Quality Glass vs Quality Photographer

RioRico · 07-20-2011, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by dadipentak

Originally posted by Rainy Day:

Does more money equal better quality, every time?

You can't be serious.

Of COURSE it's serious; ask any Leica-owning dentist!

Another of my old tropes: We base our evaluation of our lenses (or any other possessions) upon both our experiences with them, and our emotional-financial investment in them. If X cost twice what Y did, then we're likely to treasure X more, and be more defensive about our expenditure. The scale is not linear. My K50/1.2 cost me US$250 shipped. My Sears-Tomioka 55/1.4 cost me US$2.25 shipped. Is the Pentax really 111x better than the Sears because it cost 111x as much? Why, of COURSE it is! If it isn't, the I was robbed... [tears pour down /me cheeks]

If we're not buying quality, what ARE we buying?

Nesster · 07-20-2011, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by RioRico

Better glass = clearer pictures. I distinguish between clarity of image, and impact of image.

+1 on that - unfortunately this is not as easily marketed as bells&whistles. A slow, ordinary focal length, non stabilized, non autofocus, non-coffee-making lens will do what it does extremely well (if it indeed is 'better glass') with a lot of subtlety and qualty, and clarity, when used right. When used wrong, the photos can suck as bad as with any other lens used wrong.

Maintaining that quality and extending the applicability - via faster aperture, zoom, automation, coffee making etc - the stuff pros need on occasion, and the stuff that's marketed to amateurs - is very expensive. Keeping the quality decent and price decent also does mean compromises again, but does not have to mean poor quality images.

I happen to use one of those 6x9 folders for landscapes - and get very good results indeed. But that camera is not applicable to all situations, and being fixed lens, will give a particular take on a scene.

Given the idea of knowing how to use your equipment 'right' - I would agree with your list of priorities putting the photographer first - but with the caveat that that's to make repeatable results. We all can make a few excellent pictures without really knowing how to do that repeatedly and in various conditions.

Nesster · 07-20-2011, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by RioRico

Another of my old tropes: We base our evaluation of our lenses (or any other possessions) upon both our experiences with them, and our emotional-financial investment in them. If X cost twice what Y did, then we're likely to treasure X more, and be more defensive about our expenditure. The scale is not linear. My K50/1.2 cost me US$250 shipped. My Sears-Tomioka 55/1.4 cost me US$2.25 shipped. Is the Pentax really 111x better than the Sears because it cost 111x as much? Why, of COURSE it is! If it isn't, the I was robbed... [tears pour down /me cheeks]

If we're not buying quality, what ARE we buying?

LOL!!! Being a bottom feeding vintage camera sort of nut, I take preverse pleasure of getting excellent results with $2 cameras and $10 folders... and yep, those $2.25 wonders.

I wrote about this elsewhere recently, about how we create value. Depending on how inner directed vs. market directed we are, we can value a thing for what it means to us (and not in the hidden-snobbist way that justifies $25,000 items with "cost doesn't matter, what matters is what I think of it...") and/or what we think we can get for it when we sell... Within limits, price doesn't really matter, and in the long run we're all just renting or using it up.

JinDesu · 07-20-2011, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by RioRico

Of COURSE it's serious; ask any Leica-owning dentist!

Another of my old tropes: We base our evaluation of our lenses (or any other possessions) upon both our experiences with them, and our emotional-financial investment in them. If X cost twice what Y did, then we're likely to treasure X more, and be more defensive about our expenditure. The scale is not linear. My K50/1.2 cost me US$250 shipped. My Sears-Tomioka 55/1.4 cost me US$2.25 shipped. Is the Pentax really 111x better than the Sears because it cost 111x as much? Why, of COURSE it is! If it isn't, the I was robbed... [tears pour down /me cheeks]

If we're not buying quality, what ARE we buying?

Instead, we should look at it as "the Sears makes me feel 111x better about finding a good deal!"

