photo.net article quote

[kerrystratton]

<p>While researching macro photography I started reading an article on photo.net, <a href="../learn/macro/">http://www.photo.net/learn/macro/</a>, a statement from the 1st paragraph on macro lenses, "Fortunately, it is difficult to buy a bad macro lens. This is kind of odd in a world where 90 percent of the lenses sold are bad." Really? 90% of all lenses sold are bad? I find this hard to believe but I am a proletarian shooter and have no real means of telling if a lens is good or bad.</p>

[Stock-Photos]

<p>Maybe the author meant that most lenses designed for macro do a decent job. Where with lenses designed for other things, there are often trade-offs of price versus performance, image quality, etc.<br>

Don't read too much into it.... :-)</p>

[starshooter]

<p>Just because the dude is a riter doesn't mean he can rite so good. I presume he means most lenses aen't that good at macro. Of course they are not designed to be, either. I worked for an international news serivce and have had photos published all over the world and my photos are in the history books. I have used dozens of lenses professionally and only recall two that were really bad. One was an off brand wide angle that worked fine until I shot a boxing match. The lights aimed more-or-less into the lens bounced around inside the lens and made it unusable for that purpose. I got rid of it. The other was an 1970s era 20mm NIkkor that had so much distorition it was not funny. The same-era 24mm 2.8 is wonderful.<br>

I recently purchased a Kodak Brownie Reflex, made in the early 1940s. One shutter speed, 1/30 sec., one f stop, f8, fixed focus. A camera just like it was the first camera I ever owned, circa 1947. I am amazed how sharp the lens is.<br>

Don't believe everything you read!</p>

[will_daniel1]

<p>This is what happens when authors inject their opinions with the expectation that readers will accept them as fact. I don't buy <em>either</em> of the author's statements -- that it's difficult to buy a bad macro lens or that 90 percent of all lenses are bad. I think it's astute of Kerry to pick up on that.</p>

[Bill C]

<blockquote>

<p>"Really? 90% of all lenses sold are bad? I find this hard to believe..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Kerry, I wouldn't take this too seriously. "Bad" means different things to different people. You would have to ask the author, Philip Greenspun (who incidentally is the founder of Photo.net), but I think he is probably just working with a different set of criteria than you are. My guess is, that if a lens isn't delivering close to maximum (theoretical) resolution and contrast, with minimal image defects (aberrations) at nearly every aperture setting, he calls it "bad."</p>

<p>I like to think my language is a bit gentler, I would say the 90% are not "professional" quality, or perhaps not top-tier lenses. If you shoot seriously, or make your living at it, you would probably want one of these expensive pro-level lenses. Then you always have the ability to make high-quality maximum-size prints from any lens setting (provided your technique is good). If you are using the inexpensive "kit" lenses, etc, they generally have noticeable weaknesses at the extremes - longest or shortest focal lengths, and widest apertures. If you know exactly where those weaknesses are for your specific lens, you should be able to do pretty darn well by avoiding them.</p>

<p>Of course, I could be wrong about this - it's just what I think.</p>

 

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Philip Greenspun's early articles on photo.net were colorful and highly opinionated. Some of us still remember the "dickless yuppies" wisecracks about guys who bought big SLRs and big telephoto lenses to take the same types of photos they could have done with a Yashica T4. That sort of candor about the photography hobby was fairly uncommon on the web back then. In some respects Greenspun invented the Ken Rockwell style of provocative opinion on photography equipment. (Ken Rockwell was also a photo.net member way back when).</p>

<p>Just guessing, but Philip may have been referring to the cheap third party kit zooms sold under the Quantaray and Crapco house marques, which were typically pushed onto newbies buying their first SLRs. Also consider the number of distorted add-on wide angle and telephoto doodads sold to attach to the filter thread of P&S cameras, videocameras and entry level SLRs with kit zooms.</p>

<p>For the 1990s when that article was first published, it was an appropriate observation. Nowadays, maybe not so much. Third party lenses from Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Samyang and Cosina have really stepped up their game and offer some very good lenses. Meanwhile, outlets like Wolf and Ritz aren't really players anymore and reliable vendors like B&H and Adorama won't push crap lenses onto customers (although they may suggest certain third party kit zooms). Today's rookies are more savvy and more likely to research purchases online. If anything, newbies now seem likely to buy more camera and lens than they really need, rather than buy inferior lenses.</p>

<p> </p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Typical Phillip hyperbole. Don't take it as a statement of fact, or even a statement of belief. It's meant to be amusing/provocative or simply hyperbole for purpose of emphasis.</p>

<p>Rough translation would be that the percentage of "bad" macro lenses is smaller than the percentage of similarly priced "consumer zooms". This is still probably true, though the quality of cheap consumer lenses is generally higher now than it was 15 years ago.</p>

[Jerry_]

<p>You have to take into account that some zoom lenses are labeled as "Macro" lenses, but in fact are not. If you add in all the lenses labeled that way, the 90% figure might be close.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Don't take it as a statement of fact, or even a statement of belief.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Exactly. And I'm not sure he always understood the stuff he wrote about.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>agree there</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>We are into the imponderables of Sturgeon's Law here.... which is what I suppose the Greenspun (one of our pioneers here) was saying. As Atkins says, "hyperbole".</p>

<p>Could the irony emoticon [ .~ ] be used in this context?<br>

Text is "sooo hard," as Britney says.</p>

[nsfbr]

I think it is important to distinguish between number of units sold and number of different lenses offered. Surely,

something approaching half the number of different lenses offered are "above average". However, if you look at the el

cheapo lenses that often make their way into kits, especially low end combo kits, I'd wager that the number of 90% is not

that far off - maybe 80% at the low end.