Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-14-2008, 11:22 AM   #16
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: London
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 418
The Post to end all Posts

QuoteOriginally posted by beaumont Quote
As the saying goes...a chain is only as strong as the weakest link. In the case of photography the links can include the camera body, the lens, the skill of the photographer, the creativity of the photographer, the subject, the post processing etc..
wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Thats basically saying that if i have a shit lens, it will just look the same if i use it on an amazing camera or not, if i post process it or not.

I can take photos with a pinhole through a lens cap. In your metaphor, i have a missing link, and does my camera fall and hit the floor? no, it takes photos which, while technically appalling, have a great charm about them.

The 18-55 can take amazing photos, most of you are just to ignorant to accept that. It is an illusion because whenever you see a good photo it is taken with a good lens. Not because having a good lens makes good pictures, but making good pictures gives you money to throw around.

I would have thought it is common sense that IT IS THE PHOTOGRAPHER, NOT THE CAMERA.

Now for me to sound so far up myself i can see out of my mouth, but its to prove a point

Before i had a k20d, i had a fujifilm s6500fd, which cost me 120. I took some of what are still my best photos with that camera, stretched it far far beyond its limits, taking midnight long exposures, band photography in pitch black venues, 6x macro photography by screwing glass onto the front.

Dont kid yourself with the lens-placebo effect. If you are a real man you will realise you have only yourself to blame for poor quality photos.

09-14-2008, 11:52 AM   #17
Veteran Member
gnaztee's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Cornelius, OR
Posts: 753
Hello?

QuoteOriginally posted by IsaacEastgate Quote
wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Thats basically saying that if i have a shit lens, it will just look the same if i use it on an amazing camera or not, if i post process it or not.

I can take photos with a pinhole through a lens cap. In your metaphor, i have a missing link, and does my camera fall and hit the floor? no, it takes photos which, while technically appalling, have a great charm about them.

The 18-55 can take amazing photos, most of you are just to ignorant to accept that. It is an illusion because whenever you see a good photo it is taken with a good lens. Not because having a good lens makes good pictures, but making good pictures gives you money to throw around.

I would have thought it is common sense that IT IS THE PHOTOGRAPHER, NOT THE CAMERA.

Now for me to sound so far up myself i can see out of my mouth, but its to prove a point

Before i had a k20d, i had a fujifilm s6500fd, which cost me 120. I took some of what are still my best photos with that camera, stretched it far far beyond its limits, taking midnight long exposures, band photography in pitch black venues, 6x macro photography by screwing glass onto the front.

Dont kid yourself with the lens-placebo effect. If you are a real man you will realise you have only yourself to blame for poor quality photos.

Did you even read the rest of his post? He's essentially saying the same thing as you. Chill out a bit.

Todd
09-14-2008, 12:05 PM   #18
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,675
In it's broadest terms I think that a bad lens is one that would render unnatural, unpleasant and unwanted distortion or artifacts. The reverse of that would say that a good lens is one that produces natural, pleasing images without any unwanted distortion or artifacts. Bad traits could include pin-cushioning, barrel distortion, soft focus, back focus, front focus or chromatic apparitions. Keeping in mind that certain lenses are designed to have one or more of these features, and they are considered 'good' lenses; a fish-eye lens comes to mind. And a formerly 'good' lens can become damaged and thus it would be then a 'bad' lens.

If a lens has a slight amount of distortion it shouldn't really be called 'bad' by my definition; it's just not 'great', but rather more 'average'.

You're thinking in binary. Lenses are not either all 'bad' or all 'good'; many are just average and render quite acceptable images. The odd ones are either 'excellent' or 'rubbish'. Simply rating lenses as either 'good' or 'bad' is too broad a rating system.

Last edited by J.Scott; 09-14-2008 at 12:19 PM.
09-14-2008, 01:58 PM   #19
Veteran Member
sewebster's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 533
QuoteOriginally posted by Michaelina2 Quote
...on the camera body that's been paired to the lens for the review.

For example, this forum and others show the K20D can turn "average" glass into glass that's spectacular. Most current reviews pair their subject with the now obsolete K10D. Since I don't have a K10D, for me those reviews are mostly irrelevant.
I really don't see how this makes any logical sense. I can see the K20D exposing the difference between lenses more, but not re-ordering the quality of lenses. So if you rank how "good" a lens is on the K10D (by a quantitative measure) then those lenses will have the same ranking on the K20D.

