Does lenses really matter?

[RaymondC]

<p>Granted that digital has made photog more accessible to the masses and amateurs do purchase the 2.8 lenses or even all 3 of them. Many magazines and club photographs (incl winners) are shot with f/4 lenses or even variable apeture - does it matter? </p>

<p>Granted if you are not using wide open, and action. Is it that important to have good lenses? If you pick the right light for landscapes (for me), if you do some post processing and then some printing ....</p>

[mtk]

<p>IMHO ......it all comes down to YOUR expectations. First off, I am not a lens snob. I may get flamed for this but I could care less what lens is in front of my camera....as long as it gets the job done. I am not wealthy but I purchase what I can afford. If you shoot sports and are expecting "Sports Illustrated" action shots with shallow depth of field one probably isn't going to get there using an off the shelf variable aperature lens.<br>

On the other hand, if landscapes portraits etc. are your thing...with proper technique including the use of a tripod and proper lighting and a dose of great post processing there is no reason that you can't get great photographs. I also think that YOUR expectation of what you are going to do with the end product is just as important as what equipment you are going to use.<br>

Way back in film days, lets face it......when SLR's were popular...most pictures were probably shot in 400 ASA, dropped off at the photo processor of your choice and made into 4x6 prints with some 8x10's once in awhile. One or two zooms and you were set. Now, with home printers, email, blog, photo gifts, digital "frames" kiosks in photo stores, etc. options of photo use and equipment and high iso camera bodies photography is limitless.<br>

My personal lenses that I use are a 17-50 2.8, 70-200 2.8 and a 70-300 variable ap. I am able to shoot some wildlife when lighting is good kids sports and certainly landscapes, all with a minimum of post processing.<br>

So to summerize, what are YOUR needs and expectations? If relatively inexpensive variable aperatures get the job done for you go for it! I do think that if you can afford higher speed lenses, even a fast 50mm prime you will be able to explore more options.<br>

I wish you well!<br>

Mark</p>

 

[luis_g]

<p>Yes and no. As long as they serve to actualize your vision, that's what matters. Sometimes one needs top-notch glass. Most photographers are primarily held back by their own vision, not the glass.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p> It depends on what one is trying to accomplish and the ability of the photographer to do so in general and then with a particular lens.</p>

[saskphotog]

<p>They only matter when they matter. You describe picking the right light, post processing, stopping down, and, if you do those things, most lenses can do amazing pictures. BUT (notice it's a big "but") if the light is weak, you must open the lens wide, you need fast focus, you need all the sharpness you can get, you will need a good lens.</p>

<p>Most lenses do well in ideal circumstances. What you get when you get a "good" lens is the ability to do well in adverse conditions. You also get robust construction, wider apertures, glass coatings that work well and that are harder to scratch, single aperture zooms, faster focus, great color, freedom from typical optical aberrations, and even "better" bokeh if that matters.</p>

<p>So, yes, the lenses really do matter. I think they matter even more than the particular body you own in terms of power to affect image quality. They certainly matter more than camera manufacturer. </p>

<p> </p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>"Is it that important to have good lenses?"<br />===============================================================<br />It depends on what type of shooting you do most. If you mainly shoot outside between sunrise and sunset an f4 lens is plenty. If you don't mind using flash once in a while, boosting the ISO, or using a tripod then an f4 lens should be fine. During the days of film, if you were shooting at ISO 100-200 without a tripod, once the sun went down you were sunk. Even at ISO 400 the maximum aperture was still not enough.<br>

<br />These days, with some high-end digital cameras, you can boost the ISO to 1600-3200 and still get a usable image. However usable can be problematic if you are a comercial photographer, where the requirements are a little more stringent. Many stock agencies won't accept any images shot above 400 ISO. Same goes for magazines, unless they are trying to get a certain look. This is when a fast lens comes in handy.<br>

Tell you the truth, most photographers would rather shoot at the lowest ISO possible because that is where the image is the best. If you are a nature photographer a fast lens is essential because the critters mostly come out during dawn and dusk and you can't really use a flash.<br>

<br />There are other advantages to having a fast lens other than the ability to shoot in low light. With a fast lens it is easier to blur-out the background. You can also get better bokeh with that type of lens. Some fast lenses however, are useless until you close down to about f4, so shooting at wide apertures actually defeats their purpose.<br>

<br />Coming from film days,(I still shoot film !) I try to stick with fast lenses, to me this is very important. Maybe because I got burnt so often trying to take pictures when the sun went down or right before the sun came up. This is why I love my canon 50mm f1.4. I don't have to worry much with that lens when I'm inside a dim church, or a museum where flash and tripods are not allowed. I just wish they made more lenses like that.</p>

[david.wagle]

