[Wheatfield]

I would argue, quite playfully and lightheartedly, mind you, that this logic assuming every lens is sharp at f8 is faulty. I'll have you know that my copy of the 18-55 WR is consistently soft between f8 and f13, in all focal lengths. It is deeply unkind to focusing mistakes at hyperfocal lengths, shallow apertures on its range, and diffraction at extreme apertures (f13 is about the limit, f11 seems to be the sweet spot). This lens is right on the edge of what I'd refer to as "acceptably sharp". I own and occasionally use the full suite of Topaz software and know quite a few tricks by now to finesse RAWs and TIFs into a sharp looking image, and enough experience now to know when a raw shot is never going to be sharp. With the 18-55, the net product with the K5's AA filter is a unique rendering that feels a lot like using a mist filter for portraiture. Sharp it ain't, but pretty pictures it yet still makes. Just like a woodworker, you need to work in the direction of the grain with a lens, because going against it would just yield shoddy images. Having said that, a tack sharp edge-to-edge exposure isn't everything.

If I may go out on a limb, I think what Richard is trying to say in his posts is akin to the same deeply ingrained rule in my brain that photographers create photographs, not lenses (or cameras for that matter). I am self taught on 35mm film and learned how to shoot by rigorously studying Ansel Adams' book series, then applying the Zone system to my own shooting with fully manual equipment and a budget friendly processing lab near NYU who gave me student rates after I kept showing up with new rolls. Quite a few of the old masters only had 1 or 2 lenses in their inventory, and some contemporary photographers shooting larger formats are still the same. Small format photographers are the most gear crazed users there are. We must just own up to this and be happy with it, but a lot of working fine art photographers did not or do not consider themselves to be very technical, in stark contrast to Ansel's dedication to process and equipment. Richard Avedon comes to mind.

......

F8 is commonly the great equalizer. Yes there are exceptions, there are lenses out there that are mediocre at best no matter what f stop. I don't think they are all that common, though there were a lot of house brand lenses from the 1980s that are pure junk.
Photographers make pictures, but taking the camera and lens out of the equation isn't possible. It's a required tool.
The quality of the tool matters as it will have a direct effect of the final quality of the image.
One can do carpentry with a dull saw, but the job will go better with a sharp one.

[lesmore49]

... and less than the DA18-135 on an APS-C body. Theoretically, that's all most people need for 90% of general photography. Of course, need and want soon diverge...

We went on a trip to Newfoundland a few years back. We were limited in what we could carry. I thought beforehand, what lenses do I need for the possible pictures I will take...and then I pared it down to three lenses, one body.

Zoom lenses were the answer...multiple choices in one lens. I took my trusty old 18-135 and my equally trusty 55-300. I added my 21 mm Ltd., as it takes up little or no space. One body, an ASP-C....my K-5. Perfect....the two zooms range from wide angle (18mm) to telephoto (300mm) covered pretty well every photo trip need....and if I wanted to go prime, my fine, little 21mm was ready and able.

Amazing what you can do with the 18-135 and 55-300. The cover pretty well it all.

[Smolk]

Among contemporary photographers, most of Todd Hido's famous suburbia works were shot with a single lens on a Pentax 67.

Thanks for this reference, I didn't know his work - but it's exactly what I like.
When I walk around with a TLR, I rarely feel limited in FL. When I get my K-3 iii out, I agonise about the lenses to take with me

[RICHARD L.]

When I get my K-3 iii out, I agonise about the lenses to take with me

When I got my Pentax K3 III, every lens I had suddenly seemed sharper than ever on this new 26 Mpx sensor. I have a DA 18-135 mm ED and it produces lovely, sharp and contrasty images on this camera body.

[IsaacReaves]

Thanks for this reference, I didn't know his work - but it's exactly what I like.
When I walk around with a TLR, I rarely feel limited in FL. When I get my K-3 iii out, I agonise about the lenses to take with me

That's great, I'm glad to have introduced his work to someone new. I got to make a quick pass through a gallery in Amsterdam in 2018 when he was touring Bright Black World. Those enormous prints are something to be experienced in person. I'm always shocked at how a seemingly benign image on a computer screen takes on such a deep character when viewed in print. Maybe Todd will pop back through the Netherlands again at some point in the future. Rotterdam's a lovely city. All that sharp contrast down near the train station is lovely to shoot!

cheers,
DS

---------- Post added 04-20-22 at 03:31 AM ----------

When I got my Pentax K3 III, every lens I had suddenly seemed sharper than ever on this new 26 Mpx sensor. I have a DA 18-135 mm ED and it produces lovely, sharp and contrasty images on this camera body.

I think this is a testament to the amount of lens correction built-in to modern bodies. Theoretically the PLMs should be even better if I'm to believe Pentax's marketing materials. Great shots, nonetheless!

[gaweidert]

That's great, I'm glad to have introduced his work to someone new. I got to make a quick pass through a gallery in Amsterdam in 2018 when he was touring Bright Black World. Those enormous prints are something to be experienced in person. I'm always shocked at how a seemingly benign image on a computer screen takes on such a deep character when viewed in print. Maybe Todd will pop back through the Netherlands again at some point in the future. Rotterdam's a lovely city. All that sharp contrast down near the train station is lovely to shoot!

Back in the late 1960's my major at Rochester Institute of Technology was "Photographic Science and Engineering". The students taking Professional Photography as their major had a saying. "If you can't make it good, make it big. If you can't make it big make it color."

[jgnfld]

...
One can do carpentry with a dull saw, but the job will go better with a sharp one.

And routing a table edge with only chisels CAN be done, but it's not really the way most would want to go!