Thanks for letting me know about the Sears btw, time to go get one...

redrockcoulee · 07-20-2011, 03:18 PM

I regret the years that I did own poor quality lenses. If I had better (sharper for example) lens on the camera at the time my composition and exposure would have been the same however the image would have been sharper and more contrasty. There is no way that I would have lost my abilities to compose and expose the image by putting on a better quality lens so that is a red herring of an argument.

On the other hand having more lenses will not necessity allow you to make better photographs. And one does not need to have the very best lens to make great photographs. My best used lens in large format cost me $78 and is about 5 or 6 generations old. My 28mm 2.8 M lens was free and seems perfectly useable to me. I did have the Sigma 400 5.6 non APO lens and it is one that I do greatly regret not spending more on a decent lens as it was not up to par with other lenses I have used in the same type of situation. So get a good or very good lens that covers your needs and has the speed you require. Different needs for landscape photography or wildlife but both should use good quality lenses.

**Kerrowdown** · 07-20-2011, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by Rainy Day

Quality Glass vs Quality Photographer

But just imagine the shots if you were to have both, well that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

**rparmar** · 07-20-2011, 04:43 PM

Both. Neither. Sometimes. Yes.

robgo2 · 07-20-2011, 05:06 PM

I love good lenses as much as most serious photographers, but I am convinced that artistic vision and solid digital editing skills are more important than any equipment. The single greatest step that most photographers could take to improve their photographs is to learn how to use their editing software.

Rob

cmohr · 07-20-2011, 05:17 PM

I'm a wide angle freak, I have too many WA's.

Sigma 8-16. Sigma 10-20. Sigma 12-24. Sigma 24mm/2.8 prime, Pentax FA 20-35 and to be honest put my DA*16-50 in there as well, as I bought it because it widened out to 16. Plus, add in three Fisheye lenses, Sigma 8mm circular fisheye, Pentax DA 10-17 FE zoom and a Pentax FA 17-28 FE zoom, each has its quirks, the Pentax glass are crystal clear, but must say the Sigma glass are great and I don't have any complaints. The UWA's do have distortion, but, they are Ultra wide, so don't really understand when folks winge about distortion in a diagionally corrected lens? You have to bend the light quite considerably to get such an angle of view represented on the focal plane.

For general landscapes, my personal opinion is a 12 is quite wide enough, it give great perspective, raked skies, good alrounder. If you are combining in Architectual Photography, the wider ones do help out, as sometimes the furtherest back you can get is with your back against the wall of the building across the street, and then you still can't get the picture, or interior shots in confined spaces, thats where the 8-16 shines.

As build goes, the Pentax lenses feel solid, the FA17-28 could do with a better focusing collar, but does its job. The Sigmas are solid, and whilst big (doesn't matter to me) feel good. If there is one diss-appointment its the build of the Sigma 10-20, feels a little less solid than the 8-16 or 12-24, plus it only has a clip on plastic lens hood, where as the 8-16 and the 12-24 both have a build on metal lens hood, much better protection for the front elements but, does mean no filters. (not that I use filters on wide angles, but a concern to some).

For a tele, I agree with Rod, the 50-135 is simply a great lens.

And as you say, you can have the best glass in the world, but without the right combination of composition and exposure in the shot, doesn't matter if its the best ever IQ and resolution, whats the point if the reason for the photo is lost in the persuit of resolution and IQ. Of course, I'm not saying you can't have both, but, if only one thing was possible, for me, I'd have acceptable IQ and perfect Composition over perfect IQ and acceptable composition.

Rainy Day, if you were further north, like here in Queensland I'd be more than happy to show you all the lenses so you can actually see what they all do.

cmohr

Winder · 07-20-2011, 05:23 PM

I would avoid wide glass. Buy a good tripod and some pano stitching software. Landscapes don't move and if you are serious about them then Panos are the way to go. Stacking and stitching can produce some really amazing landscapes.

