back alley
IMAGES
...****not looking for a fight****...
i have been looking at lots of images lately, here and elsewhere on the net...some were made with incredibly cheap lenses and some with very expensive lenses.
some images were just plain crap and some were exquisite and many were just really, really good...
some images were from rf lenses and some were from dslr lenses.
some were digital and some were film images.
i think you get my drift...
what got me most is that it didn't seem to matter what lens was used...the images were all similar enough for me to think that a thousand dollar lens and a 450 dollar lens does pretty much the same job.
i'm not talking about tripod mounted lenses or medium format here...but most of us shoot handheld 35mm cameras or cropped sensor cameras...
bokeh varied some, corner sharpness too...but in the end - does it really make that much difference?
i have been looking at lots of images lately, here and elsewhere on the net...some were made with incredibly cheap lenses and some with very expensive lenses.
some images were just plain crap and some were exquisite and many were just really, really good...
some images were from rf lenses and some were from dslr lenses.
some were digital and some were film images.
i think you get my drift...
what got me most is that it didn't seem to matter what lens was used...the images were all similar enough for me to think that a thousand dollar lens and a 450 dollar lens does pretty much the same job.
i'm not talking about tripod mounted lenses or medium format here...but most of us shoot handheld 35mm cameras or cropped sensor cameras...
bokeh varied some, corner sharpness too...but in the end - does it really make that much difference?
Brian Legge
Veteran
As long as I'm happy with the results I'm getting while shooting, no, it doesn't. 
I'm picky about a few things. I like the ability to have sharp shots when what I envision calls for it. I easily distracted and shoot wide open as I'm usually short on speed so I don't like swirly, excessively sharp bokeh.
In the end though, I'm begrudgingly accepting that I spend much more time preparing to shoot than actually being out making images. For the next 6 months, it will be dark when I leave for work and dark when I get home, 5 days a week. I'll be lucky if I average a good 1 hours of shooting a week.
Once I hit that realization I'm starting to feel like I may as well sell almost everything and drop down to a basic kit as I won't be doing all the shooting I keep thinking I'll find time to do at some point.
I'm picky about a few things. I like the ability to have sharp shots when what I envision calls for it. I easily distracted and shoot wide open as I'm usually short on speed so I don't like swirly, excessively sharp bokeh.
In the end though, I'm begrudgingly accepting that I spend much more time preparing to shoot than actually being out making images. For the next 6 months, it will be dark when I leave for work and dark when I get home, 5 days a week. I'll be lucky if I average a good 1 hours of shooting a week.
Once I hit that realization I'm starting to feel like I may as well sell almost everything and drop down to a basic kit as I won't be doing all the shooting I keep thinking I'll find time to do at some point.
Crazy Fedya
Well-known
I think it is like purses for women: some are $20, some are $2000. Purpose and result are the same.
I guess it all depends on the woman, her fashion sense and her priorities.
And, by the way, I am also not looking for a (cat)fight.
I guess it all depends on the woman, her fashion sense and her priorities.
And, by the way, I am also not looking for a (cat)fight.
mwooten
light user
"...does it really make that much difference?"
Nope, not to me.
Nope, not to me.
paulfish4570
Veteran
no ........
NickTrop
Veteran
Short answer is no - it doesn't, not at all. This is especially true of uncomplicated primes with practically the same optical formula for decades and decades. I would, however, argue that a cheap modern prime is better than an expensive legacy prime for the simple reason that they control flare better due to improvements in coating technology and the manufacturing process. Also, part of the lower cost is due to computer-aided design and being smart about where to cut corners (plastic lens barrel) and where not to (da glass). Also, expensive in-lens correction for things like barrel distortion is now adjusted cheaply with in-camera firmware very often. Cheap new lenses are technically better than expensive legacy glass... just like new cars are simply better than old cars. - They just are. You're welcome to like old things all you want, be my guest. And there is an undeniable charm in them, but that is an emotional and not rational reason to use them. Certain old primes do have a signature... but do you really want a lens to impose its "stamp" on something you're attempting to shoot - however pleasing to your eye said "stamp" may be?
Last edited:
JayM
Well-known
No.
I do think it's interesting and fun to learn about and look at and I do appreciate the neat little differences etc. While I like being knowledgeable about this kind of trivia it has nothing to do with photography.
I do think it's interesting and fun to learn about and look at and I do appreciate the neat little differences etc. While I like being knowledgeable about this kind of trivia it has nothing to do with photography.
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
The Toyota will get me to the supermarket as well as the Porsche but I am sure I would enjoy the Porsche more.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Joe: I am not looking for a fight either, just expressing my own personal thoughts.
