[Alex645]

Many people speak from a position of ignorance. Some are even adamant in their ignorance. It's just the nature of forums.

Well put. And that speaking from ignorance is often fueled by a little knowledge. Hopefully those that enter the forum are not confusing it with a colosseum or an arena for spectacle and battles.

[biz-engineer]

realistic lenses expections? I really feel that the expections that people expect from a lens are getting extremely out of hand. I keep seeing people talk about corner sharpness with the lens aperture wide open and general softness at low apertures. From what I gather this is normally how a lens works. Low lens apertures are almost always going to produce a mostly soft image due to shallow depth of field with a small centeral area being the sharp point. If more sharpness is needed the lens can be stepped down to give the desired effect. this is how I always thought of lenses. When did it become a need for a lens to be pin sharp right from the lowest aperture. maybe Im just sick of hearing about sharpness all the time but it is only part of what makes a lens great.

Reference for comparison is to take images from a smaller camera format. When a larger format camera system deliver less quality than a smaller format (cheaper and smaller) then this is not a matter of expectations. Lens contribute as much as sensor. Why would you buy a 2x expensive system if images aren't visibly better. It's pragmatic.

[Nicolas06]

This is not about ignorance for me or people not foccusing right for the main aspect.

This is about what information is available. if you are in the market lens or are just curious, what will you find about a lens? It's price, price comparisons, short user review in shops (like Amazon) and review from specialized sites.

While price say nothing of the performance but only assumption that more expensive is better and short user review are very subjective and tend to polarize on this is terrible or fantastic. The reviews website on the contrary have the appearance of respectability and reliability. There dedicated websites, there a huge library of lenses reviewed, there charts and measurement and also very importantly there the reviewers/expert conclusion.

The expert, and I insist on that word because the reviewer look like expert for most people, like it or not speak mostly of sharpness or the lack of it. They also speak of appertures and the importance of wide apperture. So if you read expert opinion on lenses what matter is large apperture and sharpness results.

The same for Cars, if you look at car reviews, what count is the power, the time to get up to 100km/h (or whatever depending of your unit), the sensation of speed/acceleration, the noise made by the motor and how well the car take curves at high speed.

So the OP is like a normal guy that say but look anyway you typical use of your car is not for racing, but driving on public roads with speed limit, law enforment, traffic jam and so on. The real factor for a car are comfort because you'll have to spend time in it, low energy consumption and low buying price because this is a cost and reliability because it is really not fun when you need it and it doesn't work anymore. And of course he would be mostly right.

Now on Pentax forum we are almost all enthousiast people that all own a powerful camera that can do 10 time more than most need. The primary criteria for a camera for most people is to be always available yet that you don't have to think of it even one second. The solution to this are Smartphones. For people needing quality you could have a point for say a m4/3 with a dual kit lens (transtandard + tele). I could even go as far as dual f/2.8 screwdrive kit from tamron and a K3 for 1500$. You really don't even need more than that. The difference for picture quality isn't really going to show.

This is not what we like here. People here rave about pixel shift, they rave after 36MP FF, We speak of expensive lenses on how important it is to have pro grade camera and pro grade lenses. How the 2000$ 70-200 or 150-450 justify their price. How it is quite logical for theses to be bulky and heavy. This is exactly like people that explain for car how important it is to have a v8 and have sub 5 second 0-100km/h rating.

At that point, yeah corner sharpness at f/1.4 look like a quite logical subject. If you don't like it, you should go more to an artistic photo website were people discuss photos, not gear. Likely the site name would not have a brand manufacturer name in it.

[biz-engineer]

Many people speak from a position of ignorance. Some are even adamant in their ignorance. It's just the nature of forums.

Everything is for sure relative. According to NLP, people like to be Ok+, so it does not matter what they know or what they don't know, it's the same.

[wildman]

realistic lenses expections?

"reallistic" and "lens" is a oxymoron

[Des]

This is not what we like here. People here rave about pixel shift, they rave after 36MP FF, We speak of expensive lenses on how important it is to have pro grade camera and pro grade lenses. How the 2000$ 70-200 or 150-450 justify their price. How it is quite logical for theses to be bulky and heavy. This is exactly like people that explain for car how important it is to have a v8 and have sub 5 second 0-100km/h rating.

I was agreeing with you completely up to this point Nicholas. And I agree with the tenor of the thread. But there is a point that many enthusiasts reach where you need specialist gear, and it's often (realtively) expensive. Wildlife lenses and macro are examples. Yes people can get good results with a consumer xx-300 zoom when the light is good and the subject not too far away, but for shooting distant subjects or in poor light there's no substitute for longer and/or faster.

To go back to your car analogy, most people don't need a 4WD with low range, high clearance and a snorkel, and some people have those things just for an image of themselves. But if you drive on serious 4WD tracks and ford rivers, believe me you do!

Yes there is too much obsession, and unrealistic expectation, about gear. I don't suggest that a $2k lens will make someone a good photographer. And if it doesn't produce good photos it's rarely the fault of the lens. And yes a really good photographer can win prizes with a smartphone. You can see countless fine photos here taken with <$100 lenses and cameras several generations old. But there are times when a particular shot just needs particular gear.

