I have eyes and I want to see a photograph that is no good because of the lens.
-
So why don't you SHOW us?
I have eyes and I want to see a photograph that is no good because of the lens. -
I know what people are saying. That some lenses produce better pictures than others.
Pictures are looked at. They are visual. We do not have to rely on descriptions, we could judge for ourselves.
This would be very interesting.
A lens is always the result of compromise, a expensive f1.4 lens will be more difficult to design then a f2.8 lens, a zoom lens will have many elements and may have poorer resolution. But f2.8 lenses may be excellent.
There are so many other factors involved in a photograph that have a far bigger effect on the quality and look of the picture than the lens.
The most important is basic exposure and focus.
If you like I will post pictures taken with Sigma and Nikon lenses and you can tell me which is which?Comment
-
When i just started, i had a nikon d70, and tamron lens, when i tried Nikon 17-55 2.8 my quality improved a LOT.
I sold this tamron lens, and never looked back on those...
Not everybody see the different.
For example, there is a canon 85mm 1.2, it's a prime, cost around 2000$ and it's very slow and heavy.
I heard many say: " this is bulshit to pay that much for that lens, when you can get a cheap 85mm 1.8)
But, i can see such a huge different in image quality, this why i will pay way $$$ for more slow and more heavy lens.Comment
-
It is a T1i and you are the only person I recall saying anything negative about Sigma glass.
I have but as I do not own the glass I can not show examples. But after storm chasing with my uncle that had some really nice glass I was quite disappointed when he bailed before I got a Chance to play with his stuff.Comment
-
I think it's like horsepower in a sense, that the higher you go up the more you need to spend for only a 2-3% performance increase. ie: Adding 50hp to a 130hp car is a huge difference, but 100hp added to a 500hp car wouldn't be nearly as noticeable. So it's just deciding what's good enough for your own application and finances. If you feel you're really going to use that extra few % for a few thousand dollars, then by all means enjoy it. Or, you may decide that saving your money and living with 97% of the possible performance is a better choice.Comment
-
Oh right, the year later than I guessed. Not bad memory!
It's really good, for budget glass.
But the point everyone is making is that to go from a $300 to a $3000 body is a hell of a jump and you might find if you spend that same money on one good l series lens and a 60D body instead you'd get more bang for your buck. You could also then still use your cheaper lenses if you wanted.Comment
-
The point is that a 3% increase in quality is not notice if poor exposure knocked off 20% of quality.
Back in the day all my friends were keen photographers and had Nikons and Pentaxs when I went to Eastern Europe and met professional photographers who had to work with Zeniths and Zorkis, also with East German black and white and colour stocks.
Their photography was better, because they were photographers and not consumers.Comment
-
I would never buy a kit with a lens. My person opinion.Network Of Adult Blogs With Hardlink Rentals AvailableComment
-
Comment
-
Aforementioned video
Comment
-
Comment
Comment