh is so so stopped down, and it's not exactly a pleasure to work with in an environment where the lights are rapidly changing. I find it flares up too much, not the best for action, etc.

However, for whatever reason, I connect to the world when I'm looking through that lens. I see in a way that makes sense to me, and I'm able to capture the important stuff (subject / light) more naturally when the K55 (and similarly, the FA 50) is attached to my DSLR. I think it's due to the focal length, mostly, but I'm sure rendering comes into play as well.

I also appreciate the K 55 1.8, and I think that lens also might be slightly dusted... with some more vintage dust, maybe

The point is that a lens *can* have pixie dust... or maybe more accurately, a lens can *pull* pixie dust right out of you. If you connect with the FA 43, the unique way of separating the subject from the background with a very unique mix of sharpness and impressionistic bokeh, the focal length - then you are going to take some magical pictures. And you will attribute that magic to the lens... but really, it's just the relationship you formed with the lens!

Yes - but when a small set of lenses move away from the pack with the number of people who seem to form this working relationship with them - then they have more dust. A point I've made again & again in this thread, to no real avail.



.

[jstevewhite]

Ha, this thread is all over the place. I have to say this:

I guarantee you I can tell the difference between the sound of my Jean Larrivée, my Martin HD-35, and my Korean not handmade Sigma. Every time. When played by an expert, or a beginner. In the next freakin' room. With my head under water. No false positives, ever.

Obviously, technique is critical to getting good sound, but all else being equal, there's a lot that matters in guitar tonality. And it's measurable and repeatable. Hell, if someone even bumped into one of those guitars in next room and I wasn't even paying attention, I could still identify which one it was.

I'd believe that. But I think we're getting confused again in the two threads: Are there objective differences between artistic tools? (Yes, pixie dust or no) Does that difference constitute art? (No, i don't think so).

I do love that Martin sound, but my Taylor playing friend thinks they're clunky and lifeless.

[jstevewhite]

Yes - but when a small set of lenses move away from the pack with the number of people who seem to form this working relationship with them - then they have more dust. A point I've made again & again in this thread, to no real avail.

.

I wouldn't say that it was to no avail. I just think that 'popularity contests' are often driven by other factors than objective values, *particularly* in subjective situations like this.

[Todd Adamson]

Does that difference constitute art?

I formally accuse you of trying to reframe the question.

I do love that Martin sound, but my Taylor playing friend thinks they're clunky and lifeless.

And I think I'd rather have tinnitis than play a Taylor.

Haha, OK, that was somewhat hyperbolic. I suppose Leo Kottke does alright with Taylor.

[DogLover]

Yes - but when a small set of lenses move away from the pack with the number of people who seem to form this working relationship with them - then they have more dust. A point I've made again & again in this thread, to no real avail.

Yes! Now this is a statement I can get on board with.

[jstevewhite]

I formally accuse you of trying to reframe the question.

And I think I'd rather have tinnitis than play a Taylor.

Haha, OK, that was somewhat hyperbolic. I suppose Leo Kottke does alright with Taylor.

I don't think I'm reframing the question - at least that's not my intention; I think that throughout this discussion those two topics have gotten intertwined, is all, leading to some confusion.

I don't *hate* Taylors; I just like the Martin sound - and the Gibson sound ( I learned to play on an old LG-1 ) - better. Hell, I like my Takamine EG523SC more than a Taylor costing several times as much.

[jsherman999]

Yes - but when a small set of lenses move away from the pack with the number of people who seem to form this working relationship with them - then they have more dust. A point I've made again & again in this thread, to no real avail.
.

... I just think that 'popularity contests' are often driven by other factors than objective values, *particularly* in subjective situations like this.

Case in point.


.

[jstevewhite]

Case in point.


.

I left some out, sorry: It's quite possible this is true, just as you stated; but it's very difficult to isolate between the two circumstances (quality vs popularity). Just see pop music for evidence.

[jsherman999]

I left some out, sorry: It's quite possible this is true, just as you stated; but it's very difficult to isolate between the two circumstances (quality vs popularity). Just see pop music for evidence.

Very popular among idiots == almost guaranteed bad in my probable estimation.

Very popular among non idiots == probably at least OK.

Very popular among kids wearing Jonathan Richman and the Modern Lovers t-shirts == probably pretty freakin' great.

Figure out who to trust and you can safely buy an album on rep alone.

Lenses can work the same way.



.

[jstevewhite]

Very popular among idiots == almost guaranteed bad in my probable estimation.

Very popular among non idiots == probably at least OK.

Very popular among kids wearing Jonathan Richman and the Modern Lovers t-shirts == probably pretty freakin' great.

Figure out who to trust and you can safely buy an album on rep alone.

Lenses can work the same way

.

One person's idiot is another's soul mate; it is, and has always been so.

It's absolutely true, though, if someone shares your tastes, you can usually count on liking something they like - that's almost a tautology, yes? If someone likes the same things you like, then you'll probably like the same things they like?

And I don't doubt for one moment that I will like the FA43. That's a different question than "does it have pixie dust", isn't it? Or is it?

[rparmar]

Huh. Maybe so. I went back and read the post he deleted, and it was originally addressed to asdf. If (to rparmer) you didn't mean me, then I apologize.

I did not mean you, just as all my previous comments were not addressed to you.

[jstevewhite]

I did not mean you, just as all my previous comments were not addressed to you.

Please accept my apologies for misconstruing your intent, then. Sincerely.

[paperbag846]

It sounds like you'd be someone who would really appreciate the 77ltd of a FF DSLR more.

I do - I occasionally use it on my film camera. It's great on that format... on a full frame... wowza.

I don't use film enough to justify owning it for that, however. I am but a hobbiest. I'm buying myself a screwmount adapter - I have an old Carl Ziess Jana 80mm f2.8 that I'm hoping might scratch the itch, and I can sell the 77 onto someone who will appreciate it more than myself (and hopefully has the income to support such a decision, unlike myself ).

PS - Wonderful shots with the K55. It has some weird and wonderful bokeh, does it not?