Hard decision -- which mirrorless to choose?

<p>brad is one of the best street photographers in the bay area, which probably makes him one of the best in the world. he's got the eye for a good shot, so what he sees may not be what you see. if he thinks the 16-50 is good enough, i'll take his word for it. it doesnt matter anyway, because the OP isnt considering that lens.</p>

<p>myself, i just took a few shots with the 27mm pancake. it appears i may have underestimated the lens. it's so compact on the XE1 and dead sharp.</p><div></div>

<p>another one:</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>That was actually my advice too, very early in the thread:</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry Laurentiu, I missed that. :)</p>

<p>Eric,<br>

I'm not splitting hairs but 'kit' lenses from most manufacturers are usually just O.K. the Fuji 18-55 is a fine lens that is discounted with the purchase of a body. It is not included in the current lens sale. Maybe 'package deal' lens is a better way of describing it. It certainly had me confused when I was looking into Fuji's MILC offerings. ;-)<br>

The 27 is an excellent lens and at $199...a real bargain.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think I understand where you are coming from. You are looking for photos that show and demonstrate special lens properties.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Isn't that what we all look for when looking for equipment recommendations? This is a thread about an equipment choice not about artistic results.<br>

<br>

If you would have claimed that your photo was made special in some way by the use of that lens, I would have seen it as relevant, but you seem to claim that despite its optical mediocrity you can use it for artistic results - I am not sure how that counts as a recommendation.<br>

<br>

And yes, I don't have to own the 16-50 to make a judgement about it when you provide me with a sample that confirms my expectation and that also correlates well with what I see in reviews.<br>

<br>

Equipment and technique are two different things. If you think an optically better lens stands in the way of your art, that is not for me to disapprove of, but then you shouldn't make equipment recommendations in a thread where someone is looking for IQ as one of his most important criteria.</p>

>>> Isn't that what we all look for when looking for equipment recommendations?<P>

 

Your photography appears to be about sharpness, equipment performance, reviews, etc. Many others' photography is about making

meaningful photographs.<P>

 

I think that kind of says it all. Looking at your blog, it is all about gear. Not so oddly, mine is about photographs and my thoughts

going into making them. <P>

 

>>> And yes, I don't have to own the 16-50 to make a judgement about it…<P>

 

Yet you so willingly judge that lens up above with zero personal experience. That speaks volumes.<P>

 

>>> If you think an optically better lens stands in the way of your art, that is not for me to disapprove of, but then you shouldn't

make equipment recommendations in a thread where someone is looking for IQ as one of his most important criteria.<P>

 

An optically better lens stands in the way of my art? I never thought or said that. Those are your words. Is that so you can knock

down the straw man you just created? In the end, it just adds to the hyperbole of internet my lens is better than yours kind of stuff.

Perhaps you shouldn't pass judgment on lenses you have *never used*.<P>

 

I know this pains you immensely, but I'll continue to make recommendations based on my personal experience of actually *using*

the equipment that I speak of. Recommendations, BTW, are something I do rarely. I prefer to let my photos speak, rather than

engage in meaningless yada yada about which lens is better, MTF, curves, etc, etc. I totally understand that appears to be what

your photography is about, and that you will continue to judge and talk about lenses that you have never owned or used.<P>

 

<center>

.<P>

<img src= "http://citysnaps.net/2014%20Photos/Kissing.jpg"><BR>

<i>

San Francisco • ©Brad Evans 2013

</i> <BR>.</center>

<P>

Addendum…<P>

 

<a href= "http://citysnaps.net/2011%20photos/TL%20Faces%202011/">Here is a set of stranger portraits I made

in one neighborhood</a>, San Francisco's Tenderloin district. Not that it is particularly important, they were

made with a different lens. One I also enjoy using and recommend for anyone doing street

photography or street portraiture.<P>

 

I suspect after you look at that set, you would come away saying the same thing as you are about my 16-50

lens comments. Simply because I have my own way of post processing, and don't crank up the sharpness and

clarity sliders to the level that pleases you for your photographs.<P>

 

From making more than a thousand portraits of strangers made on the street with that lens, I feel qualified in

recommending it. Though I suspect you don't, I think most people understand where I'm coming from.

