I Was Wondering...

**AggieDad** · 08-21-2016, 11:43 AM - **5 Likes**

I was going through some of my photos today with an eye toward keepers, etc. While doing so, I noticed that when there is no "operator error" the image quality is really very, very good - regardless of the lens that was used.

This brought a question into my little mind: Are there any lenses today that produce a lesser image quality than those used by the likes of Ansel Adams back in the 30s, 40s and 50s?

I suspect not. If not, then why are we always concerned about IQ? Why shouldn't we just focus on our abilities to take photos that somehow reach people and move the soul just a little?

Just wondering...

**TwoUptons** · 08-21-2016, 12:51 PM - **2 Likes**

All of my lenses produce lower quality images, but that's because Ansel Adams isn't here to set everything up :-)

I think a great deal of the issue is convenience and the ability to do new things that photographers could only dream about sixty years ago...

I like Adams' work as much as anyone, but imagine how he would do with covering, say, the Olympics... There are tons of things technology lets us do that I really appreciate.

That said, basically every flaw in my K1 is user related and won't be fixed with a new lens or other bit of kit.

But as a hobbyist, and confirmed sufferer of LBA, that doesn't mean I won't keep wondering if some new gizmo will fix my flaws and magically make all of my photos keepers.

A friend of mine once told me that the difference between an amateur and a professional, is that the professional's best work isn't an accident. I've since met enough "professional" photographers to know that financial success does not always equal mastery of a craft, but I think the sentiment is good...

-Eric

Rupert · 08-21-2016, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by AggieDad

While doing so, I noticed that when there is no "operator error" the image quality is really very, very good - regardless of the lens that was used.

I read that without reading the "when" and thought...you must be a damn fine shooter!

I do think most of the modern lenses are pretty good, depending on what you are shooting and how critical you are. Personally, operator error is my #1 problem. We too often look to some new lens to solve a problem that is really user error.

My other problem is "forcing" a shot. If the light is not there and the other parameters are not there, we are not likely to get what we desire...but snap at it anyhow......just hoping Lady Luck will smile on us....which does happen, but far to rarely!

Regards!

**BigMackCam** · 08-21-2016, 12:58 PM

Don - I'm not sure how it started - possibly as a result of testing improvements in sensor resolution? - but a significant proportion of digital photographers have become obsessed with razor sharpness from lenses.

I went through a phase of being caught up in that whole thing too. Thankfully, it was a short-lived phase. What I'm most interested in is whether the lens I'm using produces a pleasing image when used skillfully (as skillfully as my abilities allow, that is!

), with said image being viewed at the intended reproduction size(s) and distance.

I think most of my lenses are capable of this, though some definitely have rendering qualities that make them more special to my eye, whilst others have unfortunate optical quirks that I'm not especially fond of. But, essentially, even the worst lenses I own can be coaxed into producing decent images

**savoche** · 08-21-2016, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by AggieDad

I was going through some of my photos today with an eye toward keepers, etc. While doing so, I noticed that when there is no "operator error" the image quality is really very, very good - regardless of the lens that was used.

This brought a question into my little mind: Are there any lenses today that produce a lesser image quality than those used by the likes of Ansel Adams back in the 30s, 40s and 50s?

I suspect not. If not, then why are we always concerned about IQ? Why shouldn't we just focus on our abilities to take photos that somehow reach people and move the soul just a little?

Just wondering...

I think the obsession with IQ - or rather with sharpness - stems from the fact that this is something we can measure, giving us numbers we can compare. This lens is sharper than that one, ergo it's better. Much more uncomfortable should we look at the real reasons why our images are bad

Originally posted by BigMackCam

Don - I'm not sure how it started - possibly as a result of testing improvements in sensor resolution? - but a significant proportion of digital photographers have become obsessed with razor sharpness from lenses.

I went through a phase of being caught up in that whole thing too. Thankfully, it was a short-lived phase. What I'm most interested in is whether the lens I'm using produces a pleasing image when used skillfully (as skillfully as my abilities allow, that is!

