[Rondec]

I have an excellent DA 55-300 and an average DA*60-250, I'm pretty sure I can prove the DA 55-300 is better than my 60-250.
That has been a point I've been trying to hammer home for the better part of 10 years now. If I'd had the 30% number I could have gone to Optical Limits or any testing site to demonstrate that.
I have never seen any evidence that the "I have to have the sharpest lens out there" folks ever take better images than those of us cheapies who buy the best lens we can afford for the job we want to do.
They assume their lenses are better because of test charts. But their images don't support that.

My biggest objection to posts on the forum come from lens snobs. "My lens cost 5 times as much as yours did, my pictures are better." They remind me of the snobby kid from high school going on about how much everything he owned costs.
If I don't like your images, how much you paid for your gear means nothing.

The silence when that guy won the Flickr image of the year (from the "I own the most expensive lens ever" crowd) with a K-x and kit lens was deafening.
I probably have spent 10 times what that guy has spent on equipment, yet none of my work was even considered.
The guy is a champion. And proved what many have said endlessly. Right time right place with a capable camera beats expensive high end gear every time, and produces better results.
I can hear the high end chorus. "But if you shoot the scene with an average camera and I'm there and shoot the same scene with my expensive gear, mine will be better.'
Yet in one of my tests my lowly FA 35-80 was judged better on exactly the same image by twice the average lens and led the pack, when viewed as an image, not pixel peeping.
Expensive big bucks gear is not the advantage gear snobs claim it is.

People need to get out there and shoot with what they have. The advantage of more expensive equipment is supported only by hype and bluster. You can still win the Flickr photo of the year with an antique sensor and a kit lens. And while those of us who have spent more money may think we can do better, most of us haven't.

To a certain extent, I buy lenses I think I will enjoy using. The whole IQ based on test chart conclusions thing is focused on way too much.

I really don't see many (if any) lens snobs on the Forum. I think most of us here understand that it isn't about the lens and the camera as much as it is about the light, subject, and composition. I have gradually accumulated a lot of lenses over the years -- mostly because my wife shoots wedding photography. I do own the DFA *70-200 and the (original) DA 55-300 and I can definitely tell the difference in the images. Obviously this doesn't mean that I can't take nice photos with the 55-300, I can, but if I am shooting portraits, I would prefer the out of focus rendering of the 70-200 to the 55-300 quite a bit.

To me, the difference between the more expensive and cheaper lenses is not sharpness (particularly not if you shoot stopped down), but how well they handle in focus to out of focus transition areas and how well they render out of focus areas. This is where a lens like the FA 77 shines. The other thing is contrast and micro contrast. Those can be added in post, but lenses that offer more contrast out of the box just pop more. Those are the sort of thing I look at more if and when I am evaluating whether to buy a new lens.

Am I making great art? Nope. But I will keep shooting with the gear I have and share the images I get with it, understanding the whole time that it isn't about the gear.

(I still shoot a fair amount with my K-01)...

[reh321]

I really don't see many (if any) lens snobs on the Forum. I think most of us here understand that it isn't about the lens and the camera as much as it is about the light, subject, and composition. I have gradually accumulated a lot of lenses over the years -- mostly because my wife shoots wedding photography. I do own the DFA *70-200 and the (original) DA 55-300 and I can definitely tell the difference in the images. Obviously this doesn't mean that I can't take nice photos with the 55-300, I can, but if I am shooting portraits, I would prefer the out of focus rendering of the 70-200 to the 55-300 quite a bit.

To me, the difference between the more expensive and cheaper lenses is not sharpness (particularly not if you shoot stopped down), but how well they handle in focus to out of focus transition areas and how well they render out of focus areas. This is where a lens like the FA 77 shines. The other thing is contrast and micro contrast. Those can be added in post, but lenses that offer more contrast out of the box just pop more. Those are the sort of thing I look at more if and when I am evaluating whether to buy a new lens.

Am I making great art? Nope. But I will keep shooting with the gear I have and share the images I get with it, understanding the whole time that it isn't about the gear.

(I still shoot a fair amount with my K-01)...

This just shows how use by Pentax shooters differ. I have taken photos at just one wedding - at my daughter's, who got married shortly after I got my KP in Black Friday 2018. I frankly don't care what the out-of-focus areas look like. I do take lots of wildlife photos, and my issue is that they be in focus quickly with appropriate magnification and at a reasonable cost {and I don't want too much to lug around}. The lens I use most of the time is my "77-420mm" ..... a 55-300mm PLM with a 1.4X TC semi-permanently attached.

[jatrax]

Same for Jatrax. You have a name/link to that woman's photos. I'm just curious.