[Nicolas06]

I was agreeing with you completely up to this point Nicholas. And I agree with the tenor of the thread. But there is a point that many enthusiasts reach where you need specialist gear, and it's often (realtively) expensive. Wildlife lenses and macro are examples. Yes people can get good results with a consumer xx-300 zoom when the light is good and the subject not too far away, but for shooting distant subjects or in poor light there's no substitute for longer and/or faster.

To go back to your car analogy, most people don't need a 4WD with low range, high clearance and a snorkel, and some people have those things just for an image of themselves. But if you drive on serious 4WD tracks and ford rivers, believe me you do!

Yes there is too much obsession, and unrealistic expectation, about gear. I don't suggest that a $2k lens will make someone a good photographer. And if it doesn't produce good photos it's rarely the fault of the lens. And yes a really good photographer can win prizes with a smartphone. You can see countless fine photos here taken with <$100 lenses and cameras several generations old. But there are times when a particular shot just needs particular gear.

That's right, the question could be why insisting on taking that shoot or on that practice as "necessary".

As well as the car analogy, do you need to go on serious 4WD tracks and cross rivers all the time ?

And I mean I checked the thing when I decided to go to Iceland for a dozen days. We could rant a nice 4WD or a tourism car. Then the guides explained that to do it and be safe, you had to have at least 2 groups with at least 2 cars, really know your stuff and so on... Otherwise you could very well endup in the car, being taken by the river heavy flow and found dead month later.

The thing is we rented a normal car, we stayed on normal roads and when we decided to go on the glacier, we paid for somebody to drive us. Their vehicule had wheels the more than 1.5meters high. I mean would we have rented (or brough by boat for that matter from europe) a classical 4WD this would not have fitted anyway.

If you like macro there tamron 90 for you or any lens with an apperture ring with extensions rings added. This is still cheap.

If you really want wildlife, yes you might need expensive gear... And well even, I understood that's a compromize between the key wildlife shooter capacity to be more near your subject to get better shoots and having better gear that significantly more expensive.

I am going to Tanzania (rather than Kenya after all), we settled for this september in the end, and I decided to go for a 55-300. I have seen picture from some forum members... The 55-300 does quite a decent job. For a one time event. The 55-300 is good enough. Yeah I could have decided for a 150-500 or whatever but then I'd have to be sure I use it for several outings a years, otherwise it make no sense.

There is great gear, it does help but it make sense only if you really plan to use it.

---

Last edited by Nicolas06; 03-20-2016 at 12:30 AM.

[zapp]

I really feel that the expections that people expect from a lens are getting extremely out of hand. I keep seeing people talk about corner sharpness with the lens aperture wide open and general softness at low apertures.

From what I gather this is normally how a lens works. Low lens apertures are almost always going to produce a mostly soft image due to shallow depth of field with a small centeral area being the sharp point. If more sharpness is needed the lens can be stepped down to give the desired effect.

this is how I always thought of lenses. When did it become a need for a lens to be pin sharp right from the lowest aperture. maybe Im just sick of hearing about sharpness all the time but it is only part of what makes a lens great.

MTF is not everything but ever smaller pixels and larger pixel counts are useless unless the ens can resolve a certain amount of detail. And modern lenses produce better detail. You can now argue about pixel count, pixel size... the quality of really large aperture lenses f/1.4 is simply phantastic compared to performance of such devices 10-15 years ago - and prices went down.

[Nicolas06]

MTF is not everything but ever smaller pixels and larger pixel counts are useless unless the ens can resolve a certain amount of detail. And modern lenses produce better detail. You can now argue about pixel count, pixel size... the quality of really large aperture lenses f/1.4 is simply phantastic compared to performance of such devices 10-15 years ago - and prices went down.

Well honestly for most case having more pixels isn't that useful whatever the lens. Oh most lenses get better resolution with more pixels, at least at their best apperture. And I think none would outresolve the sensor at f/4 on corners anyway.

But I mean with just 24MP you can print 30x40" print at 100 dpi and except if people start at it wanting to see issues with the print it will look fantastic... As long as your technique was great and you closed down enough for the lens to be sharp.

Yeah 36MP give you 133dpi instead of 100 and 51MP give you 150dpi at that resolution, nice...

As a consumer you can only buy what exist but if you were to settle say on 36MP K-1, because it is the only FF available and maybe you are quite interrested in the other features, like improved AF... That doesn't mean you need lenses that match 36MP resolution on corners at f/1.4

First there no lens that would do it, second, if you going to print 30x40 or smaller, and use an apperture were the lens isn't too bad, it is going to be great anyway...

This is just that it is not really worth to buy more to get more pixels, not anymore.

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

It is interesting to me that we often are concerned that a lens will no longer be "sharp enough" as we go to higher-density sensors. What really happens is that the sharpness improvement gets less evident (assuming we are looking at the entire image from a similar distance - whether a screen or a print). On the other hand, other compromises in lens quality tend to be more easily recognized - such as CA, misfocusing, rendering (color transitions, bokeh, etc.) and the differences in overall quality between the center and edges. Yet, we still seem especially preoccupied with sharpness (speaking of photography gearheads as a general rule, current company notwithstanding).

It will be interesting how this all translates when we get a large sampling of K-1 FF images from particular lenses. While a great many lenses might transition very nicely, some resignation seems likely.

[robjmitchell]

The only time you need wide open corner performance is when shooting astro. My 43ltd on the other hand is lousy at astro, but its my favourite lens.
Its only issue is that I expect it to make crap shots look awesome somehow!