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

[Brad_]

<p>>>> Henrier Cartier-Bresson .......Whos that?</p>

<p>Beats me... I'm still trying to figure out who this Robert Frank guy is.</p>

<p>At a local garage sale I ran across this old book of nice photographs. It had a 1958 printing date and was called Les Américains. After thumbing through it and seeing that many of the photos were not very sharp, and lacking in contrast, I decided it wasn't worth the $8 and put it back down down.</p>

<p>I think he would have done a much better job had he used a better lens, and maybe then he could have been somebody. But back then there was no L glass; they were probably just up to B.</p>

[alexthornephotography]

<p>After reading this I'm thinking about switching to modified Coke bottles for lenses. I hear the Bokeh is better.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Sorry, Ed, I did not mean to imply that you are "some kind of slavish technician" and I am not, but rather that that is not the kind of photographer I want to be. It's obvious from the work you've posted on your website that you are far form being a "slavish technician." Your work shows true artistry, and art is not reducible to the tools and techniques used to create it. It needs vision and insight.</p>

<p>It's interesting that, if you strip away the rhetoric that abounds in this thread, we all seem to be in agreement on the central issues: gear <em>does </em>matter, but it's the photographer who creates the image, and it's the final image that ultimately matters. Your work illustrates this perfectly. While it may well be true that your images would not be as good as they are had you not used the gear that you had, the final images stand alone. Once they are created, they speak to us independently of the means by which they were brought about. This "ability" to speak to us, to reveal something about the world that had not been revealed before, is what makes the artwork art (as opposed to craft). There is no contradiction here.</p>

[alexthornephotography]

<p>I thought the "central issues" where those in Jon's original question?</p>

[jon_kobeck1]

<p>True this thread has shifted from my original question, but thats ok. <br>

As far as "art" is concerned, I think that gear has no relevance what so ever. I think its 100% artists vision, and concept. I have seen truly magnificent works of art done with $30.00 holgas. <br>

William Klein is a perfect example </p><div></div>

[jon_kobeck1]

<p>Here is a marvelous 7 minute video:<br>

[DickArnold]

<p>This conversation is at a level that I don't understand. Forgive me for that. I was in my photographic prime in the nineties when I had a wedding, PR and events business and did sports and other things for a newspaper. My pictures have not seemed to improve or degrade that much while going through at least eight Canon bodies, a lot of lenses and a Canon film system, a Bronica MF system and now for about seven years a digital system. Maybe I am a little retarded in that I don't see a quantum improvement with changes in equipment for myself, at least. I sure have had to learn different processes. Maybe I am just getting old. I could extol the virtues of all the lenses I have owned but I could not prove it with pictures except some my over saturated, over sharpend digital pictures made when trying to "make a silk purse out of a sow's ear". If it ain't there to begin with; a specific lens won't make it better. Ed I like your pictures and could care less what you made them with. What I appreciate is what is between your ears; namely a brain that conceives of a unique way of looking at things and then bounding that vision within the four corners of an image. My favorite lens is a Canon EF 70-200L 2.8. Not because it is sharper than someone else's lens but because since 1996 it has successfully delivered a product to me and my customers that satisfies our needs in weddings, sports, my studio, at car wrecks, quilting bees, art shows and whatever else I have used it for. It still looks and performs like the day I bought it. Now that's a damn good lens and if you amortize it over the almost fourteen years I have owned it; it is a lot cheaper than all the other lenses I have traded, broke or sold because the per picture cost is very low. The content of those inherently sharp " L" images has been up to me not my lens. No one, not even my wife, will ever know of the embarasingly large number of pictures I have thrown away because I did not want anybody to see how bad they were. Many of them were made by L lenses. And, actually a lot my good ones were made by consumer lenses.</p>

[des adams]

<p>Guess some people think the Leica and it's lens that Frank used was the cheapest piece of shit he could afford. </p>

[edrodgers]

