[normhead]

Getting started on better lenses is just something most people don't want to get into. Despite what is said above, for many images a kit lens is good enough. Or as I pointed out in the thread here... in landscape other factors beside lens quality can have a defining effect on a picture.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/12-post-your-photos/290283-landscape-yet-...challenge.html

The difference between shooting with my K-3 and K-5 is way more than adding a specific lens could have given me. I get more out of my lenses, even the cheaper ones. Now you can argue all you want I could have gotten along with my K-5 and I could have. But lenses get left home, the body comes with me every day.

But then, I'm constantly being told by some my DA 18-135 which goes with me everywhere isn't as good as their whatever happens to be their favourite. I generally look at the pictures and yawn. The above thread was my way of yawning.

[UncleVanya]

A friend asked me to take photos with his Canon the other day. First it was a spur of the moment request at it a birthday party, second I have never used this camera, third the lens was broken. It was a 15-85 I think, and frequently when zooming it literally got stuck and would not turn so suddenly you were not able to zoom. Then when I told him about the problem, he told me it was an expensive lens (600) and he had repaired it once for 300 and planned to do it again... I didn't have the heart to tell him to toss it in the trash and get some quality.

[alexcox]

I think it was Annie Liebowitz who is said to have had the best rejoinder to a dinner party host who said that to her. She allegedly thanked the host for a lovely dinner and remarked that she must have really good pots!

Isn't it a story about Ansel Adams and Ernest Hemingway? Hemingway: "Nice photos, Mr Adams, what kind of camera did you use?" Adams: "Good stories, Mr Hemingway. What typewriter did you use?"

[normhead]

A friend asked me to take photos with his Canon the other day. First it was a spur of the moment request at it a birthday party, second I have never used this camera, third the lens was broken. It was a 15-85 I think, and frequently when zooming it literally got stuck and would not turn so suddenly you were not able to zoom. Then when I told him about the problem, he told me it was an expensive lens (600) and he had repaired it once for 300 and planned to do it again... I didn't have the heart to tell him to toss it in the trash and get some quality.

I once saw a canon something to 200mm zoom fall 8 inches off a log on a camping trip.... and break in half. The thing with the cheaper Canon lenses is, you think you have a lens, then you don't. The guy who owned it had paid me to take him out on a 3 day camping trip, we were right across the lake from an osprey nest, and now he didn't have a telephoto. I've never seen a Pentax lens break, and it's not because I haven't had a few fall off car seats or benches etc.

[Sagitta]

I don't look at my lenses as investments, but rather as extensions of the camera. I explain lenses to people when they ask by comparing my camera to a Dremel. Sure, I could just use the thing with the bits that came with it, but new parts (lenses( extend the abilities of the tool (camera) and open up opportunities for experimentation and creativity.

This why I bought what lenses I did with my last major expenditure - they're both f/1.4's, which allows more night/low light shots, something I enjoy doing.

Most average people look at a camera as they would their phone, or a stove, or whatever. Its a tool used to get an end result. If you can get that end result with what you have, why change? If they don't see the need to improve those results, then why buy lenses?

A big chunk of my brand loyalty to Pentax isn't because I'm buying Pentax - its that case full of Pentax lenses I'd need to replace if I changed brands.

[Stavri]

When Mrs. drypenn once asked me how much I bought my K50/1.2, and I told her: about $320, she was surprised and quickly remarked "How can it be so expensive when it's still a piece of glass?"-- a question I dared not answer!

Then more than a month ago, she asked how much my K3 was, and I told her: about $900, and all she said was: "That's nice".

I laughed so hard when I read it...

[Rondec]

Getting started on better lenses is just something most people don't want to get into. Despite what is said above, for many images a kit lens is good enough. Or as I pointed out in the thread here... in landscape other factors beside lens quality can have a defining effect on a picture.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/12-post-your-photos/290283-landscape-yet-...challenge.html

The difference between shooting with my K-3 and K-5 is way more than adding a specific lens could have given me. I get more out of my lenses, even the cheaper ones. Now you can argue all you want I could have gotten along with my K-5 and I could have. But lenses get left home, the body comes with me every day.

But then, I'm constantly being told by some my DA 18-135 which goes with me everywhere isn't as good as their whatever happens to be their favourite. I generally look at the pictures and yawn. The above thread was my way of yawning.

I didn't find that thread useful. The question is what happens if you use your best skill and shoot in the sweet spot, etc with different lenses. In that thread, you posted a bunch of random shots, many of which don't feel particularly well exposed or sharp. I would have deleted them. The question isn't can you take crappy photos with an expensive lens, it is if you do your best with two lenses, will one shine above another.

Good glass can make a difference in a number of ways. First of all, I find that off brand lenses have a tendency to give washed out, muddy colors, sometimes with low contrast. There is only so much you can do to add contrast after the fact. The 18-135 actually has very nice contrast and also has nice colors, even if sharpness isn't great in the borders at the long end.

My "worst" lens right now is a Promaster (Tamron?) 28-200. I have tried shooting with it a couple of times and yes, I can with a lot of work in post processing get decent results from it, but it takes a lot more work compared to photos taken with a DA limited prime or, even a DA *zoom.