09-14-2008, 02:35 PM   #20
Veteran Member
KungPOW's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,702
A lens is neither good nor bad.

It either meets the list of criteria imposed apon it or it does not. If my criteria list differs from your criteria list, the same lens will be rated differently by myself then by you.

A good lens will meet the job it is given. Just as a pinhole will not produce the typical image you see in Sports Illustrated, a FA* 2.8/300 will not produce the artsy dreamy image of a pinhole. You need to match the lens to the job.

But in general, a good lens will show high contrast, good colour, low distortion, and be sharp corner to corner. A poor lens will be soft, poor colour, and poor contrast.

A good lens unused is a paper weight. A poor lens used might make art.
09-14-2008, 02:48 PM   #21
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 506
QuoteOriginally posted by gnaztee Quote
Did you even read the rest of his post? He's essentially saying the same thing as you. Chill out a bit.

Todd
Thanks for understanding my comment Todd!

The comment by Isaac E that "The 18-55 can take amazing photos, most of you are just to ignorant to accept that", is obviously not true of those that post on this forum. If a poll was taken, I think the general consensus would say that it is a good lens but does have limitations such as speed etc, which it does. I myself am painfully aware that in the right hands the 18-55 can produce better pictures than a 31ltd in the hands of myself. (And I unfortunately have hundreds of crappy shots to back that up.)

The comment made by J Scott that "Simply rating lenses as either 'good' or 'bad' is too broad a rating system", I think is spot on, as it's hard to categorize a lens as simply bad or good as they have so many different charactersitics that once you learn to use their differences to the fullest, they can then become not only good but "great" lenses.

On the flip side thinking that all lenses are great is as fair as stating that all the "real men" in Loughborough steal copper pipe. For example I'm guessing that IsaacEastgate's pinhole through a lens cap would qualify as a bad/"shit" lens...
09-14-2008, 05:53 PM   #22
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bangor, Maine
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,382
QuoteOriginally posted by Michaelina2 Quote
...on the camera body that's been paired to the lens for the review.

For example, this forum and others show the K20D can turn "average" glass into glass that's spectacular. Most current reviews pair their subject with the now obsolete K10D. Since I don't have a K10D, for me those reviews are mostly irrelevant.
OMG!!! I can't believe you even wrote that. If the same shot was taken with the same lens on every Pentax model dating back to the first digital made at base ISO you would not be able to pick out one from the other if printed at 14 X 11 or smaller.
09-14-2008, 06:53 PM   #23
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by regken Quote
OMG!!! I can't believe you even wrote that. If the same shot was taken with the same lens on every Pentax model dating back to the first digital made at base ISO you would not be able to pick out one from the other if printed at 14 X 11 or smaller.
Gotta disagree. I can see differences between the K100D and K20D with certain lenses, and that's only one model removed. My 16-50 & M 85 spring to mind. Also, my Tamron 18-250 looked better on my K100D, but I could see it's shortcomings on the K20D.

09-14-2008, 07:10 PM   #24
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,122
Here are the basics:

All poorly constructed/assembled lenses are BAD...unless consistent performance is not required for your photo style.

Uncoated lenses are BAD...unless low contrast and flare are part of your photo style.

Single-coated lenses are BAD...see previous item above.

Manual diaphragm lenses are BAD...unless auto stop-down is not required for your photo style.

Zoom lenses are BAD...unless your photo style requires the ability to change framing quickly without changing position or lens.

Off-brand lenses are BAD...unless you find that one complements your photo style.

Inexpensive lenses are BAD...see previous item above.

Lenses with less than 8 diaphragm blades are BAD...unless the 5/6-sided specular highlights and bokeh work well with your photo style.

Plastic lenses are BAD...unless the image quality works well with your photo style.

Do we see a trend here?

Now, would I generally steer a person towards an off-brand, plastic-bodied, f/5.6 zoom on Craig's List? Not on your life! Would I steer them away? It depends on price.

So, what are things to look for in a GOOD lens?
  • Quality construction
  • Smoothness/consistency of operation
  • Multi-coated over single-coated over non-coated
  • In general, higher diaphragm blade count (rounder circle) may yield a more pleasing bokeh.
  • Sharpness/contrast appropriate for the kind of work you do.
  • Resistence to flare (unless you into that kind of thing).
  • MOST IMPORTANT!! Price that is appropriate to results delivered within the context of your need.