Winder · 07-20-2011, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by robgo2

I love good lenses as much as most serious photographers, but I am convinced that artistic vision and solid digital editing skills are more important than any equipment. The single greatest step that most photographers could take to improve their photographs is to learn how to use their editing software.

Rob

I tend to agree, but I would rather have a really sharp image with great contrast to start with and that comes with a good lens. I can always duplicate the look of cheap "artistic" glass in post. Getting ride of flare, CA, focus shifts are not simple.

Quality glass is expensive for a reason.

theunartist · 07-20-2011, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by robgo2

I love good lenses as much as most serious photographers, but I am convinced that artistic vision and solid digital editing skills are more important than any equipment. The single greatest step that most photographers could take to improve their photographs is to learn how to use their editing software.

Rob

ABOSLUTELY True! Every single digital image needs some or a lot of Post Processing to look their best.

To paraphrase what Morpheus said to Neo, "Welcome... to the Digital World."

robgo2 · 07-20-2011, 08:20 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Winder

I tend to agree, but I would rather have a really sharp image with great contrast to start with and that comes with a good lens. I can always duplicate the look of cheap "artistic" glass in post. Getting ride of flare, CA, focus shifts are not simple.

Quality glass is expensive for a reason.

I've engaged in more than my share of lens discussions, mainly for the fun of it, but I have come to the realization that in the digital age, most photographic artistry takes place at the computer. It does help to start with a photo of an interesting subject that is sharp, well composed and properly metered, but that is rarely sufficient to create an image with real impact. Moreover, digital editing skills are not technically complicated or difficult. Yet so few people make the effort to develop them. When I try to convince my friends of this, they usually respond by going out and buying another expensive lens.

For the record, I do love my FA Limiteds beyond all reason, but that is because I derive pleasure from the quality of their rendering. Still, many of my all-time best photos have been taken with much more pedestrian zoom lenses.

Rob
Robert Goldstein Photography

**Just1MoreDave** · 07-20-2011, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by Rainy Day

...Does more money equal better quality, every time?...

Look at prices for the SMC Pentax-M 50mm f1.7, then the A, F and FA versions. It's the same optical formula with slight differences in coatings that usually aren't mentioned. Image quality is just about identical. Build quality gets worse. The price difference is due to the features.

I think with the ultra wide angle zooms, the biggest difference in images is how well the photographer understands composition. The wider the lens goes, the more important composition is.

Rainy Day · 07-21-2011, 02:57 AM

Originally posted by cmohr

I'm a wide angle freak, I have too many WA's.

So sell some to me!

Originally posted by rparmar

Both. Neither. Sometimes. Yes.

Sound advice!

Originally posted by Just1MoreDave

Look at prices for the SMC Pentax-M 50mm f1.7, then the A, F and FA versions. It's the same optical formula with slight differences in coatings that usually aren't mentioned. Image quality is just about identical. Build quality gets worse. The price difference is due to the features.

I think with the ultra wide angle zooms, the biggest difference in images is how well the photographer understands composition. The wider the lens goes, the more important composition is.

Very true.

As far as the users who reckon that 'you don't need a wide angle lens for landscapes,' that's true. HOWEVER, there are many photographic opportunities that are only fully realized by using a wide-angle.

So, at the moment, I'm tossing up a Sigma 10-20 or the Tamron 10-24... Haven't even really looked at the Pentax 12-24 yet!

07-20-2011, 03:51 PM	#36
Kerrowdown PEG Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Highlands of Scotland... "Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand" - William Blake Photos: Gallery Posts: 57,816	Originally posted by Rainy Day Quality Glass vs Quality Photographer But just imagine the shots if you were to have both, well that's my story and I'm sticking to it. Last edited by Kerrowdown; 07-20-2011 at 04:09 PM.