<p>My choice of mirrowless was based on my delight in using the Panasonic G3 .... but wanting the 'outside controls' I went for the GH2 with similar knobs etc found on a DSLR. The GH3 was a month late arriving in my 'purchasing window' otherwise I would have bought that. I only needed a body as I already had the 14-140 lens .... just becuase one has an ILC doesn't mean you have to change lenses and I rarely do ... but of course that is a a pre-occupation with most DSLR owners it seems :)<br>

I am a bridge camera disciple and all it stands for as a working tool.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Eric,<br /> I'm not splitting hairs but 'kit' lenses from most manufacturers are usually just O.K. the Fuji 18-55 is a fine lens that is discounted with the purchase of a body.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>earlier in the thread, i explained what makes the 18-55 a "better-than-OK" kit lens: solid metal build, sharp glass, fast(er) aperture range, effective stabilization, compact size (compared to nikon DX and FX lenses).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It is not included in the current lens sale. Maybe 'package deal' lens is a better way of describing it. It certainly had me confused when I was looking into Fuji's MILC offerings. ;-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Since the OP is considering it with the XE1 and received the advice to go body-only, i felt like i had to reiterate that getting it with the XE1 for $800 or less is a tremendous deal.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> The 27 is an excellent lens and at $199...a real bargain.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>it's probably not worth $450, but at that price it's a steal. it makes the XE1 as compact as just about anything out there, yet with APS-C sensor size.</p>

<p>now, as far as aesthetics go, i rarely do much post-processing as i prefer to get it right in camera. most pics i dont even apply sharpening to, and i tend to have a very light hand with saturation and contrast too. so the naked performance of a lens is very important to me. i think i said this before, but the Fuji system really delivers on IQ. there are some other reasons to choose other systems, but i havent seen too many people disappointed with the Fuji optical output.</p>

>>> Since the OP is considering it with the XE1 and received the advice to go body-only, i felt like i had

to reiterate that getting it with the XE1 for $800 or less is a tremendous deal.

 

Absolutely. Since the lens by itself is $695 (Amazon), it would be foolish to buy the X-E1 without it. And

then with any body upgrade one might contemplate in the future, you would have an excellent all around zoom lens going forward.

 

Having rented an X-E2 with 18-55 lens for a week back in December, like Eric, I came away very

impressed with the lens. It's excellent, though I suspect if Laurentiu were to look at the photos I made with

it, he would say the lens is "optically mediocre" and I should not be recommending it.

 

Oh well...

<blockquote>

<p>Your photography appears to be about sharpness, equipment performance, reviews, etc.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Brad, my photography is not specifically about anything. I fool around with equipment trying to figure out what I can do with it. Occasionally, I have an idea and then I try to use my knowledge to realize it, but most of the time, it is just the pleasure of recording things that I find interesting - I do not have the time to push it to a higher level. And when it comes to gear, I prefer to see objective measurements to subjective opinion.</p>

<p>Have you looked at the photographs that Jacques shared? Most of them are birds - I can tell you that whoever is interested in photographing birds will appreciate sharp lenses because they'll often have to crop so they'll need to capture as much detail as they can. And I don't think it would be a stretch to assume that he would appreciate sharpness in all his lenses, not just his telephotos.</p>

<p>Sharpness matters in many areas. Nobody does macro work with unsharp lenses. Sharpness is generally expected in inherently technical areas like macro, nature, sports.<br /> <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/6066271052"><img src="http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6194/6066271052_b11c275b23.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="333" /></a><br /> You cannot fake sharpness. This shot was sharp to begin with. With a mediocre lens, I would get a mediocre result and people that are used with a certain standard of image quality will quickly notice the difference. It is great that this does not matter for your photography, but you should at least first check that it also does not matter for Jacques.</p>