---------- Post added 04-27-22 at 09:45 AM ----------

While I have some other lenses, my basic kit that I most often select from is:

Pentax:

16-85
55-300PLM
SMC 100 macro
40 Ltd
70 Ltd

Sigma:
10-20 (slo-version)

You can mix and match this set to a LOT of outings. Sailing? Usually just the first two. Hiking? First 2 plus 100 if in deep woods for shrooms/buds/and so forth. Plus 40 or 70 will fit in a jacket pocket if expecting golden hour. City? 40 and 70 are plenty. 10-20 for buildings, etc.

But this is NOT the greatest selection of lenses for a studio. Or really even outdoor portraits/weddings. Or specialized macros. Or fisheye photos. Etc. Etc. Etc.

---

Last edited by jgnfld; 04-27-2022 at 05:16 AM.

[Wheatfield]

Back in the late 1960's my major at Rochester Institute of Technology was "Photographic Science and Engineering". The students taking Professional Photography as their major had a saying. "If you can't make it good, make it big. If you can't make it big make it color."

That statement, and I recall it being bandied around when I was starting photography in the early 1970s, related purely to composition. A blah photo could theoretically be made impressive through extreme enlargement, and colour photography was, at the time, new enough that joe average compositions could be improved with it.
Sunsets universally fall into this category.
Consequently, this little aphorism really sidesteps the gist of this thread, which seems to be more about quality of lenses.

The irony of bringing it up is that in order to make it big, equipment quality, especially lens quality has to be above par and photographic technique also needs to be well above average. Failing that, going big makes a mundane image into a hot mess of technical deficiencies.

An image that fails because it's a boring image might fail less if it's displayed really big, but it will fail entirely if the degree of enlargement shows up a bunch of equipment or technique quality problems that were masked by being displayed small.

We knew that at the time, but we didn't have a fifth column of semi luddites pretending that a pinhole stuck on a body cap was as good as a high quality lens, and we didn't have craptastic zooms to deal with. That didn't happen until somewhat later when the dumbing down of photography got rolling.
The "kit" lens of the day was a 50mm f/1.8 that was more than likely a very high quality lens, though it might have had to be stopped down a bit to get there.

I've had this exact thing happen. I was hired by a local store to supply some very large photographs, IIRC, 40"x60" (100cm x150cm) images for a display. One of the images I submitted, based on looking at a 2x magnification 4x5 inch print, was a mess at the enlargement specified. In this case, camera shake killed the image, though at the proof size it looked quite good. There was just enough camera shake to kill it at larger print sizes.

Time also moves in only one direction, and the demands for high technical quality equipment have changed with the ability of manufacturers to put higher quality equipment on the market.

Were this not the case, lenses such as the Pentax * lenses wouldn't exist. Why bother to make them is something like the FA50/1.4 is all people are asking for?

Why bother making prime lenses at all when a cheap low resolution kit zoom can take the "same picture" as a high quality prime?

There would be no point at all were it not for the fact that people want, and have always wanted, imaging equipment that is capable of giving high quality results.

---------- Post added Apr 27th, 2022 at 08:41 AM ----------

And routing a table edge with only chisels CAN be done, but it's not really the way most would want to go!

At least in carpentry we have sandpaper to fix some of the problems that a dull tool can cause. I'm not sure if the same tool exists for photographers. It seems to me that in photography if a sharp tool is needed, then there isn't really anything that will fix an image taken with a dull lens.
I suppose it helps that in carpentry we are making the subject as smooth and soft as we can while in photography we generally want the subject to be sharp.

While I have some other lenses, my basic kit that I most often select from is:

Pentax:

16-85
55-300PLM
SMC 100 macro
40 Ltd
70 Ltd

Sigma:
10-20 (slo-version)

You can mix and match this set to a LOT of outings. Sailing? Usually just the first two. Hiking? First 2 plus 100 if in deep woods for shrooms/buds/and so forth. Plus 40 or 70 will fit in a jacket pocket if expecting golden hour. City? 40 and 70 are plenty. 10-20 for buildings, etc.

But this is NOT the greatest selection of lenses for a studio. Or really even outdoor portraits/weddings. Or specialized macros. Or fisheye photos. Etc. Etc. Etc.

You are actually fairly well set up with what you are listing. No, you aren't well equipped for some really specialized stuff, but few people are unless the specialization happens to be what they do and they go out and buy equipment specifically for doing it.

[Smolk]

Rotterdam's a lovely city. All that sharp contrast down near the train station is lovely to shoot!

It is a great place. I have more use for a normal wide angle, even ultra wide-angle, than I used to have around here. All these buildings, the harbours. But a fairly normal view, or short tele, remain my favourites. Mostly still on film though, I need to get stuff developed - or create my own dark room.

[RICHARD L.]

Even a lowly consumer grade zoom lens can produce a good image in the right hands : K3 III + HD DA 55-300 mm f/4-5.8 ED WR @ 55 mm FL.

[StiffLegged]

At least in carpentry we have sandpaper to fix some of the problems that a dull tool can cause.

Printed on a joiner/carpenter's invoices (back in the day) was the following:–

In glue and sawdust do I put my trust.

If that won't do then putty must.

[Wheatfield]

Printed on a joiner/carpenter's invoices (back in the day) was the following:–

That's perfect.

[RICHARD L.]

A last image with the K3 III ...

[aizatk]

I can do most of my photography work with a 50mm. But, I also have many other lenses of different focal lengths. I enjoy collecting them and using a different lens from time to time (they all have their own characters, from colours to micro contrasts, etc.).