), with said image being viewed at the intended reproduction size(s) and distance.

I think most of my lenses are capable of this, though some definitely have rendering qualities that make them more special to my eye, whilst others have unfortunate optical quirks that I'm not especially fond of. But, essentially, even the worst lenses I own can be coaxed into producing decent images

Very much my experience, too. I believe skill is what we need to work around the weaknesses/shortcomings of the tools we have. And not even the best tools in the world can do all the work for us. We still need to know how to use them.

And you know, what has made me a less bad photographer than I was is practice - not discussing MTF charts on a forum

**pepperberry farm** · 08-21-2016, 01:50 PM - **1 Like**

we've had a similar discussion in the Single In Challenge thread this month and it boiled down to sharpness vs focus; how the 'sharpness' of a lens can be measured/quantified and made into a number, while focus/composition/balance are all completely subjective and while they can be taught, it can also be a matter of you just may not get it sometimes...

I've read some articles on blogs in the last few months questioning the viability of 'sharpness' other than as a number assigned to a lens...

The Online Photographer: Does Sharpness Matter?

**BigMackCam** · 08-21-2016, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by pepperberry farm

I've read some articles on blogs in the last few months questioning the viability of 'sharpness' other than as a number assigned to a lens...

The Online Photographer: Does Sharpness Matter?

Very good article - thanks for the link

You'd hope people would read this and get it, but many won't, and some that do will soon drift back to the quest for ultimate sharpness...

**pepperberry farm** · 08-21-2016, 02:17 PM

no problem ...

it isn't that 'sharpness' is a bad thing at all, either - but there's so much MORE to a photograph than just that one thing!

**kiwi_jono** · 08-21-2016, 02:36 PM

Great question!
I think that if we are just talking sharpness then, yes basically all current lenses are good enough for Ansel Adams. But taking it a little sideways, there are other qualities of a lens, that are more important than sharpness, and some of the older lenses do possess over say a cheap kit lens. For example (and not limited to): DOF control (large aperture) and Bokeh rendering. Some of the older lenses render nice interesting bokeh. Of course many high end new lenses sport a fast aperture and have lovely buttery bokeh too.
In any case, though, a good photographer can make a great image with an average camera (if they don't have a fast lens then so be it, they will go for an interesting composition instead). I quite liked the silly Digital Rev TV series "Expert with cheap camera challenge" which show what a good photographer could do with a completely rubbish camera.

**BigMackCam** · 08-21-2016, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by pepperberry farm

no problem ...

it isn't that 'sharpness' is a bad thing at all, either - but there's so much MORE to a photograph than just that one thing!

Oh, I agree. Nothing wrong with sharpness... I'd rather have it as not. But, depending on the intended use of the lens, it would rarely be at the top of my list of priorities.

I will say that an acceptable degree of sharpness - or perhaps, more accurately, a not-unacceptable softness (subjective, I realise) - at wider apertures is certainly of interest to me. It's obviously preferable if an f/1.8 lens is genuinely useful at that aperture, rather than an f/1.4 that only delivers anything of merit from f/2.8... Then again, so long as we know the strengths and limitations of a lens, we've all we need to use it effectively

**pepperberry farm** · 08-21-2016, 02:46 PM

agreed

but I find that most people shy away from lenses because they have personality! for example, I am shooting this month with a nearly-unused copy of a Tamron Adaptall-2 02B - which is a bog-standard 28mm lens.... and it is beautiful!

Rupert · 08-21-2016, 03:56 PM - **1 Like**

I see great images that are not all that sharp or technically correct....many in the Toy Camera thread.

My personal passion is images that tell stories......like this one I just posted in the K1 thread. I love stories!

"Yeah, I see him down there too.....filthy little rodent!"

"Don't look at me...I don't have gas...what an awful stench!"

"I had a big burrito at Taco Bell for lunch....so what?"

