Originally posted by automorphism I actually disagree. I think camera gear and composition/light are equally important. By gear, I don't mean "camera X vs Y" of the same generation. I mean using a 85mm f/1.8 vs. 50mm f/5.6 on a kit lens for a portrait. Since we're always pretty much assuming that the gear will be used by the same person, the gear is actually the most variable. Also, composition can often be 'fixed' in post whereas gear cannot.
You don't have to have an 85 1.4 for portraits.
And I'd love to see an example of a composition "fixed " in PP. You're talking about cropping. Cropping does not save a poorly composed image.
Read through this and tell me which of the elements of composition can be "fixed" in post?
Composition-Pop photography - oversize-images - PentaxForums.com
So given that you have to have something, that was never in dispute, and that I have a 50 macro, a 70 macro, a 90macro and a 100 macro, the OP is probably trying to find out if there's a difference in results.
Given that my 70 macro 2.8 is very good for portraits, But I also have the DA*55 1.4, and a lot of other 2.8 glass, I might want to know which gives me the best results for portraits.
I don't see this question as "do I have to have gear?" , I see it as "which of what I own is the best for the tasks and circumstances in which my style and preference dictate I'll be shooting."
For me I don't care which macro I'm shooting with, but I prefer the DFA 100 macro, it's longer, lighter, it's WR. But you're not going to know that looking at the images are you? Which piece of gear I select makes no difference. Which ever one I have with me will be good and will produce acceptable results. You can produce great images with cheap gear, and bad images with really expensive gear.
The guy who won the Flickr "Image of the year" shot it with a K-x and a kit lens. He won it with his composition... practically everyone on the planet, myself included, and those shooting Liecas and Zeiss or any of the expensive Nikon or Canon or Sony offering in the end lost out to guy with a 10 year old camera and a kit lens.
So how important was the gear used?
And what did the guys with the expensive gear get for their money, beyond an honourable mention, if they even got that?
I've got 20 times invested in my camera gear than what this guy has. He won, I didn't even get mentioned.
I'd even go so far as to say (and have many times in my advice), if you aren't already getting good compositions, don't waste your money on better gear. Also the better the gear the more situational it is. You can buy the best macro lens out there, but if you don't have the skill and patience to produce good macro images, you may as well be using a Sigma 70-300 with it's macro function. You can buy the best portrait lens out there, if you don't know how to set, up, light and frame good portraits, even my relatively cheap Sigma 70 macro will be overkill. You won't get as much out of it what an experienced portrait photographer would.
You can't buy great gear in an attempt to make up for a lack of compositional expertise. You would just produce really sharp bad pictures with great bokeh. And there are people posting on this site with more expensive gear than I own who've never taken an image I've even liked.