24-70 2.8L Versus Non L Primes ? Need some input

[alexthornephotography]

<p>"Yep. You see a lot here on pnet. No doubt easier for some to discuss rather than images and image-making. And that talent can be jump-started by simply putting down a credit card for a purchase."</p>

<p>Images and image-making wasn't the subject of the post, lens comparison is. That's why we're talking about the advantages of using one lens over another - which includes discussions of that "gear head" stuff. </p>

[Brad_]

<p>Alex, I was responding to a comment the OP made ("Its very easy in photography to become a "gear head", and obsess over cameras and lenses...") . That's the nature of forum discussion...</p>

[alexthornephotography]

<p>I agree it's the nature of forum discussion. I think it has something to do with the questions asked and the desire for people to want to stay on-topic. </p>

[derek_stanton2]

<p>1. Sharpness is overrated. Unless you WANT sharp pictures. Nigel Parry's work wouldn't be the same if it weren't shot with sharp glass. His pictures might still be excellent, because he's a great photographer, but they would be DIFFERENT pictures. He determined what he wanted his style/signature to be, and sharpness is a component of that. </p>

<p>2. Calling someone a "gearhead" in the pejorative is kinda silly considering we're all here participating in a gear-related forum. </p>

<p>3. No matter what the reputation of the lens, you need to test it to be sure it's performing up to spec. There ARE lemons. There are variances in quality control. </p>

<p>4. Asking random people which lens is sharper is possibly an unsound practice without seeing that person's work - either in print or high-res files. Some people are just hacks. Some people don't sharpen, or sharpen 'properly.' Some people have different levels of 'satisfaction' and some are more demanding. Some people print on better printers than others. Some people 'test' their lenses without stringent controls and/or without tripods, and at slow shutter speeds. Or, make comments based on 'real life usage,' which doesn't include direct, controlled comparisons. Just be sure to weigh the opinions you get. </p>

<p>To the OP:<br>

If your zoom pix are more satisfying, IQ-wise, than your prime work, i'd suggest testing your primes against an identical lens to be sure yours is working well. I've heard/read lots of reports of people not being happy with their Canon 50/1.4EF lenses, for example, until they're closed down to f2.8 or smaller. Mine, however, is excellent just after 1.4. Either there is sample variation, or those who don't like their lens have a different standard. My 'standard of reference,' though, comes from making comparisons with other highly rated lenses of the same focal length. </p>

<p>Before you decide to make a wholesale change, i'd suggest either borrowing or renting the lens to compare and then making your own test. But, even if you set up the gear on a tripod and shoot careful tests at ISO 100 and all the various apertures using a test chart, you might find that even though the small, light prime performs better 'on the bench,' that when you're in the street, the larger, heavier zoom gives you better control and lets you hold the camera more securely and maybe the weight dampens the mirror. Who knows? Maybe the zoom allows you to crop less, and therefore you get less noise by virtue of using more of the original frame? Finally, maybe you'll just decide that 'street shooting' rarely requires ultimate sharpness or color fidelity and so you'll 'sacrifice' that for efficiency and usability. </p>

<p>[bTW - i also have been a Canon shooter, but recently bought a Nikon FE2 and some manual primes. They really do feel good, don't they? Somehow the FE2 just feels like 'photography,' whatever that means.]</p>

[dansutton]

<p>"about photography, I know nothing"<br>

-HCB</p>

[edrodgers]

<p>Thanks very much Tommy.</p>

<blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>"about photography, I know nothing"<br /> -HCB</p>

</blockquote>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, that's a silly statement. Lots of famous people make silly contradictory statements like that. Socrates kept calling himself a know-nothing idiot. I think it's just an exercise in manipulating their fans.</p>

<p>So, if you want to be just like HCB, fine. Point and shoot and drop your card off at Ritz... Errr, I mean Walmart. Use only a normal focal length and walk the Earth on your trust fund. Make sure you are one of the first to use these new compact 35mm cameras, so that you can be historical.</p>

<p>HCB was ground breaking, and I love his work. But I'm not him, I'm not like him, and I wouldn't spend $100,000 for a reprint of an old negative that if I took the shot, I would just throw on Flickr and forget about it.</p>

<p>Since I am now retired, I can hold my head up high and say that my photography is average, but the obsession for the gear and the techniques for using the gear have definately boosted my images to a higher level. Knowing how to manipulate the equipment to achieve a result is to me as important as what I am pointing the camera at. There is nothing detrimental about camera obsession. (except maybe for my wallet.) I find results improve when I am picky about my gear.</p>

<p>All of these factors: Creativity, Composition, Emotion, Tools, and Light... All of them are very important. My strongest area is the tools, because that is what I obsess most about. The rest I strive to improve to varying degrees of success. But I'm good enough to pay for all this gear with my skills and that makes me happy. I'm happy about what my gear allows me to do.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm happy about what my gear allows me to do.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So are the rest of us. :-)</p>

[jdrose]

<p>"Photography requires tools, and those tools make their mark on the art." Mr. Rodgers, that was well said.</p>

<p>To the question: I have both the 24-70mm 2.8L and the 50mm f/1.4. In my opinion the 50 f/1.4 is a sharper, acuity wise, lens...especially slightly stopped down. I don't see a big difference in color or contrast. It is petite and that is a clear advantage over the 24-70mm 2.8L. Perhaps you are having DOF issues with the 50mm f/1.4 that are causing the lens to appear less than sharp? Enjoy your photography whatever you choose.</p>

<p>I always wonder why these threads seem to have such a harsh, negative feel to them.</p>

<p> </p>

[edrodgers]