<p>Just because an image is shot at f/4 doesn't mean that the lens is an f/4 lens. This is an important distinction that is easily missed. Most lenses are sharpest a stop or two down from wide open. So an f/2.8 lens being stopped down to f/4 will frequently be measurably sharper than an f/4 lens being used at f/4.</p>

<p>In general, the lenses matter more than the body in determining the quality of the final image. It can be hard for even an experienced photographer to pick out the difference between 8x10 prints captured on a $800 body and one captured on a $3000 body if they're both using professional quality lenses. But get two pro bodies and put a cheap lens on one and a pro quality lens on the other and a seasoned photographer will be able to tell almost immediately which was which from a fairly small print.</p>

<p>So yes, lenses matter.</p>

<p>That said, even a fairly cheap lens can create a very compelling image. Composition, lighting, exposure control, timing, post-processing choices, and so on are probably more important for us beginners and less experienced folk to deal with than the issue of glass provided the lens we have are capable of creating the type of image we want to create. If you want to shoot birds and your only lens is a pro quality 10-20mm then you're kind of hosed. Likewise, if you want to shoot interiors of old poorly lit buildings and your fastest lens in the right focal length is f/5.6, you're going to struggle. But once you are talking about having the right focal length at a large enough aperture to capture the image you want, beyond that it's not particularly important.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>It matters about 1500 words less than the website reviews use to tell us that it matters.</p>

[will_daniel1]

I haven't seen anyone else bring this up yet, so here goes: It is a myth and a mistake to automatically equate "fast" with "good," and that myth seems to be alive in this thread. An f2.8 zoom lens that costs $1,000 may or may not be better in terms of image quality than your standard kit lens that came with the camera, for example. It costs money to make a fast zoom lens, and that cost is passed along to consumers who often don't look beyond the maximum aperture and the price. In most cases fast zooms are indeed good quality. But if you have enough light, the f11 photo you shoot with the f2.8 lens isn't likely to be all that much better than the f11 photo you shoot with your kit lens.

[david.wagle]

<p>Will, I'm not sure where you're getting that anyone disagrees significantly with that -- most lenses perform just fine in ideal conditions. Most pictures however are not shot in ideal conditions. If you are shooting fast moving subjects, or low light, or in any other way pushing the lens' capabilities, then you're going to find that the lens matters a great deal.<br>

<br />It matters when it matters -- and most people I think experience that it matters more than they originally thought it would. I know that was my experience, anyway.</p>

[will_daniel1]

Just something I picked up in the OP -- he used the terms "2.8 lenses" and "good" lenses almost interchangeably -- and the thread seemed to be heading in that direction. In fact, however, your earlier post seems to confirm what I'm saying. No disconnect intended.

[KenPapai]

<p>Yes -- lenses matter a GREAT deal.<br>

1. Build quality<br>

2. Weather resistance quality<br>

3. Speed/accuracy/quietness of auto focus<br>

4. Lens speed -- your body's AF system works better & more accurate the faster the lens<br>

5. The faster the lens the more your creative options<br>

6. The faster the lens the more tele-extender options you have<br>

And quite a few more! To me a lens is an investment while the (DSLR) bodies are *all* eventual throwaways. This means digital is a LOT more expensive than the old 35mm film days.</p>

[szrimaging]

<p>Ken, digital is only more expensive if you are shooting less than the cost of film/processing/scanning (assuming a digital workflow after this point). If you shoot more, digital starts to become a price advantage.</p>

<p>As for lenses, good lens are not determined by price or the apreture, but by a variety of factors. One of the best lenses for both Nikon and Canon systems are their 50mm f1.8 lenses. Cheap, excellent optics, and moderate build quality makes them so. After that, you start debating the exact needs of your lenses and start fleshing out from there. Zooms, wide, tele, certain looks, build quality, weight, apreture, etc.</p>

<p>And for what it's worth, I have on more than one occasion seen pros using "consumer" glass because it was light weight and easier to carry. It really depends on the needs of each job and the final output to determine the ideal parts of your system.</p>

[dan_south]

Do lenses matter? That depends.

 

 

If you want ultimate sharpness, you need sharp lenses. If you are shooting portraits of women or children, a softer

lens might be better, because you don't want to see every flaw in the skin. The image might be softened anyway in

post.

 

 

Are f/2.8 lenses superior? Not necessarily. The 70-200 f/4 IS is a very sharp lens. The new 2.8 lens might be a little

sharper, but then again, it's a more recent design. If I were hiking up hills, the f/4 version would be my choice. Shooting fast sports or in dark churches, the f/2.8 would be better.

 

 

Do you need specialized lenses? Macro? Tilt-shift? For some projects these are invaluable.

 

 

Quality of light, quality of the subject, and the skill and vision of the photographer will always be the most important

factors. The right lens can improve the technical quality of a photo, but it can't turn a bad photo into a good one.