Sorry, no. AFAIK she did not have a website. I saw her at two or maybe three shows that year. Have not seen her since which is a shame she had a true gift of showing only what was truly important in an image. Its been a few years but if I remember she had only maybe 20 images for sale (I take prints of about 100 to a show) but each and every one was thought provoking. I work a show all day trying to get people to look at my work, all she did was sit in her chair and smile and she had people literally stopping dead to look and point.

Here is a link to another photographer I admire though: Lijah Hanley Photography
I have been at shows with him as well and he also has a gift. I think he does more national shows now as I have not seen him in a couple years.

[Wheatfield]

I really don't see many (if any) lens snobs on the Forum.

I was able to create lovely pictures with my M85/2, but my 77LTD and A*85/1.4 make nicer pictures for me.
I am confident that the D FA* 85/1.4 will up my game another notch.
My FA50/1.4 made nice pictures, my D FA* 50/1.4 makes nicer pictures (much nicer).
Something I've noticed is that every time I up my lens game, my images improve.
Upping my lens game was why I came to Pentax in the first place. If lenses hadn't interested me, I'd still be shooting with a Nikon.

So yes, I am an unabashed lens snob. I am one because after some 50 years of playing this game, one thing I have noticed is that lenses matter, and better lenses make better pictures for any given photographer.
I can handle being labeled a lens snob because I know that not paying attention to lens quality implies not caring as much as one can about the final image.

I can understand people not going out and buying a $1500.00 lens because a $200.00 lens is all they can afford or justify, or that they bought the f/4 lens because they f/2.8 lens is simply too big for them to want to carry, and I can understand a person saying the $200.00 lens or the f/4 lens is good enough for them as long as they recognize that good enough for them may not be as good as it gets. In fact, this is why I waited for the 70-210/4 lens rather than getting the f/2.8 lens. At this point in my life, I no longer want to carry a lens that big, so I am compromising.

What I do take umbrage to is insisting that someone who can justify the more expensive lens and can appreciate the difference is pejoratively labeled a "lens snob" by people who either can't see the difference or who care so little about their pictures that the quality difference is meaningless to them.

I used to be a format snob. I shot 35mm until I "outgrew" it and bought a 6x7. I found that the format was not good for the field photography I was doing, and so moved to 4x5. Sure, I didn't have much use for postage stamp negatives after that, but that was because I had upped my game so much that I couldn't justify using little negatives. I used the 6x7 in the studio, the 4x5 for landscapes, and the only time I used 35mm was wedding candids.

There are two ways to improve your photography. One is to become a better photographer, the other is to use better equipment, or equipment better suited to what you are doing. To many people these these are mutually exclusive. I don't agree. I can walk and chew gum at the same time, and I can improve my technique with better gear the same way I can do it with lesser gear. The difference is, the better lens gives me an immediate shot in the arm, which I appreciate.

[repaap]

I was able to create lovely pictures with my M85/2, but my 77LTD and A*85/1.4 make nicer pictures for me.
I am confident that the D FA* 85/1.4 will up my game another notch.
My FA50/1.4 made nice pictures, my D FA* 50/1.4 makes nicer pictures (much nicer).
Something I've noticed is that every time I up my lens game, my images improve.
Upping my lens game was why I came to Pentax in the first place. If lenses hadn't interested me, I'd still be shooting with a Nikon.

So yes, I am an unabashed lens snob. I am one because after some 50 years of playing this game, one thing I have noticed is that lenses matter, and better lenses make better pictures for any given photographer.
I can handle being labeled a lens snob because I know that not paying attention to lens quality implies not caring as much as one can about the final image.

I can understand people not going out and buying a $1500.00 lens because a $200.00 lens is all they can afford or justify, or that they bought the f/4 lens because they f/2.8 lens is simply too big for them to want to carry, and I can understand a person saying the $200.00 lens or the f/4 lens is good enough for them as long as they recognize that good enough for them may not be as good as it gets. In fact, this is why I waited for the 70-210/4 lens rather than getting the f/2.8 lens. At this point in my life, I no longer want to carry a lens that big, so I am compromising.

What I do take umbrage to is insisting that someone who can justify the more expensive lens and can appreciate the difference is pejoratively labeled a "lens snob" by people who either can't see the difference or who care so little about their pictures that the quality difference is meaningless to them.

I used to be a format snob. I shot 35mm until I "outgrew" it and bought a 6x7. I found that the format was not good for the field photography I was doing, and so moved to 4x5. Sure, I didn't have much use for postage stamp negatives after that, but that was because I had upped my game so much that I couldn't justify using little negatives. I used the 6x7 in the studio, the 4x5 for landscapes, and the only time I used 35mm was wedding candids.