<blockquote>

<p>I always wonder why these threads seem to have such a harsh, negative feel to them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My bad! :)</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p>I always wonder why these threads seem to have such a harsh, negative feel to them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sometimes it just takes one angry person to get it started.</p>

[edrodgers]

<p>Yeah, Dan... Lighten up.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>No anger here! :-)</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[emiliogtz]

<p>What an interesting thread to follow... funny thing is, most of you seem to agree on the key points being addressed. And yes, I also wonder about that harsh, negative feeling.</p>

[alexthornephotography]

<p>Emilio I know. The goal though was to make it on the list of "Most active threads." We did it! Only about the first 3rd of the thread actually addresses Jon's question. </p>

[jon_kobeck1]

<p>Regarding the harshness, it would almost appear that the folks who spent thousands on "L" lenses dont appreciate the idea that a $400 lens could be as good or even better. thats just my observation, but I could be wrong. </p>

[alexthornephotography]

<p>Jon you really know how to keep this going. As for me, that's not the case. I use both the 24-70 and 50 1.4. They both have their strengths which are well described above. </p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> ... but I could be wrong.</p>

<p>I don't think so. For SP, it really matters little...</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I use both L and non-L also, so I'm pretty agnostic about any "this versus that" competition. More above in the thread if you are interested. :-)</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[edrodgers]

<blockquote>

<p>Regarding the harshness, it would almost appear that the folks who spent thousands on "L" lenses dont appreciate the idea that a $400 lens could be as good or even better. thats just my observation, but I could be wrong.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For me, I migrated to mostly 'L' lenses after first using mostly non-'L' lenses. I don't regret the move at all. I do get upset though when people say there is no difference or even make fun of 'L' lovers simply because they have convinced themselves that 'L' lenses are not worth the extra expense. It's not so much the case in this thread... It's more of a continuous low level bashing all over the place.</p>

<p>And with the lens properties that are important to me, you could never say that a $400 lens is better for my purposes. I like speed. I want the big apertures. And I want those big apertures to be sharp and contrasty, even when I point it at the sun. I don't care if it isn't an 'L' lens really, but that's what Canon happens to call what I like. I don't even really care for the 'L' zooms very much. I'm selling those off. They were great for weddings, but now I have more time to swap lenses and zoom with my feet.</p>

<p>I had the 50 f/1.4. I loved it. Wonderful. After I bought the 1.2, the 1.4 looked like dog food. I ended up selling it. I see a big difference between them, and I doubt I would ever have used the 1.4 again. The price didn't bother me, and I can handle the extra weight. I'm a big guy. It's good exercise.</p>

<p>Conversely, it's my opinion that some of the 'L' bashers don't want to feel like they are missing out on something special just because they can't or won't afford it. So they have to pretend that they didn't want it anyway. :)</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p>After I bought the 1.2, the 1.4 looked like dog food</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Like dog food, eh?</p>

[dansutton]

<p>about the HCB quote, he seemed to mean it intentionally. As far as the introduction to <em>Henrier Cartier-Bresson: Photographer</em> implies (written by Yves Bonnefoy) he is a painter: " 'It's simply that i'm nervous, and that i love painting.' And he adds: 'About photography i Know nothing' ". Later, "to know nothing about photography...this means, for one thing, not to bother about developing and printing: Cartier Bresson leaves these to a specialist, because the subtleties of the developing tank seem to him to lead to narrow experimentaiton." these are quotations from the introduction, and thus only the part in single quotes are words from HCB, stated so as not to mislead anyone by attributing the latter part directly to Cartier-Bresson.</p>

<p>I'm not quoting this to contradict anyone, just an interesting point that surprised me by one of photography's celebrated greats.</p>

<p>If you wanted to counterpoint this argument, skimming through <em>The Negative</em> by Ansel Adams would show the diametrically opposed approach to photography: that mastery of technique and tools yields the best avenue to precisely creating what you had preconceived. In this approach, Adams revelled in gamma values, development tweaks, the zone system, understanding luminance so as to shoot without his meter, etc.</p>

<p>take your pic. i just thought the quote and then later this little follow up might be surprising to those who perhaps might not have heard or read them before. my favorite lens i suppose would be the analogue to the 'L', the 17-55DX 2.8 by nikon, but i just bought a nifty fifty 1.8 yesterday so perhaps it will be supplanted.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Ed, I'm not contradicting myself or espousing "vague philosophies," nor do I care any less about the art than you do. How dare you be so presumptuous, and arrogant. Sure, your portfolio is very good, but does that give you the right to make <em>ad hominem </em>attacks on those you know absolutely nothing about? </p>

[edrodgers]

<p>Dan: That's a great clarification if HCB's remark. I very much respect his philosophies, but I was trying to knock him down to the level of mere mortal. I think earlier I kind of worshipped him. I went too far and I feel I may have hurt my exploration by wanting to be like him. Perhaps I wet too far in my previous comment, but I was motivated to knock him down a bit.<br>

Adams was a gearhead and a pompous jerk, just like me. :)<br>

Mark: I'm sorry you took my comment so hard. But if you re-read your previos comments, I you might understand that I feel the same way about what you said.<br>

I'm as much a photographer as you are, and saying that I'm some kind of slavish technician and you are not.... You listed your gear! I see a lot of contradiction there, that's all.<br>

Now if you will excuse me.. I have a full day of being ignorant of photography truisms ahead.</p>

[jon_kobeck1]

<p>Henrier Cartier-Bresson .......Whos that? Did he use L lenses ?</p>

[dansutton]

<p>haha. nicely said Ed.</p>