07-20-2011, 08:20 PM - 1 Like	#43
robgo2 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: New Mexico Photos: Albums Posts: 1,125	Originally posted by Winder I tend to agree, but I would rather have a really sharp image with great contrast to start with and that comes with a good lens. I can always duplicate the look of cheap "artistic" glass in post. Getting ride of flare, CA, focus shifts are not simple. Quality glass is expensive for a reason. I've engaged in more than my share of lens discussions, mainly for the fun of it, but I have come to the realization that in the digital age, most photographic artistry takes place at the computer. It does help to start with a photo of an interesting subject that is sharp, well composed and properly metered, but that is rarely sufficient to create an image with real impact. Moreover, digital editing skills are not technically complicated or difficult. Yet so few people make the effort to develop them. When I try to convince my friends of this, they usually respond by going out and buying another expensive lens. For the record, I do love my FA Limiteds beyond all reason, but that is because I derive pleasure from the quality of their rendering. Still, many of my all-time best photos have been taken with much more pedestrian zoom lenses. Rob Robert Goldstein Photography Last edited by robgo2; 05-19-2012 at 07:58 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Printing Quality	neilj	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	5	12-26-2009 09:36 AM
K-x vs K-m JPEG quality	deadwolfbones	Pentax DSLR Discussion	8	11-21-2009 08:47 PM
DA* 16-50 how to test quality	Burgerbrater	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	32	10-23-2009 01:35 PM
Hot: The Online Photographer puts K20D in top 10, better image quality than D300"	cateto	Pentax News and Rumors	28	06-18-2008 07:16 AM
Quality of 30 year old glass..	kbrabble	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	08-02-2007 02:12 AM

07-20-2011, 02:13 PM	#31
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by dadipentak Originally posted by Rainy Day: Does more money equal better quality, every time? You can't be serious. Of COURSE it's serious; ask any Leica-owning dentist! Another of my old tropes: We base our evaluation of our lenses (or any other possessions) upon both our experiences with them, and our emotional-financial investment in them. If X cost twice what Y did, then we're likely to treasure X more, and be more defensive about our expenditure. The scale is not linear. My K50/1.2 cost me US$250 shipped. My Sears-Tomioka 55/1.4 cost me US$2.25 shipped. Is the Pentax really 111x better than the Sears because it cost 111x as much? Why, of COURSE it is! If it isn't, the I was robbed... [tears pour down /me cheeks] If we're not buying quality, what ARE we buying?

07-20-2011, 02:18 PM	#32
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	Originally posted by RioRico Better glass = clearer pictures. I distinguish between clarity of image, and impact of image. +1 on that - unfortunately this is not as easily marketed as bells&whistles. A slow, ordinary focal length, non stabilized, non autofocus, non-coffee-making lens will do what it does extremely well (if it indeed is 'better glass') with a lot of subtlety and qualty, and clarity, when used right. When used wrong, the photos can suck as bad as with any other lens used wrong. Maintaining that quality and extending the applicability - via faster aperture, zoom, automation, coffee making etc - the stuff pros need on occasion, and the stuff that's marketed to amateurs - is very expensive. Keeping the quality decent and price decent also does mean compromises again, but does not have to mean poor quality images. I happen to use one of those 6x9 folders for landscapes - and get very good results indeed. But that camera is not applicable to all situations, and being fixed lens, will give a particular take on a scene. Given the idea of knowing how to use your equipment 'right' - I would agree with your list of priorities putting the photographer first - but with the caveat that that's to make repeatable results. We all can make a few excellent pictures without really knowing how to do that repeatedly and in various conditions.