Regards!

slipdm16 · 08-21-2016, 06:04 PM

Reading these I thought of DigitalRev's (I know I know...) cheap camera challenge where pros shoot toy/kid/P&S cheapo cameras (see cheapcamerachallenge Archives - PetaPixel) and actually get pretty good shots. Sadly it always seems to take a lot of time, energy and $$ for most, including me, to figure out!! Love TwoUpton's quote from his friend re: a professional's best work isn't an accident

**monochrome** · 08-21-2016, 06:16 PM - **1 Like**

I think sharpness is valuable when it is the object of the photograph, such as Macro; Macro lenses should be sharp.

Why do we evaluate a 70~200/2.8 ZOOM for sharpness? Or a fast 50? Or the FA43? When I started this hobby I read about lenses that had 'pop', or snap into focus, or color rendering or central subject isolation (which I think we now call bokeh).

Wheatfield · 08-21-2016, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by AggieDad

I was going through some of my photos today with an eye toward keepers, etc. While doing so, I noticed that when there is no "operator error" the image quality is really very, very good - regardless of the lens that was used.

This brought a question into my little mind: Are there any lenses today that produce a lesser image quality than those used by the likes of Ansel Adams back in the 30s, 40s and 50s?

I suspect not. If not, then why are we always concerned about IQ? Why shouldn't we just focus on our abilities to take photos that somehow reach people and move the soul just a little?

Just wondering...

Today's ;lenses are universally better than anything Adams used. However, Adams used an 8x10 camera, which means his lenses only had to be about a fiftieth as good, and today's lenses are not fifty times better. You will still get a better image from the equipment he used, but you will work a lot harder to do it.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Wondering if I got a good deal	Driline	Pentax K-30 & K-50	11	04-28-2016 10:25 PM
I was just wondering -- Autofocus noise	redeleon	Pentax DSLR Discussion	2	04-28-2010 06:50 AM
M42 adapter? I am wondering.	Riverlady	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	06-24-2009 12:48 PM
Something I've always been wondering about...	bdery	Photographic Technique	31	01-02-2009 06:22 PM
was wondering.... which would be better?	slip	Pentax DSLR Discussion	9	02-12-2007 08:26 PM

08-21-2016, 11:43 AM - 5 Likes	#1
AggieDad Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: Houston, TX Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,457	I Was Wondering... I was going through some of my photos today with an eye toward keepers, etc. While doing so, I noticed that when there is no "operator error" the image quality is really very, very good - regardless of the lens that was used. This brought a question into my little mind: Are there any lenses today that produce a lesser image quality than those used by the likes of Ansel Adams back in the 30s, 40s and 50s? I suspect not. If not, then why are we always concerned about IQ? Why shouldn't we just focus on our abilities to take photos that somehow reach people and move the soul just a little? Just wondering...

08-21-2016, 12:51 PM - 2 Likes	#2
TwoUptons Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2015 Photos: Albums Posts: 4,225	All of my lenses produce lower quality images, but that's because Ansel Adams isn't here to set everything up :-) I think a great deal of the issue is convenience and the ability to do new things that photographers could only dream about sixty years ago... I like Adams' work as much as anyone, but imagine how he would do with covering, say, the Olympics... There are tons of things technology lets us do that I really appreciate. That said, basically every flaw in my K1 is user related and won't be fixed with a new lens or other bit of kit. But as a hobbyist, and confirmed sufferer of LBA, that doesn't mean I won't keep wondering if some new gizmo will fix my flaws and magically make all of my photos keepers. A friend of mine once told me that the difference between an amateur and a professional, is that the professional's best work isn't an accident. I've since met enough "professional" photographers to know that financial success does not always equal mastery of a craft, but I think the sentiment is good... -Eric

08-21-2016, 12:54 PM	#3
Rupert Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 25,123	Originally posted by AggieDad While doing so, I noticed that when there is no "operator error" the image quality is really very, very good - regardless of the lens that was used. I read that without reading the "when" and thought...you must be a damn fine shooter! I do think most of the modern lenses are pretty good, depending on what you are shooting and how critical you are. Personally, operator error is my #1 problem. We too often look to some new lens to solve a problem that is really user error. My other problem is "forcing" a shot. If the light is not there and the other parameters are not there, we are not likely to get what we desire...but snap at it anyhow......just hoping Lady Luck will smile on us....which does happen, but far to rarely! Regards!

