[philbaum]

Or to put it another way...

... any difference that makes no practical real world difference is no difference.

Exactly. I've seen test pictures enlarged to 200% to enable one to tell the difference between one lens and another one. And I just love these threads where the OP will ask what lens the picture was taken with. Usually noone guesses correctly. And then the op will admit that it was taken with a smart phone or something modest.

I don't have any problem with folks making a scientific study out of lens choices, but many of us would be better off spending more of our free time out taking pics, including me And frankly, i'm of an age where i don't get a kick out of carrying heavy lenses.

[Winder]

You Tube

You Tube

I like Jason. Its good to see you don't need a lot of talent to be successful as a photographer.

[petrakka]

Just because someone wants a supercompact gutless optical wonder doesn't mean the rest of us have to suffer for it. In the end: we all shoot the glass we deserve, because of the compromises we are unwilling to make. I haul some pretty heavy lenses even when I'm traveling: It is a price I pay, and I pay it gladly, because I know my lenses are the best - they won't let me down.

yea, and that's all fine, but for many people sacrificing mobility is the compromise that they won't make, and it sometimes makes all the difference between even making a photograph or not at all.


I can't think of one - not one - extraordinary image where the sharpness and lens properties being better would really matter. None of the most famous lasting, most interesting works of photographic art rely on this, and if they do they don't mess with small format at all. Soulless commercial, scientific and architectural reproduction might matter in this realm, but that's not really the argument I'm hearing. Migrant Mother is out of focus. No one cares. Robert Frank has lots of blurry, grainy 35mm frames.
Wanting the technically best equipment is one thing, but framing it as is the uncompromising righteous solution is silly, unless your use is extremely specialized (which hey, maybe it is, but for most people it's not) because it has no bearing on making a better picture, just a negligible (if at all) perceptible difference in detail and reproductive accuracy, which is where photography is at its most boring as a creative pursuit anyways. As someone who has travelled plenty with 4x5 and 6x6 systems to a stocked traditional DSLR kit with big telephotos to mirrorless and everything in between, heavy lenses and equipment definitely let you down when you can't use them as easily. That even applies to landscape work.

[wildman]

framing it as is the uncompromising righteous solution is silly,

To wit;

gutless optical wonder

the rest of us have to suffer

we all shoot the glass we deserve

I know my lenses are the best

they won't let me down.

That's not the vocabulary of a dispassionate technician.
----------------------

Paul Strand "Blind" 1916...

---

Last edited by wildman; 02-22-2016 at 10:51 AM.

[Digitalis]

That's not the vocabulary of a dispassionate technician but some sort of fundamentalist optical Taliban.

That comment is profoundly offensive to me, but I support your right to say it.

[Sliver-Surfer]

Serious prices too.

If they are as good as Sony claims they are going to be some of the best glass ever made. Worth the money and will push other companies to push boundaries.

[wildman]

That comment is profoundly offensive to me,

In that case I apologize.
I was speaking, of course, metaphorically and assumed it would be understood that way - apparently not.
In any case I will correct my post to something less controversial.

[Winder]

If they are as good as Sony claims they are going to be some of the best glass ever made. Worth the money and will push other companies to push boundaries.

Sony needs to improve their quality control. They can design excellent glass, but they do have a history of quality variance from lens to lens. They have to be more consistent.

[JohnBee]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XanRJLX-2vo

I like Jason. Its good to see you don't need a lot of talent to be successful as a photographer.

Indeed. I've seen a video of him in the past and didn't find his work very compelling, but... he has the goods and appears to do a good job at showcasing it.

PS. based on what I'm seeing, I'm thinking the G master lenses will become THE glass to beat for the next little while. Or at least until some other camera manufacturer decides to try and subdue their userbase with lenses of comparable quality.

[GeneV]

I'm a bit cynical about purity. It seems to often that purity, i.e. thats the way its properly done, has been used as an excuse to maintain the status quo. In Ansel Adams day, one would use an optical enlarger to change the size of a picture. Today, we use digital algorithms to resize an image and few people argue about it.

I don't know much about the tradeoffs between optical and digital correction, but i believe that the more optical correction that occurs, generally the more elements and groups and therefore a reduction in light transmission so thats a tradeoff. I think, don't know for sure, that the weight and size of lenses (and camera bodies) is an important factor to a sizable number of customers. For example, every photographic forum gets those chronic posts about traveling where the OP wants to know a lightweight easy carrying camera system for this vacation trip or that everyday need, etc. Every Sony forum also gets occasional posts where someone who doesn't want to carry their heavy/large canikon bag anymore and wants to get a lighter system. My point is that lightweight/small lenses represent a market niche if a mfr can exploit them, e.g. Pentax's pancake lenses. (of course, not everyone wants a lightweight system, but thats a different niche)

The Sony 28 f2 and 55 f1.8 are 2 lenses that are always in my bag or on the camera because of their lightweight and excellent IQ - i don't care how they were corrected so long as the images look good when printed to 20"x30".

I am not an engineer, and I do not necessarily have a strong opinion here. Most of the lenses I use on my Sony bodies are adapted Pentax lenses. However, it also seems to me that adding elements or novel grinds will have effects on IQ, size, weight, etc. If digital distortion correction saves an element and does not add much other detriment, then doing the correction in PP may be smart thinking outside the box. If it causes other issues with the end result, that is another matter.

If clues to the correction are in the raw file, that is just a time saver for me. The first time I used a raw file from the Sony 16-50, it was a real pain to duplicate their correction. I don't use this lens very often because you either take the jpeg, or it does take some PP work if you are picky. However it is a package which is almost point and shoot sized, but capable of some very nice results.

[Winder]

Indeed. I've seen a video of him in the past and didn't find his work very compelling, but... he has the goods and appears to do a good job at showcasing it.

PS. based on what I'm seeing, I'm thinking the G master lenses will become THE glass to beat for the next little while. Or at least until some other camera manufacturer decides to try and subdue their userbase with lenses of comparable quality.

I think the future is bright for the Sony FE line. Once the lenses are in place I think we see the larger A9 with better controls, bigger battery and more processing power.

[wildman]

it also seems to me that adding elements or novel grinds will have effects on IQ, size, weight, etc.

Every element you introduce to correct an aberration also, in turn, has the potential to introduce it's own aberrations.

[GeneV]

PS. based on what I'm seeing, I'm thinking the G master lenses will become THE glass to beat for the next little while. Or at least until some other camera manufacturer decides to try and subdue their userbase with lenses of comparable quality.

I hope their performance is a force to be reckoned with, because the prices are certainly to be reckoned with. Some $3k plus prices there for lenses that are significantly less from other major manufacturers.

[philbaum]

I think the future is bright for the Sony FE line. Once the lenses are in place I think we see the larger A9 with better controls, bigger battery and more processing power.

I think you are right - the A7 models are somewhat limited on battery size, temp issues, lens sizes/balance, so i definitely think Sony is aiming at a complete line from aps, A7 and A9.

Kudos to all Pentax owners with their eye on the K1 - very aggressive pricing on that FF and a bargain IMO.

Phil

[Sliver-Surfer]

Zeiss Batis vs G-master

You Tube

You Tube