There are two ways to improve your photography. One is to become a better photographer, the other is to use better equipment, or equipment better suited to what you are doing. To many people these these are mutually exclusive. I don't agree. I can walk and chew gum at the same time, and I can improve my technique with better gear the same way I can do it with lesser gear. The difference is, the better lens gives me an immediate shot in the arm, which I appreciate.

One can get ’things’ done with the gear which they use day to day. But there is always that better one and the ’topshelf’ gear. And it is there for a reason. Some might think that it is just to keep the wheel spinning. But for some engineers it is a passion, not just ’work’ to perfect things.

Yes, why buy those things when you van get armosta silimar things with oldies, but goodies. That new thing is going to save you time, effort, and it will function even on that circumstance where -your oldie, but goode- will throw hands up for the surrender.

And there is always person who has had it with compromises. And just want to enjoy what they love to do.

[thibs]

Thanks Wheatfield, you put it very clearly.
Completely agree (no I have no single * Lens).

[Rondec]

I was able to create lovely pictures with my M85/2, but my 77LTD and A*85/1.4 make nicer pictures for me.
I am confident that the D FA* 85/1.4 will up my game another notch.
My FA50/1.4 made nice pictures, my D FA* 50/1.4 makes nicer pictures (much nicer).
Something I've noticed is that every time I up my lens game, my images improve.
Upping my lens game was why I came to Pentax in the first place. If lenses hadn't interested me, I'd still be shooting with a Nikon.

So yes, I am an unabashed lens snob. I am one because after some 50 years of playing this game, one thing I have noticed is that lenses matter, and better lenses make better pictures for any given photographer.
I can handle being labeled a lens snob because I know that not paying attention to lens quality implies not caring as much as one can about the final image.

I can understand people not going out and buying a $1500.00 lens because a $200.00 lens is all they can afford or justify, or that they bought the f/4 lens because they f/2.8 lens is simply too big for them to want to carry, and I can understand a person saying the $200.00 lens or the f/4 lens is good enough for them as long as they recognize that good enough for them may not be as good as it gets. In fact, this is why I waited for the 70-210/4 lens rather than getting the f/2.8 lens. At this point in my life, I no longer want to carry a lens that big, so I am compromising.

What I do take umbrage to is insisting that someone who can justify the more expensive lens and can appreciate the difference is pejoratively labeled a "lens snob" by people who either can't see the difference or who care so little about their pictures that the quality difference is meaningless to them.

I used to be a format snob. I shot 35mm until I "outgrew" it and bought a 6x7. I found that the format was not good for the field photography I was doing, and so moved to 4x5. Sure, I didn't have much use for postage stamp negatives after that, but that was because I had upped my game so much that I couldn't justify using little negatives. I used the 6x7 in the studio, the 4x5 for landscapes, and the only time I used 35mm was wedding candids.

There are two ways to improve your photography. One is to become a better photographer, the other is to use better equipment, or equipment better suited to what you are doing. To many people these these are mutually exclusive. I don't agree. I can walk and chew gum at the same time, and I can improve my technique with better gear the same way I can do it with lesser gear. The difference is, the better lens gives me an immediate shot in the arm, which I appreciate.

I guess when I say lens snob, what I mean is you are not someone who replies to people's images, "Wow, that would have been really nice if you used a decent piece of glass."

Not all images that appear on the Pentax Forum have equal quality. If I don't think much of them, I don't honestly know if the issue is the skill of the photographer or the glass used or some mixture, but it doesn't really matter. I choose not to say anything and if in the future their are images I like of the same photographer, I will comment then. Even in the critique section, I seldom will comment on the quality of the gear, but more focus on ways to use it more effectively.

I do think I can see the difference between more expensive lenses and less expensive ones and that's why I own the ones I do. But if I couldn't afford the gear I have, I would still shoot with whatever I could afford.

[Wheatfield]

I guess when I say lens snob, what I mean is you are not someone who replies to people's images, "Wow, that would have been really nice if you used a decent piece of glass."

Not all images that appear on the Pentax Forum have equal quality. If I don't think much of them, I don't honestly know if the issue is the skill of the photographer or the glass used or some mixture, but it doesn't really matter. I choose not to say anything and if in the future their are images I like of the same photographer, I will comment then. Even in the critique section, I seldom will comment on the quality of the gear, but more focus on ways to use it more effectively.

I do think I can see the difference between more expensive lenses and less expensive ones and that's why I own the ones I do. But if I couldn't afford the gear I have, I would still shoot with whatever I could afford.