07-20-2011, 02:27 PM	#33
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	Originally posted by RioRico Another of my old tropes: We base our evaluation of our lenses (or any other possessions) upon both our experiences with them, and our emotional-financial investment in them. If X cost twice what Y did, then we're likely to treasure X more, and be more defensive about our expenditure. The scale is not linear. My K50/1.2 cost me US$250 shipped. My Sears-Tomioka 55/1.4 cost me US$2.25 shipped. Is the Pentax really 111x better than the Sears because it cost 111x as much? Why, of COURSE it is! If it isn't, the I was robbed... [tears pour down /me cheeks] If we're not buying quality, what ARE we buying? LOL!!! Being a bottom feeding vintage camera sort of nut, I take preverse pleasure of getting excellent results with $2 cameras and $10 folders... and yep, those $2.25 wonders. I wrote about this elsewhere recently, about how we create value. Depending on how inner directed vs. market directed we are, we can value a thing for what it means to us (and not in the hidden-snobbist way that justifies $25,000 items with "cost doesn't matter, what matters is what I think of it...") and/or what we think we can get for it when we sell... Within limits, price doesn't really matter, and in the long run we're all just renting or using it up.

07-20-2011, 03:07 PM	#34
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	Originally posted by RioRico Of COURSE it's serious; ask any Leica-owning dentist! Another of my old tropes: We base our evaluation of our lenses (or any other possessions) upon both our experiences with them, and our emotional-financial investment in them. If X cost twice what Y did, then we're likely to treasure X more, and be more defensive about our expenditure. The scale is not linear. My K50/1.2 cost me US$250 shipped. My Sears-Tomioka 55/1.4 cost me US$2.25 shipped. Is the Pentax really 111x better than the Sears because it cost 111x as much? Why, of COURSE it is! If it isn't, the I was robbed... [tears pour down /me cheeks] If we're not buying quality, what ARE we buying? Instead, we should look at it as "the Sears makes me feel 111x better about finding a good deal!" Thanks for letting me know about the Sears btw, time to go get one...

07-20-2011, 03:18 PM	#35
redrockcoulee Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Medicine Hat Posts: 2,306	I regret the years that I did own poor quality lenses. If I had better (sharper for example) lens on the camera at the time my composition and exposure would have been the same however the image would have been sharper and more contrasty. There is no way that I would have lost my abilities to compose and expose the image by putting on a better quality lens so that is a red herring of an argument. On the other hand having more lenses will not necessity allow you to make better photographs. And one does not need to have the very best lens to make great photographs. My best used lens in large format cost me $78 and is about 5 or 6 generations old. My 28mm 2.8 M lens was free and seems perfectly useable to me. I did have the Sigma 400 5.6 non APO lens and it is one that I do greatly regret not spending more on a decent lens as it was not up to par with other lenses I have used in the same type of situation. So get a good or very good lens that covers your needs and has the speed you require. Different needs for landscape photography or wildlife but both should use good quality lenses.

07-20-2011, 04:43 PM	#37
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,819	Both. Neither. Sometimes. Yes.

07-20-2011, 05:06 PM	#38
robgo2 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: New Mexico Photos: Albums Posts: 1,125	I love good lenses as much as most serious photographers, but I am convinced that artistic vision and solid digital editing skills are more important than any equipment. The single greatest step that most photographers could take to improve their photographs is to learn how to use their editing software. Rob

07-20-2011, 05:17 PM	#39
cmohr Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Brisbane. Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,824	I'm a wide angle freak, I have too many WA's. Sigma 8-16. Sigma 10-20. Sigma 12-24. Sigma 24mm/2.8 prime, Pentax FA 20-35 and to be honest put my DA*16-50 in there as well, as I bought it because it widened out to 16. Plus, add in three Fisheye lenses, Sigma 8mm circular fisheye, Pentax DA 10-17 FE zoom and a Pentax FA 17-28 FE zoom, each has its quirks, the Pentax glass are crystal clear, but must say the Sigma glass are great and I don't have any complaints. The UWA's do have distortion, but, they are Ultra wide, so don't really understand when folks winge about distortion in a diagionally corrected lens? You have to bend the light quite considerably to get such an angle of view represented on the focal plane. For general landscapes, my personal opinion is a 12 is quite wide enough, it give great perspective, raked skies, good alrounder. If you are combining in Architectual Photography, the wider ones do help out, as sometimes the furtherest back you can get is with your back against the wall of the building across the street, and then you still can't get the picture, or interior shots in confined spaces, thats where the 8-16 shines. As build goes, the Pentax lenses feel solid, the FA17-28 could do with a better focusing collar, but does its job. The Sigmas are solid, and whilst big (doesn't matter to me) feel good. If there is one diss-appointment its the build of the Sigma 10-20, feels a little less solid than the 8-16 or 12-24, plus it only has a clip on plastic lens hood, where as the 8-16 and the 12-24 both have a build on metal lens hood, much better protection for the front elements but, does mean no filters. (not that I use filters on wide angles, but a concern to some). For a tele, I agree with Rod, the 50-135 is simply a great lens. And as you say, you can have the best glass in the world, but without the right combination of composition and exposure in the shot, doesn't matter if its the best ever IQ and resolution, whats the point if the reason for the photo is lost in the persuit of resolution and IQ. Of course, I'm not saying you can't have both, but, if only one thing was possible, for me, I'd have acceptable IQ and perfect Composition over perfect IQ and acceptable composition. Rainy Day, if you were further north, like here in Queensland I'd be more than happy to show you all the lenses so you can actually see what they all do. cmohr