I think if someone is noticing lens characteristics in your photos, it means one or possibly both of two things:
1) the observer is more interested in equipment than photographs and/or
2) your skills as a photographer are weak
bfjr
New to RF Just Not New
no and I shoot a CanonQL17 but gee I'd like an M9 & Lux but my images would not change, well maybe
monochromejrnl
Well-known
here is the dilemma and the strength of photography... it is the easiest medium in which to be competent, but it is the hardest medium in which to have a personal vision that is readily identifiable... Chuck Close
In the past I would, perhaps, subconsciously, chase gear with the mistaken belief that the 'personal vision that was readily identified' could be achieved by using the 'right' lens...
I now accept that the only way to achieve my vision is to commit myself to shooting things that matter to me ... I only hope to have more time to commit to this pursuit rather than hope for more gear...
In the past I would, perhaps, subconsciously, chase gear with the mistaken belief that the 'personal vision that was readily identified' could be achieved by using the 'right' lens...
I now accept that the only way to achieve my vision is to commit myself to shooting things that matter to me ... I only hope to have more time to commit to this pursuit rather than hope for more gear...
Last edited:
back alley
IMAGES
not the same...you can really 'feel' the difference in that comparison...but the difference between a cv 35 and a leica 35 would fool most in a blind test.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
I understand that emotion and accept that some have it.
Others are more concerned with what you brought home from the supermarket.
zauhar
Veteran
Joe you are 100% correct.
I dislike digital cameras, I do not dislike the images people record with them.
If things continue the way they are, I may eventually have to consider a digital, at least for color. ;-(
As for lenses, I am not experienced enough to fully appreciate some of the lens comparisons I see, but I cannot imagine where a specific choice of lens would "make or break" an image.
Randy
I dislike digital cameras, I do not dislike the images people record with them.
If things continue the way they are, I may eventually have to consider a digital, at least for color. ;-(
As for lenses, I am not experienced enough to fully appreciate some of the lens comparisons I see, but I cannot imagine where a specific choice of lens would "make or break" an image.
Randy
redisburning
Well-known
a hobby I had long before I started taking pictures (well, in relative terms as I am still very young) is electric guitar.
I can tell you from experience that a strat makes you want to play certain things, a les paul another and a PRS makes you want to sing like that guy from Pearl Jam.
I wish I was good enough and had a concentrated enough aesthetic focus that I made the same pictures with a 18-55mm kit lens as I make with my favorite lens (the Rokkor 58mm f1.2) but it just isn't happening.
And so, I lust still for the super angulons and xenotars of the world!
I can tell you from experience that a strat makes you want to play certain things, a les paul another and a PRS makes you want to sing like that guy from Pearl Jam.
I wish I was good enough and had a concentrated enough aesthetic focus that I made the same pictures with a 18-55mm kit lens as I make with my favorite lens (the Rokkor 58mm f1.2) but it just isn't happening.
And so, I lust still for the super angulons and xenotars of the world!
wgerrard
Veteran
The differences are difficult to discern and even more difficult to exploit consistently, and in no way proportional to price. A $5000 lens does not make you 10 times more likely to take great photos than a $500 lens. How many of us really know what that $5000 lens does that is superior to the $500 lens *and* how to leverage it purposefully to produce obviously better images?
gns
Well-known
You are asking, does it matter as far as how the picture looks. I think we all know the answer. It matters some, but what matters much much more is where you point the camera.
gb hill
Veteran
One can tell a difference in Canon L lenses & non L Canon lenses.
f16sunshine
Moderator
When it matters it matters when it does not it really does not.
For most of what qualifies as street photography and the size we view these works, It really does not matter at all what lens or character (the genre most popular with RF shooters).
In architecture or when fine details are desired. Lens IQ and characteristics can make or break a shot.
Macro or comercial "product" shooters again need the high res and high dollar kit.
Portrait and candid not so much.
It's a strange quandary. Why own a $4000 Summilux FLE to do street work when a $50 fixed lens camera from the 70's will do the work??
For most of what qualifies as street photography and the size we view these works, It really does not matter at all what lens or character (the genre most popular with RF shooters).
In architecture or when fine details are desired. Lens IQ and characteristics can make or break a shot.
Macro or comercial "product" shooters again need the high res and high dollar kit.
Portrait and candid not so much.
It's a strange quandary. Why own a $4000 Summilux FLE to do street work when a $50 fixed lens camera from the 70's will do the work??
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
In large prints you can see the difference between expensive and cheap lenses. Now, when I say cheap, I don't mean CV lenses, which are not especially cheap. They're only cheap compared to Leica. Compared to cheap zooms made by Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, and the Japanese DSLR makers like Nikon and Canon, the CV lenses are both costly and sharp.