<p>It is not even just about sharpness. But sharpness was the only element I could figure was not in your sample photo. At the size you shared it, I couldn't estimate anything else, really. Not that my example was doing better in these other categories, but that was exactly my point - it is not hard to make a lens look good in small samples and if you cannot even do that, what kind of recommendation are you making for that lens?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Looking at your blog, it is all about gear.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you! My blog is written to provide help for those that are looking to buy equipment. I am not an artist and I don't strive to become one. I make a point to not even discuss art - I have my opinions about it but I never saw a discussion on art getting anywhere and people are also never as touchy as when you discuss the merit of their work. On my blog I share my experience with gear and my opinion about the photography industry. I can knock my images around on artistic merits as well as any other person, but I do take some of them specifically so as to make points about gear capabilities.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Perhaps you shouldn't pass judgment on lenses you have *never used*.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I pass judgement because I have the experience to derive it from. I spent enough time with lenses from 50s up to modern era to know a bit about how they compare and how you can make them look better than they really are. I realize you don't care about that way of looking at equipment, but my comments are not for your benefit, they are for the benefit of Jacques or any other person looking at their choices and trying to gain some insight <strong>into gear differences</strong>.<br /> <br /> I joined photo forums to look for advice because I initially meant to invest in just a few lenses. And I got both good and bad advice and eventually went through a lot of gear just to see for myself what is going on. Now I kind of know what to expect from equipment although I still don't have a clear goal for my photography - I just don't get enough time to raise it from the level of "target of opportunity snapshooting" - it is just one of my many hobbies and they really come in second place to other responsibilities I have.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>One I also enjoy using and recommend for anyone doing street photography or street portraiture.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Portraiture is about the least demanding endeavor I can come up with in terms of what qualities it demands from a lens. You don't really care how the image looks in borders, human faces don't have edges to showcase chromatic aberration or purple fringing (and with B&W you don't even care if they would have such issues), and even lack of sharpness is not bothersome. Portraiture is more about the photographer and the subject than it is about the lens.<br /> <br /> BTW, I enjoyed your last photograph and particularly your set of portraits - the latter is excellent work and I don't say that to flatter you - I think it so even if we would keep arguing - we don't have to agree for me to appreciate your work. Do you happen to share your photos on flickr as well? I just don't have much time to follow people on multiple sites. I'll probably cut my posting here too - this is the last social place I stuck with because it was the first I joined.<br /> <br /> Anyway, back to our discussion, as much as I appreciate your work, it doesn't showcase your equipment but your skills. Really, this discussion we're having now about your photographs and gear selection would be more relevant to the "<a href="/casual-conversations-forum/00cRPt">equipment is good enough</a>" thread we've had recently, not on a thread about gear purchasing. :)</p>

<p>Thanks for sharing your portraiture work.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Having rented an X-E2 with 18-55 lens for a week back in December, like Eric, I came away very impressed with the lens. It's excellent, though I suspect if Laurentiu were to look at the photos I made with it, he would say the lens is "optically mediocre" and I should not be recommending it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would be surprised if it would look that way and I'd really like to see your work with it. I did say the 18-55 is special and yes I have not used that lens either but the specs and reviews show it to be better than the 16-50 or my 14-42, so I'd be really surprised if that would not show in images as well.</p>

>>> I pass judgement because I have the experience to derive it from.<P>

 

Most people I know pass judgement on cameras/lenses/gear from actually *using* and making photographs with the equipment on which they are passing judgment. I would NEVER judge/recommend/not-recommend to others anything I have never personally used. That would be dishonest of me.

<P>

 

>>> Portraiture is about the least demanding endeavor I can come up with in terms of what qualities it demands from a lens.

<P>

 

Odd, I find it very demanding. But then I really care a lot about photos of people, and less about other things. Just

curious, would you say the lens used in that set of portraits is good or mediocre? One you would recommend or not recommend?<P>

 

>>> BTW, do you happen to share your photos on flickr as well?<P>

 

Four or five years ago i used flickr a lot and had a couple thousand photos. A couple years ago I knocked it back to a dozen

photos. More than enough. Less is more. <a href= "http://www.flickr.com/photos/34262722@N00/">But here's a

link anyway…</a><P>

 

>>> I would be surprised if it would look that way and I'd really like to see your work with it. I did say the 18-55 is special and yes I have not used that lens either but the specs and reviews show it to be better than the 16-50 or my 14-42, so I'd be really surprised if that would not show in images as well.

 

 

<P>

 

<a href= "http://citysnaps.net/2014%20Photos/Fuji%20Snaps/">OK… Here's a set of photos</a>. Some are from the Fuji X-

E2 with 18-55mm lens, some are from the much less expensive Fuji X-A1 with 16-50mm lens (the difference in price was even

greater before the introduction of the X-T1). The photos are intentionally mixed up. Feel free to me which photo came

from which camera and lens.