Steve

BTW...I don't own any BAD lenses

(There are no bad lenses...only inarticulate photographers...)
09-14-2008, 07:24 PM   #25
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 506
[QUOTE=steve



(There are no bad lenses...only inarticulate photographers...)[/QUOTE]

Like the bumper sticker says..."guns don't kill people, knives do"
09-14-2008, 07:38 PM   #26
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bangor, Maine
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,382
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Gotta disagree. I can see differences between the K100D and K20D with certain lenses, and that's only one model removed. My 16-50 & M 85 spring to mind. Also, my Tamron 18-250 looked better on my K100D, but I could see it's shortcomings on the K20D.
I'd love to see samples showing this. Or a rational explanation as to how this is possible. Keep in mind I said in prints up to 14 X 11 and at base ISO. If you start pixel peeping or cropping the higher MP count will of course show up.
09-14-2008, 08:16 PM   #27
Veteran Member
frank's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Singapore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,202
This is what I'd call a bad lens:






And this is what I'd call a really good lens:




But while taking photos, there are only very few bad lenses. Most lenses are capable of making excellent photos when they are in good hands.
09-14-2008, 08:33 PM   #28
Veteran Member
Kguru's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Perth - WestAust
Posts: 602
QuoteOriginally posted by Vlad Quote
can you post some photos too please? one with a bad and one with a good so we can see the differences?
I can post some photos, but at your end if they are viewed on a typical laptop or desktop LCD screen you won't see the differences. Reason: the screen is the weakest link, the limiting factor.

When viewed on laptop 1280x800 screen a 10Mp pic has been resampled/resized down to just 1Mp. A huge lot of image details have been wasted through which better lenses lose their edges over average lenses.
09-14-2008, 08:54 PM   #29
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by regken Quote
I'd love to see samples showing this. Or a rational explanation as to how this is possible. Keep in mind I said in prints up to 14 X 11 and at base ISO. If you start pixel peeping or cropping the higher MP count will of course show up.

Well, if I follow this logic further, I should be able to build a K-mount for my Panasonic Lumix 7MP P&S/bridge camera, attach the 77ltd, and see no difference between that and my K20D in an 8x10 print.

I don't see why this is such an emotional topic - of course bad lenses exist, and of course the sensor matters. A tremendously great lens and a pretty great lens could look the same up to say 6MP, but go to 14MP on some brand-new CMOS technology and the super-duper lens is going to keep going up the IQ scale, while the simply-good one won't look any different with the new sensor. Google "out-resolving the sensor", or look ---> here.


.

Last edited by jsherman999; 09-14-2008 at 09:08 PM.
09-15-2008, 03:25 AM   #30
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bangor, Maine
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,382
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Well, if I follow this logic further, I should be able to build a K-mount for my Panasonic Lumix 7MP P&S/bridge camera, attach the 77ltd, and see no difference between that and my K20D in an 8x10 print.

I don't see why this is such an emotional topic - of course bad lenses exist, and of course the sensor matters. A tremendously great lens and a pretty great lens could look the same up to say 6MP, but go to 14MP on some brand-new CMOS technology and the super-duper lens is going to keep going up the IQ scale, while the simply-good one won't look any different with the new sensor. Google "out-resolving the sensor", or look ---> here.


.
That's right, your Panasonic would be the same at 8 X 10. This is an emotional topic because there is so much misinformation floating around forums like this about the relative quality of both sensors and lenses. The larger sensor will of course change the DOF you will get.

The size and design of the sensor only comes into play when printing larger and/or shooting at higher ISO numbers than base. Larger sensors will also increase DR marginally if you print bigger than 8 X 10. This is all predicated on shooting in RAW.

As far as lenses are concerned you have proven with some of your own photos taken with the lowly m series and old Tak lenses that modern technology does not add anything to quality. SDM lenses are quieter but are not faster AF.

This forum is for photo enthusiasts sharing knowledge in hopes of helping each other with this great hobby. And yes I get emotional when any misinformation is posted that might mislead my fellow enthusiasts.


Regards,

Last edited by regken; 09-15-2008 at 03:33 AM.
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, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
what is a good or bad copy of Da*16-50? nuaabill Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 20 11-13-2009 07:26 PM
Help - bad or good copy 16-50 ? Vaikis_ Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 10-17-2008 04:54 AM
UV filters: Good or bad? Zeroset Pentax DSLR Discussion 37 09-08-2008 06:24 PM
Are these lenses Good or Bad? Fl_Gulfer Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 8 08-18-2008 06:56 AM
Good or bad jgredline Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 2 01-07-2008 11:52 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:42 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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