[dan_south]

It's interesting how dependent small format shooters are on fast apertures. The fastest lenses in my large format kit

are f/5.6. One very nice, sharp lens weighs in at f/9. I rarely make an exposure with an aperture larger than f/11.

Somehow, the pictures still come out okay. ;-)

[steve_levine]

<p>Not as much as talent and skill. Historically many of the great photographers that we all emulate, used a single (normal) lens.</p>

<p>In my humble opinion, the proliferation of the zoom lens has created a generation of "focally challenged" photographers. These poor folks never seem to have the lens, or focal length they need. Obsessive compulsive lens acquisition syndrome, is almost as fatal as the camera acquiring version.</p>

[pjmeade]

<p>I think using a cheap lens/camera combination only matters if it produces the kind of results that you don't want.<br>

Although some have called f4 lenses "amateur hour" in this forum, I agree with the others when they say it's the photographer's vision that is the determining factor in producing quality work. What matters most is being in the right place, at the right time, seeing what's there and getting the shot. I once won an international travel photography competition with a shot from a 3 Mp compact and my most recent glossy mag shot was taken with a variable aperture lens. The best camera possible is the camera you have with you.<br>

Yes, I have built up a collection of good DSLR bodies and lenses. That's because I can know I can get the shots I want, under circumstances where some lesser camera and lens combinations would let me down. But it's still my vision I'm capturing.<br>

That's my 2p.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I can (kind of) get the sentiment against the f/2.8 zooms. There are too many posts in forums talking about the "pro f/2.8 zooms" (or worse, "holy trinities of lenses", yuck) as the requirement to get some decent photos, and as the best lenses, period. Sure not. But to go from that hyperbolic talk to "they don't matter much" is yet another step.<br>

Yes, vision is more important. But if your vision asks for a f/1.4 aperture, you are going to need one of those pesky expensive lenses. And is sharpness overrated? Maybe, but you can take a sharp photo once. You cannot add it afterwards properly.<br>

Lenses are not the end-all-and-be-all, but they do enable you to capture your vision. To me, a more decisive part in the chain than the body they are mounted on.</p>

<p><em>P.S. Would I be a professional, for most types of professional use I would want those f/2.8 zooms as reliable versatile work horses, though. They too have their place and time.</em></p>

[RaymondC]

<p>Yes. I recognise those positives. </p>

<p>90% of my hobby shooting are landscapes, on tripod, base ISO, I use an aperture of f/8 or f/11. </p>

[walter_degroot]

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=585199">Ken Papa</a> you make good and valid points.<br>

but if you don't have the right focal length, you can't ( maybe) get the shot.<br>

peter meade make a point is is the photographer's eye and another points out one of his LF lenses is f/9.<br>

I would rather avoid a cliche.<br>

but it depends a a lot on who you are and what you are doing.<br>

if you are a pro and a real"workhorse pro" well made lenses and cameras are a must.<br>

but even a serious pro can reasonable have a few Amateur lenses for back up or an unusual focal length.<br>

Even a whole bag or amateur grade cameras and lenses as a backup.<br>

Comparing a Vivitar 35mm f/2.8 T4 to a top of the line 35mm lens<br>

may make a difference in quality. but to gain 10% in quality you may have to pay 50%<br>

more. For most photographers it simply makes NO sense.<br>

Attitudes vary. Many years ago A story in a photo mah talked about shooting Hockey in a LI NY collusium<br>

the permanetly installed flash and the remote controlled Nikons.<br>

When asked, the photographer said it was hazardous and had " only 3 or 4 " cameras smashed per year.<br>

If the orinary photographer had 2 or 4 outfits smashed every year he migh decide to take up basket weaving or something else. SO it depends. If it pleases you to buy a 35mm f/.1.4<br>

maybe most lenses f/1.4. go ahead. but do you really need it?<br>

There is no Misti1que or etherial quality to a certain style or make of lens.<br>

cetain people, often those that take the fewest photos, belive that they own THAT lens because it is the very best. and they want the Very Best. Too bad, just go out and take pictures. THAT is what it is all about.<br>

Food is meant to be eaten,. cars for driving and cameras ( and guns)<br>

for being used.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>yes they does</p>

[User_4136860]

<p>Lenses don't matter as much as most people on internet forums think, they worry too much about the technicality's of their work and too little about the content and meaning if any of their images, the great photographers pictures would still be masterpieces if they were taken through a bottle bottom.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>If the person is a good photographer, they make a difference. <br />If they aren't, then they don't make a difference.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>In my humble opinion, the proliferation of the zoom lens has created a generation of "focally challenged" photographers. These poor folks never seem to have the lens, or focal length they need.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Some with a 28-70mm lens and an 80-200mm lens worry about the 10mm gap they are missing.</p>

[dangoldman]

<p>lenses madder just as mutch as grammer and spelling.</p>