08-21-2016, 12:58 PM	#4
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,695	Don - I'm not sure how it started - possibly as a result of testing improvements in sensor resolution? - but a significant proportion of digital photographers have become obsessed with razor sharpness from lenses. I went through a phase of being caught up in that whole thing too. Thankfully, it was a short-lived phase. What I'm most interested in is whether the lens I'm using produces a pleasing image when used skillfully (as skillfully as my abilities allow, that is! ), with said image being viewed at the intended reproduction size(s) and distance. I think most of my lenses are capable of this, though some definitely have rendering qualities that make them more special to my eye, whilst others have unfortunate optical quirks that I'm not especially fond of. But, essentially, even the worst lenses I own can be coaxed into producing decent images

08-21-2016, 01:20 PM	#5
savoche Master of the obvious Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Lowlands of Norway Posts: 18,311	Originally posted by AggieDad I was going through some of my photos today with an eye toward keepers, etc. While doing so, I noticed that when there is no "operator error" the image quality is really very, very good - regardless of the lens that was used. This brought a question into my little mind: Are there any lenses today that produce a lesser image quality than those used by the likes of Ansel Adams back in the 30s, 40s and 50s? I suspect not. If not, then why are we always concerned about IQ? Why shouldn't we just focus on our abilities to take photos that somehow reach people and move the soul just a little? Just wondering... I think the obsession with IQ - or rather with sharpness - stems from the fact that this is something we can measure, giving us numbers we can compare. This lens is sharper than that one, ergo it's better. Much more uncomfortable should we look at the real reasons why our images are bad Originally posted by BigMackCam Don - I'm not sure how it started - possibly as a result of testing improvements in sensor resolution? - but a significant proportion of digital photographers have become obsessed with razor sharpness from lenses. I went through a phase of being caught up in that whole thing too. Thankfully, it was a short-lived phase. What I'm most interested in is whether the lens I'm using produces a pleasing image when used skillfully (as skillfully as my abilities allow, that is! ), with said image being viewed at the intended reproduction size(s) and distance. I think most of my lenses are capable of this, though some definitely have rendering qualities that make them more special to my eye, whilst others have unfortunate optical quirks that I'm not especially fond of. But, essentially, even the worst lenses I own can be coaxed into producing decent images Very much my experience, too. I believe skill is what we need to work around the weaknesses/shortcomings of the tools we have. And not even the best tools in the world can do all the work for us. We still need to know how to use them. And you know, what has made me a less bad photographer than I was is practice - not discussing MTF charts on a forum

08-21-2016, 01:50 PM - 1 Like	#6
pepperberry farm amateur dirt farmer Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: probably out in a field somewhere... Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 41,766	we've had a similar discussion in the Single In Challenge thread this month and it boiled down to sharpness vs focus; how the 'sharpness' of a lens can be measured/quantified and made into a number, while focus/composition/balance are all completely subjective and while they can be taught, it can also be a matter of you just may not get it sometimes... I've read some articles on blogs in the last few months questioning the viability of 'sharpness' other than as a number assigned to a lens... The Online Photographer: Does Sharpness Matter?

08-21-2016, 02:05 PM	#7
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,695	Originally posted by pepperberry farm I've read some articles on blogs in the last few months questioning the viability of 'sharpness' other than as a number assigned to a lens... The Online Photographer: Does Sharpness Matter? Very good article - thanks for the link You'd hope people would read this and get it, but many won't, and some that do will soon drift back to the quest for ultimate sharpness...

08-21-2016, 02:17 PM	#8
pepperberry farm amateur dirt farmer Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: probably out in a field somewhere... Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 41,766	no problem ... it isn't that 'sharpness' is a bad thing at all, either - but there's so much MORE to a photograph than just that one thing!