Promaster 28-200.





DA 15 limited.



DA *16-50



I did my best in each setting to get the maximum out of each lens, but I can't get nearly as much out of the Promaster.

---

Last edited by Rondec; 03-19-2015 at 11:49 AM.

[Stavri]

Isn't it a story about Ansel Adams and Ernest Hemingway? Hemingway: "Nice photos, Mr Adams, what kind of camera did you use?" Adams: "Good stories, Mr Hemingway. What typewriter did you use?"

Two storytellers using different tools....

A friend asked me to take photos with his Canon the other day. First it was a spur of the moment request at it a birthday party, second I have never used this camera, third the lens was broken. It was a 15-85 I think, and frequently when zooming it literally got stuck and would not turn so suddenly you were not able to zoom. Then when I told him about the problem, he told me it was an expensive lens (600) and he had repaired it once for 300 and planned to do it again... I didn't have the heart to tell him to toss it in the trash and get some quality.

Some people stick to their kits for all their lives and that's fine. The real shame is paying a lot for little to no gains...

[Clavius]

I get that some people don't want to bother with different lenses... Then why pay the premium for an ILC in the first place? I mean, a DSLR with only one lens, is a very bulky fixed lens camera.

[fuent104]

I think the key is to explain why a new lens is better. It's not difficult. In the case of a 5.6 kit lens, a 2.8 lens is 2 sorts faster, which means the difference between 1/30 and 1/120 shutter speed in low light, which means pictures will be less blurry.

The case against Canon sensors is greatly overstated. Their cameras are used very frequently by professional photographers. Unless you think most of their work looks bad, it doesn't make a lot of sense to say their sensors are no good.

[Kath]

Guys like that are probably happier in the long run than those of us who suffer from our irrational LBA or continual new camera lusts. :-D

I think you're probably right about that. Certainly their wallets are thicker than ours.

[narual]

I get that some people don't want to bother with different lenses... Then why pay the premium for an ILC in the first place? I mean, a DSLR with only one lens, is a very bulky fixed lens camera.

I've always wondered that, too.

I mean, it's one thing to have a lens you use the great majority of the time. I get that. A decent superzoom, particularly - 18-135/200/250 or whatever -- is very convenient, still takes better photos than the 18-50 or whatever kit lens, and does what you need most of the time. But if that's all you're going to use, there are bridge cameras with the same range that might have better image quality, being optimized for that specific lens. Before I switched to Pentax, I used my 18-200 for probably 90% of the images on my nikon, but I had a fast normal-ish (35/1.8) prime, and an ultra wide (sigma 10-20) for situations where the 18-200 wouldn't do the trick.

[pete-tarmigan]

I have a couple of workmates who are interested in photography and have cheap/old Canon DSLRs. One of them, who now has a 1100D and a couple of kit lenses and produces decent results with them, asked me my opinion as he was thinking of upgrading. He presented his options as the 70D or original 7D, which are now around the same price.

My first response was that they both had one problem - they were made by Canon, who have the worst sensors on the market. A quick check of DXO ratings really took him aback: 70D - 68, 7D - 66, K3 - 80. His 1100D scores at 62. He knows I just bought a K3 and it goes for about the same price as the two Canons. Anyway, he doesn't want to change lenses, even though he just has cheap kit lenses.

My second response was that he would see a much clearer improvement in his images if he upgraded to a better lens rather than a better body, and that it would cost him much less (I had the Tamron 17-50 in mind). At that point he did what ABSOLUTELY EVERYBODY I've ever suggested this to: the eyes glaze over, the mouth starts to move but no sound comes out, and the brain leaps into gear trying to think up valid reasons why the lens suggestion might not work and it had to be a new camera.

I pointed out it would be cheaper, the results would be better, his wife would see the results and not be so unhappy about the expenditure, nothing shifted him. He wanted a new camera and he was going to have one, and never mind the results. He even insisted it had to be a Canon, despite showing that the models he was looking at had markedly inferior IQ to similarly priced alternatives.

I don't understand. Why do people not prioritise results over new gadgetry? Why does a lens not qualify as a new gadget to play with? People won't see reason and it makes no sense

Tell him that a camera is just a box with a hole in it, and that it is the lenses make the difference.

---------- Post added 19th Mar 2015 at 16:08 ----------

modern computers helping with lens engineering..

In the past, designing a lens took a room full of mathematicians a long time to do the calculations for a single design. Now it is done on personal computers in seconds.

[savoche]

I think another reason why people disregard lenses is that, well, how much will expensive glass really help you if you never move out of auto mode? Not that a new camera will help you either, but we'd like to believe new tech is better.

Isn't it a story about Ansel Adams and Ernest Hemingway? Hemingway: "Nice photos, Mr Adams, what kind of camera did you use?" Adams: "Good stories, Mr Hemingway. What typewriter did you use?"

Hemingway and Irving Penn, I believe. Well, if it ever happened... But why spoil a good anecdote

[RobA_Oz]

…Hemingway and Irving Penn, I believe. Well, if it ever happened... But why spoil a good anecdote

"If", indeed, but like many apocryphal stories, it serves to make a point to the uninitiated.