<p>Conversations like this remind me of the power of irony. While too often on the internets irony comes across as facile and smug, it's also often the pithiest way to make a point.</p>

<p>Helmut Newton quoted Henri Cartier-Bresson as having said, in a conversation between the two photographers, <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/opposites-attract-137833">"Sharpness," he told Newton, "is a bourgeois concept." Newton sits back and laughs: "I thought that was just divine."</a></p>

<p>The full context of that conversation is often omitted in reciting that quote. HCB, in advancing years, had shaky hands and more blurred photos. I've experienced that myself. I suspect HCB would enjoy this era of capable P&S cameras with image stabilization. I do. It gives me the power to choose when to make my photos soft and blurry. Which I often do despite the technology.</p>

<p>Perhaps it's because we prefer confirmation bias. Perhaps because the full context dulls the razor we wish to use, or removes the barb from the fishhook we'd prefer to snag our prey.</p>

<p>Or does it?</p>

<p>Despite the full context, I still see HCB's famous quip as both razor sharp and barbed. He'd lived long enough and practiced photography long enough to have heard every argument about aesthetics, technique and equipment that we're still revisiting today.</p>

<p>Aesthetics are squishy things, mutable, subject to zeitgeist, the whim of the curator and worse, the opinion of the rabble. Sharpness is by-gosh definable and visible, right down to the aliasing jaggies in a cat's whiskers.</p>

<p>Measurements free us from the burden of experience, expertise and taste. When someone asks us "Wow! How did you get such a clear, sharp photo of a familiar, static and/or unchanging, unchallenging subject?" we can answer with supreme confidence "All you need is to buy Brand XXX and you too will enjoy equally clear, sharp photos of the same subjects!"</p>

<p>Measurements of sharpness allow us to commoditize photography. We can reduce everything to a formula, a recipe, a shopping list than can be purchased, followed to the letter and reproduced with consistency. And nothing is more comforting to the bourgeois than a commodity.</p>

<p>Anything else is too messy, too vague, disorienting, discomfiting, threatening. It requires us to learn skills that may take a lifetime, such as how to photograph strangers, vulnerable people who give us their trust based on a momentary impression.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"I like people for their weaknesses and faults. I get on well with ordinary people. We talk. We start with the weather, and little by little we get to the important things. When I photograph them it is not as if I were examining them with a magnifying class, like a cold and scientific observer. It's very brotherly. And it's better, isn't it, to shed some light on those people who are never in the limelight."</em> --Robert Doisneau</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>Most people I know pass judgement on cameras/lenses/gear from actually *using* and making photographs with the equipment on which they are passing judgment. I would NEVER judge/recommend/not-recommend to others anything I have never personally used.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I actually never recommended anything either - look back carefully at my statements. I just pointed out that the sample image that you provided does not recommend the lens. It was your sample, so I didn't have to buy the lens and use it myself to shoot one.<br /> <br /> I also stated:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The Fuji 18-55/2.8-4 is not a typical kit lens. Like with many of their lenses, this one shows that Fuji was targeting the enthusiast market.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which I can say again without having to buy and use that lens. An f/2.8-4 lens is not a typical kit lens aperture range. Nor is its metal build. And MTF numbers look above average as well.<br /> <br /> And it is not uncommon anyway for people to emit sound judgement about things they did not directly experience. I never experienced war either, but I can talk about it. I don't have to experience one to tell you it's bad. It would have been really hard for us to advance as a society if our understanding would always be dependent on direct experience. How could humanity have planned a moon landing without anyone ever having had any experience with it? But we did and it worked. And for those having doubts about the moon landing, just take something else - first space walk, first sea voyage, etc.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Odd, I find it very demanding.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>On your equipment? Doesn't sound like it. What I stated was:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Portraiture is about the least demanding endeavor I can come up with <strong>in terms of what qualities it demands from a lens</strong>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I was talking about the demands on the equipment, not the demands on the photographer.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Just curious, would you say the lens used in that set of portraits is good or mediocre?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I cannot form an opinion about the lens from those images - I can just form an opinion about the photographer. As I said, I cannot use a portrait to evaluate a lens. All the lenses I own are good for portraiture, but I don't think of them as being of equal optical quality. The only photo I could use for some estimation was the first one you posted, which did not seem processed in such a way as to mask lens issues - I still asked you about it just to be sure.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Feel free to me which photo came from which camera and lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My point was exactly that at such small sizes one cannot tell any differences, but that does not mean that they do not exist. I also would not estimate a lens based on any post processed images because post-processing can hide many issues. The easiest way to deal with chromatic aberration, for example, is to convert to B&W - few will ever be able to notice it that way. And your images have various effects added to them (that glow, for example) that basically make them inappropriate to estimate what the lens normally does.<br /> <br /> Some photographers make fun of test chart shots, but those test charts are designed specifically for surfacing issues with lens designs. If I want to know what a lens can do I'll check a lens review and if I'll want to know what I should do with a lens I might ask you, but note the difference between the goals there.</p>

<p>I look at those portraits from the Tenderloin and in my considerable experience and knowledge I would say they have nothing to do with vision, skill, communication, simpatico and joy, and really are all about the lenses, aren't they? </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Portraiture is about the least demanding endeavor I can come up with <strong>in terms of what qualities it demands from a lens</strong>.<br>

I was talking about the demands on the equipment, not the demands on the photographer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can think of some portrait photographers, particularly those who photograph kids scampering around, who'd be surprised to hear this.</p>

<p>I can't think of many real world scenarios more demanding than rendering details in the human eye, not to mention delicate skin textures and separation of hair.</p>

>>> I was talking about the demands on the equipment, not the demands on the photographer.