08-21-2016, 02:36 PM	#9
kiwi_jono Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Christchurch, New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,437	Great question! I think that if we are just talking sharpness then, yes basically all current lenses are good enough for Ansel Adams. But taking it a little sideways, there are other qualities of a lens, that are more important than sharpness, and some of the older lenses do possess over say a cheap kit lens. For example (and not limited to): DOF control (large aperture) and Bokeh rendering. Some of the older lenses render nice interesting bokeh. Of course many high end new lenses sport a fast aperture and have lovely buttery bokeh too. In any case, though, a good photographer can make a great image with an average camera (if they don't have a fast lens then so be it, they will go for an interesting composition instead). I quite liked the silly Digital Rev TV series "Expert with cheap camera challenge" which show what a good photographer could do with a completely rubbish camera.

08-21-2016, 02:37 PM	#10
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,695	Originally posted by pepperberry farm no problem ... it isn't that 'sharpness' is a bad thing at all, either - but there's so much MORE to a photograph than just that one thing! Oh, I agree. Nothing wrong with sharpness... I'd rather have it as not. But, depending on the intended use of the lens, it would rarely be at the top of my list of priorities. I will say that an acceptable degree of sharpness - or perhaps, more accurately, a not-unacceptable softness (subjective, I realise) - at wider apertures is certainly of interest to me. It's obviously preferable if an f/1.8 lens is genuinely useful at that aperture, rather than an f/1.4 that only delivers anything of merit from f/2.8... Then again, so long as we know the strengths and limitations of a lens, we've all we need to use it effectively

08-21-2016, 02:46 PM	#11
pepperberry farm amateur dirt farmer Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: probably out in a field somewhere... Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 41,766	agreed but I find that most people shy away from lenses because they *have* personality! for example, I am shooting this month with a nearly-unused copy of a Tamron Adaptall-2 02B - which is a bog-standard 28mm lens.... and it is beautiful!

08-21-2016, 03:56 PM - 1 Like	#12
Rupert Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 25,123	I see great images that are not all that sharp or technically correct....many in the Toy Camera thread. My personal passion is images that tell stories......like this one I just posted in the K1 thread. I love stories! "Yeah, I see him down there too.....filthy little rodent!" "Don't look at me...I don't have gas...what an awful stench!" "I had a big burrito at Taco Bell for lunch....so what?" Regards!

08-21-2016, 06:04 PM	#13
slipdm16 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Minneapolis, MN Photos: Albums Posts: 159	Reading these I thought of DigitalRev's (I know I know...) cheap camera challenge where pros shoot toy/kid/P&S cheapo cameras (see cheapcamerachallenge Archives - PetaPixel) and actually get pretty good shots. Sadly it always seems to take a lot of time, energy and $$ for most, including me, to figure out!! Love TwoUpton's quote from his friend re: a professional's best work isn't an accident

08-21-2016, 06:16 PM - 1 Like	#14
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	I think sharpness is valuable when it is the object of the photograph, such as Macro; Macro lenses should be sharp. Why do we evaluate a 70~200/2.8 ZOOM for sharpness? Or a fast 50? Or the FA43? When I started this hobby I read about lenses that had 'pop', or snap into focus, or color rendering or central subject isolation (which I think we now call bokeh).

08-21-2016, 06:40 PM	#15
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,987	Originally posted by AggieDad I was going through some of my photos today with an eye toward keepers, etc. While doing so, I noticed that when there is no "operator error" the image quality is really very, very good - regardless of the lens that was used. This brought a question into my little mind: Are there any lenses today that produce a lesser image quality than those used by the likes of Ansel Adams back in the 30s, 40s and 50s? I suspect not. If not, then why are we always concerned about IQ? Why shouldn't we just focus on our abilities to take photos that somehow reach people and move the soul just a little? Just wondering... Today's ;lenses are universally better than anything Adams used. However, Adams used an 8x10 camera, which means his lenses only had to be about a fiftieth as good, and today's lenses are not fifty times better. You will still get a better image from the equipment he used, but you will work a lot harder to do it.