Two things that tend to be equalizers of lenses: f8 and 900x1400 pixels. I always get some amusement when there is a question asked about how good some lens is and there are multiple replies with little pictures supposedly proving the optical quality of the glass.
A certain amount of pixel peeping is generally required to ascertain if one lens is fair, good or great.
An image posted on a forum can only really be commented on for its artistic merits unless a 100% crop is included.
Resizing an image for the web masks too many technical flaws to be able to truly judge optical quality.

[Pål Jensen]

The best lens is the one you got with you...

[RobA_Oz]

Two things that tend to be equalizers of lenses: f8 and 900x1400 pixels. I always get some amusement when there is a question asked about how good some lens is and there are multiple replies with little pictures supposedly proving the optical quality of the glass.
A certain amount of pixel peeping is generally required to ascertain if one lens is fair, good or great.
An image posted on a forum can only really be commented on for its artistic merits unless a 100% crop is included.
Resizing an image for the web masks too many technical flaws to be able to truly judge optical quality.

Agreed, which is why I posted accordingly in the Post Your K-1 Pictures thread, though it wasn’t shot at F8, to demonstrate the IQ achievable with the D FA70-210.

Got yours yet?

I bought mine because, as much as I love the images my FA*80-200/2.8 produces, it’s just too heavy for me to use as a travel lens, these days, and I got tired of the tedium associated with processing images from my old Tamron 28-200, to improve its IQ.

[Wheatfield]

Agreed, which is why I posted accordingly in the Post Your K-1 Pictures thread, though it wasn’t shot at F8, to demonstrate the IQ achievable with the D FA70-210.

Got yours yet?

I bought mine because, as much as I love the images my FA*80-200/2.8 produces, it’s just too heavy for me to use as a travel lens, these days, and I got tired of the tedium associated with processing images from my old Tamron 28-200, to improve its IQ.

I had my 70-210 a few days before the official release date. My pusher is good to me that way. I really haven't used it yet, we are in the middle of an especially gray and blech spring. Nothing is photogenic around here at the moment.

[reh321]

Two things that tend to be equalizers of lenses: f8 and 900x1400 pixels. I always get some amusement when there is a question asked about how good some lens is and there are multiple replies with little pictures supposedly proving the optical quality of the glass.
A certain amount of pixel peeping is generally required to ascertain if one lens is fair, good or great.
An image posted on a forum can only really be commented on for its artistic merits unless a 100% crop is included.
Resizing an image for the web masks too many technical flaws to be able to truly judge optical quality.

When I shot film, I would sit viewers behind the slide projector;
today, I am happy with "small" pictures and unhappy with pixel peeking,
because I want the image to be viewed the way I took it - looking at the whole image at once.

[Wheatfield]

When I shot film, I would sit viewers behind the slide projector;
today, I am happy with "small" pictures and unhappy with pixel peeking,
because I want the image to be viewed the way I took it - looking at the whole image at once.

The point is, if one is showing the technical prowess of a lens, a web sized image of the full frame doesn't cut it. To see how sharp a lens is, it needs to be viewed at or near full resolution.
This is why modern lenses have had to get so much better than what we were happy with 30 years ago. We can view the flaws a lot easier.
This is completely separate from showing that it can take a pretty picture. Any lens above Coke Bottle Grade can do that, especially when downsized from 7000 pixels to 1400 pixels.

[RobA_Oz]

The point is, if one is showing the technical prowess of a lens, a web sized image of the full frame doesn't cut it. To see how sharp a lens is, it needs to be viewed at or near full resolution.
This is why modern lenses have had to get so much better than what we were happy with 30 years ago. We can view the flaws a lot easier.
This is completely separate from showing that it can take a pretty picture. Any lens above Coke Bottle Grade can do that, especially when downsized from 7000 pixels to 1400 pixels.

Not to mention that most phone and tablet screens are very poor at colour reproduction and the apps (like, but not exclusively, Facebook – even Flickr's app) tend to degrade the image even further. I guess this is similar to the difference experienced when people went to see a movie projected onto a small screen, after they'd seen the original in 70mm, Cinemascope etc – once experienced (like good coffee) it's hard to go back to something lesser.

[reh321]

The point is, if one is showing the technical prowess of a lens, a web sized image of the full frame doesn't cut it. To see how sharp a lens is, it needs to be viewed at or near full resolution.
This is why modern lenses have had to get so much better than what we were happy with 30 years ago. We can view the flaws a lot easier.
This is completely separate from showing that it can take a pretty picture. Any lens above Coke Bottle Grade can do that, especially when downsized from 7000 pixels to 1400 pixels.

That may have been your point. My point is that defects which cannot be seen in normal viewing matter only to someone who uses the photo in a abnormal manner.