 

And so was I, the lens that is. The actual portrait making part just seems to happen OK on its own.

 

>>> I cannot form an opinion about the lens from those images - I can just form an opinion about the photographer.

 

Yet you formed an opinion earlier about my recommendation of the 16-50 zoom and concluded the lens was mediocre. Not that I care. I just think it's funny.

 

>>> My point was exactly that at such small sizes one cannot tell any differences, but that does not mean that they do not

exist.

 

Let me know how many megapixels you need. That's the way I connect with and get value from photographs so I will be happy to oblige with

some files.

 

>>> Some photographers make fun of test chart shots, but those test charts are designed specifically for surfacing issues with

lens designs. If I want to know what a lens can do I'll check a lens review and if I'll want to know what I should do with a lens I

might ask you, but note the difference between the goals there.

 

So that's where I'm going wrong! I've yet to study a lens chart or read a lens review - at least that I can remember. I do value opinions of photographers whose

work I admire and have respect for though. I seem to limp by on that.

<p>in the hands of an artist, a camera is a tool for making art. for others, it's just a piece of tech. while Laurentiu's ladygug pic is technically sharp, it doesnt evoke any emotional response from me, as a good environmental portrait might. there's nothing "wrong" with that pic; it just doesn't move me. if you look at the portrait spread in the current issue of Rolling Stone, shot by Theo Wenner, several of the pics aren't all that sharp. many have motion blur. yet they were deemed good enough for publication. at this point, it's fair to ponder why that is.</p>

<p>Having been privileged to edit the work of some of the members of the Bang Bang Club I can tell you the only things they cared about were the images that told the story - and were in focus. <br /><br />The former, is my responsibility as a photographer, the latter...?</p>

<p><strong>@Lex:</strong></p>

<blockquote>

<p>I can't think of many real world scenarios more demanding than rendering details in the human eye, not to mention delicate skin textures and separation of hair.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Depends on your style. Not all portraiture depends on those aspects to be effective. Brad's for example, doesn't rely on this. Look at all people doing available light portraiture - that is sub-optimal by definition with respect to those characteristics you mentioned.<br>

<br>

<strong>@Brad:</strong><br>

I explained why I said what I said and I don't really have more to add to it. I understand your point of view too. Where we have a crucial disconnect is in our interpretation of what a person asking about gear that provides "great IQ" is really looking for.<br>

<br>

<strong>@Eric:</strong></p>

<blockquote>

<p>while Laurentiu's ladygug pic is technically sharp, it doesnt evoke any emotional response from me</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It was not meant to. It was just an example of a sharp image (I hope it was effective in that aspect), the point being that you cannot get that attribute if the lens didn't provide it. A similar photo might be likelier to evoke an emotional response if it was slightly blurry, better composed, and differently processed, but that is a very different point than what I was making.<br>

<br>

I'd like to buy a lens that generates emotional response, by the way, but it doesn't look like anyone is making one. So for now, I tend to look for lenses with good resolution, not much distortion, few chromatic aberrations and I can live with coma, astigmatism, and some vignetting, even with not so great flare resistance. Any photographer can benefit from figuring out how these aspects translate into effects into their images and whether they matter or not for what they want to do.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Look at all people doing available light portraiture - that is sub-optimal by definition with respect to those characteristics you mentioned."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm seeing exactly the opposite of what you've described. Most of the good available light portrait photographers whose work I've seen show very demanding standards for apparent sharpness, particularly in eyes. Often they're using fast lenses wide open and getting remarkably sharp results, even when photographing active kids. There aren't many other photography subjects that are more demanding of equipment and ability.<br>