<p>HCB did use the 'L' lens of his day. You would be hard pressed to find a 50mm Leitz lens that is junk, then and now. Imagine what his work would look like with a modern Leica 'M' kit. Different.<br>

Thanks everyone for the continued complements of my work. They are almost all simple snap shots taken with above average gear. The end result has barely survived my sloppy post processing. When I have a new camera or a new lens, it makes me want to find it's limits. The photography part just happens in the process. It may just be coincidence, but to me the quality of my photography has grown along with the quality of my gear. A lot of photographers with this disease end up with 24x36 view cameras. Trust me, if the photography wasn't getting better, nobody would spend that kind of cash and tether themselves to a studio.<br>

I think everyone finds their art in different ways. I don't think any generalized philosophy of photography works for everyone. I think truism in this context does not exist.<br>

I just like working through the concepts through a good debate, that's all.</p>

[anthony_thornborough1]

<p>I love my 4-5 yr-old 24-70L but it can be chunky and obtrusive, and that's without the lens hood!<br>

When accomplishing street photography in the early 1980s I only had 35mm and 70mm options only, and the results have become more astonishing with time.<br>

I think I might get a 35 f/1.4 L to go with the 85 LII and use just those at times, on the basis that the shots will be better in 2035, for my grandchildren's sake anyway.</p>

<p> </p>

[jon_kobeck1]

<p>The 35 f/1.4 is not a small lens either, at least for street work</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p>When accomplishing street photography in the early 1980s I only had 35mm and 70mm options only, and the results have become more astonishing with time.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What Lindbergh accomplished with a prop plane many decades ago was also quite astonishing, but that doesn't mean that we try to launch them into earth orbit today. :-)</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[anthony_thornborough1]

<p>It's the passage of time that endows my 1980s photos with a another quality all of their own.<br>

I suspect that doing the same now, with any reasonable lens that was not intrusive, would do it for future years.<br>

What Jon K is saying is that a 28 /1.8 or 24 f/2.8 would be better for lack of "at you" size</p>

<p> </p>

[mvw photo]

<p>I just shot a model with both 50/1.4 and 24-70 2.8L (using a 1Ds MkIII).<br>

Indeed, I immediately noticed that wide open, the 24-70 is <em>much</em> sharper than the 50. It may be my particular lenses but yes, I have the same experience as the OP.</p>

 

[seragram]

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=3953569">Jon Kobeck</a> I do not understand why you sell 24 to 70mm for primes and now you are selling yur primes for 24 to 70? You must have a lot of money to burn and not much experience.<br>

Like they say deferent horses for deferent courses. You can not go wrong with 28mm for street photography so keep it. And if you ever shoot an event (wedding, sports, party political rally or any event where you have to stand on same spot and not move etc) you will see how usefull a zoom is. And run an buy a 24 to 70 again)<br>

You say"In places like the subway it was very hard to blend into the crowd" Trying to blend with a 5D I think is not an easy thing to do. A XSi or G9 would be a better choice.</p><div></div>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> You say"In places like the subway it was very hard to blend into the crowd" Trying to blend with a 5D I think is not an easy thing to do.</p>

<p>Actually, for SP, blending into the crowd has little to do with the camera you use. </p>

[tdigi]

<p>Wow that video is amazing<br>

[alan_rockwood]

<p>Jon,</p>

<p>In answer to your question of who is Ken Rockwell, he is a guy who hosts a website about photography.</p>

<p>Whenever his name is mentioned here at photo.net it immediately causes a number of ordinarily sane people to become raving lunatics.</p>

<p>I have seen whole threads (more than one) about Ken Rockwell that were deleted by the powers that be here at photo.net. In one case the deletion occurred within a few hours of the opening of the thread.</p>

<p>The "Rockwell effect", as I would call it, is a remarkable sociological phenomenon with no known rational explanation.</p>

<p>As for me, my main objection to Ken is his last name. All my life people have been calling me "Rockwell" when my last name is "Rockwood".</p>