07-20-2011, 05:23 PM	#40
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617	I would avoid wide glass. Buy a good tripod and some pano stitching software. Landscapes don't move and if you are serious about them then Panos are the way to go. Stacking and stitching can produce some really amazing landscapes.

07-20-2011, 05:27 PM	#41
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617	Originally posted by robgo2 I love good lenses as much as most serious photographers, but I am convinced that artistic vision and solid digital editing skills are more important than any equipment. The single greatest step that most photographers could take to improve their photographs is to learn how to use their editing software. Rob I tend to agree, but I would rather have a really sharp image with great contrast to start with and that comes with a good lens. I can always duplicate the look of cheap "artistic" glass in post. Getting ride of flare, CA, focus shifts are not simple. Quality glass is expensive for a reason.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-20-2011, 05:55 PM	#42
theunartist Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Baltimore Posts: 2,542	Originally posted by robgo2 I love good lenses as much as most serious photographers, but I am convinced that artistic vision and solid digital editing skills are more important than any equipment. The single greatest step that most photographers could take to improve their photographs is to learn how to use their editing software. Rob ABOSLUTELY True! Every single digital image needs some or a lot of Post Processing to look their best. To paraphrase what Morpheus said to Neo, "Welcome... to the Digital World."

07-20-2011, 09:29 PM	#44
Just1MoreDave Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Aurora, CO Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,340	Originally posted by Rainy Day ...Does more money equal better quality, every time?... Look at prices for the SMC Pentax-M 50mm f1.7, then the A, F and FA versions. It's the same optical formula with slight differences in coatings that usually aren't mentioned. Image quality is just about identical. Build quality gets worse. The price difference is due to the features. I think with the ultra wide angle zooms, the biggest difference in images is how well the photographer understands composition. The wider the lens goes, the more important composition is.

07-21-2011, 02:57 AM	#45
Rainy Day Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: The Southern Highlands Photos: Albums Posts: 134 Original Poster	Originally posted by cmohr I'm a wide angle freak, I have too many WA's. So sell some to me! Originally posted by rparmar Both. Neither. Sometimes. Yes. Sound advice! Originally posted by Just1MoreDave Look at prices for the SMC Pentax-M 50mm f1.7, then the A, F and FA versions. It's the same optical formula with slight differences in coatings that usually aren't mentioned. Image quality is just about identical. Build quality gets worse. The price difference is due to the features. I think with the ultra wide angle zooms, the biggest difference in images is how well the photographer understands composition. The wider the lens goes, the more important composition is. Very true. As far as the users who reckon that 'you don't need a wide angle lens for landscapes,' that's true. HOWEVER, there are many photographic opportunities that are only fully realized by using a wide-angle. So, at the moment, I'm tossing up a Sigma 10-20 or the Tamron 10-24... Haven't even really looked at the Pentax 12-24 yet!