<br>

The trend the past few years in available light portraiture and wedding photography has been toward fast glass with shallow or selective DOF and very, very sharp details in faces - particularly eyes, but also realistic skin textures and hair separation. I don't see many good photographers in that style who are content with merely adequate glass, softened or blurred photos, and the best aren't resorting to fake ivory skin smoothing to completely remove skin texture. They're getting it right in the camera and using careful processing to enhance their results, not to fix the unfixable or correct for mediocre lenses and poor technique.<br>

<br>

Take a look at <a href="http://iantaylor.ca/">Ian Taylor</a>'s photographs of active kidlets. Unlike some family/kid available light portrait photographers he doesn't overprocess his photos to make stylized or idealized fauxtraits of faces with doll eyes and silk-smooth skin with all the natural texture processed out. </p>

<p>I've seen examples from other photographers who use a similar approach and do pretty well, but I haven't seen anyone who does it better. And I see questions from a lot of new would-be available light family/kid photographers who are obsessed with all the wrong priorities, such as Photoshop actions to "fix" their photos when they should be concentrating on technique and lighting to get the best results from the best lenses.</p>

<p>Incidentally - and back on the original topic of this thread - if I'm recalling correctly, Ian tried the Sony A7 earlier this year but swapped it for a Leica. Other than that I think he shoots mostly with Canon full frame dSLRs and fast glass. I don't recall why the Sony didn't quite meet his expectations - I don't recall whether it was lens sharpness, limited lens selection, camera responsiveness or what. The sample photos he showed looked great to me. But he's experienced and demanding enough to know what works best for his style, and at that level of expertise nths of a degree of sharpness and responsiveness do matter.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm seeing exactly the opposite of what you've described.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>We're just thinking of different things and have different examples in mind :)<br>

<br>

My point was that if you were looking <strong>just</strong> for perfection in "rendering details in the human eye, not to mention delicate skin textures and separation of hair", then you would prefer not to shoot wide open with very thin DOF and would shoot at base ISO only as well, to ensure you can use all your sensor's capacity for tonal reproduction. I also interpreted available light as low light, not just "no flash" - Ian's photos are generally taken in good light outdoor, only a few might have been indoor shots.<br>

<br>

That being said, now that you provided an example, I understand what you meant. And yes, if you want to do portraiture that way, you will have more specific demands on your lenses. Although I would still not be able to evaluate all the aspects of a lens from such work.</p>

>>> Where we have a crucial disconnect is in our interpretation of what a person asking about gear that provides

"great IQ" is really looking for.

 

That is not the disconnect - more on that later. I base my opinions on photographs that I make with the gear that I own using it on the street extensively. Period. Also, it seems you are now reading my mind about what I believe a person is looking for.

 

You base your opinions on gear that you have never owned or used, even once, and rely on others' views that you

find on the internet - views which can be all over the place and many times suspect. You parrot and propagate

others' opinions - that's all. Further, you discount my views merely because I don't make the kinds of photographs with

sharpness and clarity cranked up to your satisfaction, and are incredulous that someone could render an opinion

such as mine without first making photographs to your satisfaction - yet you still know nothing about the basis of my underlying

opinion. I think most are shaking their head on that, giving you little respect.

 

Again, I've never recommended any gear that I have not used. For me that would be dishonest. That's why I never

participate in the wedding forums, sports shooting forums, lighting forums, etc, even though it's easy enough

to parrot information and reviews from general knowledge I acquire, like you, from the internet. You see no problem

with that. I do. That's where the *real* disconnect is.

<blockquote>

<p>It was just an example of a sharp image (I hope it was <a id="itxthook1" href="/digital-camera-forum/00cSii?start=70" rel="nofollow">effective<img id="itxthook1icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" alt="" /></a> in that aspect)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>it was sharp, and i believe i commented on its sharpness. not sure what point you're trying to make. my point was that sharpness is overrated compared to things which emotionally resonate. that's just how the human brain works. if we were all unemotional robots, then nothing but sharpness would matter.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'd like to buy a lens that generates emotional response, by the way, but it doesn't look like anyone is making one.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the point is that lenses by themselves do one thing and one thing only: allow us to capture images. emotional response is best described as a feeling or a mood. it's not a function of sharpness, low CA or minimal distortion. what i'm trying to say is that composition is much more important in the larger scheme of things than whether you used the sharpest lens available. it's helpful to have a technical understanding of any art form, but some highy-technical images are instantly forgotten the moment after viewing, while others which may have imperfections stay with us for much longer, if the viewer forms an emotionally-resonant connection with the image. it might also be a truism that humans form a closer connection to technically-imperfect images because we, ourselves, are inherently flawed. but that's a topic for another discussion entirely.</p>