Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > A Lens cannot be good and bad.

Reply
Thread Tools

A Lens cannot be good and bad.

 
 
Denny B
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-25-2006
Many times in this newsgroup a question will be asked
about a particular lens for a Nikon or Canon or Pentax
or Olympus and other brand name cameras.

Most times a group of answers will be it is a very good
or good lens, in the same thread others will answer it is a poor
lens.

How can this be? This is confusing and just plain stupid.
Assuming the picture takers know how to use their respective
cameras, light metering, focusing, hold camera steady or on
a tripod, use a flash if necessary etc. How can you have conflicting
answers. This cannot be, something is wrong.
Is it because some posters want to knock others. Or the Canons
want to belittle the Nikons. Or is it just to give a foolish answer?

A particular lens CANNOT be good and bad. Most people have
the ability to tell if a picture is good or bad.
Is it only the latest and most expensive D-slr bodies and lenses
and their owners that can take good pictures?

Denny B

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
J. Clarke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-25-2006
Denny B wrote:

> Many times in this newsgroup a question will be asked
> about a particular lens for a Nikon or Canon or Pentax
> or Olympus and other brand name cameras.
>
> Most times a group of answers will be it is a very good
> or good lens, in the same thread others will answer it is a poor
> lens.
>
> How can this be? This is confusing and just plain stupid.
> Assuming the picture takers know how to use their respective
> cameras, light metering, focusing, hold camera steady or on
> a tripod, use a flash if necessary etc. How can you have conflicting
> answers. This cannot be, something is wrong.
> Is it because some posters want to knock others. Or the Canons
> want to belittle the Nikons. Or is it just to give a foolish answer?
>
> A particular lens CANNOT be good and bad.


Good for one purpose is often not so good for another.

> Most people have
> the ability to tell if a picture is good or bad.
> Is it only the latest and most expensive D-slr bodies and lenses
> and their owners that can take good pictures?
>
> Denny B


--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-25-2006
"Denny B" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> Many times in this newsgroup a question will be asked
> about a particular lens for a Nikon or Canon or Pentax
> or Olympus and other brand name cameras.
>
> Most times a group of answers will be it is a very good
> or good lens, in the same thread others will answer it is a poor
> lens.
>
> How can this be? This is confusing and just plain stupid.


1. Some things are a matter of opinion.

2. People have different levels of expectations from their equipment,
either because of personal stylistic differences, or because
they've never had a chance to use good equipment.

3. Lenses exhibit considerable sample-to-sample variation, and the
posters with differing opinions have almost never examined the
same sample. (In fact one of the hallmarks of a "professional"
lens model is that the quality control is very high, that is, the
sample-to-sample variation is small.)

4. Lenses are good for different things, and the different
photographers may have evaluated them in different uses; the guy
using the lens for something it's good at will think it's better
than the guy using the lens for something it's bad at. (Some
lenses have flat fields, but less contrast. Some have more
contrast, but bad bokeh. Some are great at longer focus
distances, not so good focused close. Etc.)

5. Sometimes people post something claiming to be an evaluation who
have never actually used the lens.

No doubt there are additional reasons that have not occurred to me.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <(E-Mail Removed)>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
 
Reply With Quote
 
Pat
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-25-2006
Ditto.

In particular:.

1. All lenses are good at certain things and bad at others. Use a good
lens for the wrong thing and it's a piece of crap. For example, you
don't want a 300mm f2 "football lens" to take pictures for your Ebay
store. Also, the world's greatest "soft focus" lens will look horrible
to most people.

2. People have different expectations. If you don't expect much, you
don't need much. This also falls into the "price range" category. It
might be the best lens under $300, but not nearly as good as a $1200
lens. So the comps might not be similar.

3. Most people don't have a lot of experience comparing lenses. Most
people don't have 3 or 4 lenses in a similar length.

4. People have different needs. If you need an f2 lens, you'll hate
an f5.6 lens.

5. And of course, lots of people might be reciting a review or
something their cousin told them.

6. Somepeople don't like anything; especially Canon users hating Nikon
and vice versa

 
Reply With Quote
 
MarkČ
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-25-2006
Denny B wrote:
> Many times in this newsgroup a question will be asked
> about a particular lens for a Nikon or Canon or Pentax
> or Olympus and other brand name cameras.
>
> Most times a group of answers will be it is a very good
> or good lens, in the same thread others will answer it is a poor
> lens.
>
> How can this be? This is confusing and just plain stupid.


Good or bad...what?
You post as though there is some sort of very finite set of needs.
That's just not the case.

What are people looking for in their lens...
-Lack of vignetting wide open?
-Good bokeh?
-Sharpness?
-Flare avoidance?
-Contrast?
-Handling?
-Focus speed?
-Image Stabilization?
-Lens coating?
-Price?
-Build quality?
-Weather sealing?
-Push-pull zoom vs. turning interface?
-Lengthening during zoom vs. internal focus?
-Rotating front element, or stationary?

Those are just the aspects that first popped into my head...ALL of which can
be important aspects of lenses.

Some people value particular portions of this list more than other
portions/aspects.
So...of course there can be widely differing opinions, just as there are
widely varying priorities between the needs/desires of different
photographers.

-MarkČ

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by MarkČ at:
www.pbase.com/markuson


 
Reply With Quote
 
MarkČ
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-25-2006
MarkČ wrote:
> Denny B wrote:
>> Many times in this newsgroup a question will be asked
>> about a particular lens for a Nikon or Canon or Pentax
>> or Olympus and other brand name cameras.
>>
>> Most times a group of answers will be it is a very good
>> or good lens, in the same thread others will answer it is a poor
>> lens.
>>
>> How can this be? This is confusing and just plain stupid.

>
> Good or bad...what?
> You post as though there is some sort of very finite set of needs.
> That's just not the case.
>
> What are people looking for in their lens...
> -Lack of vignetting wide open?
> -Good bokeh?
> -Sharpness?
> -Flare avoidance?
> -Contrast?
> -Handling?
> -Focus speed?
> -Image Stabilization?
> -Lens coating?
> -Price?
> -Build quality?
> -Weather sealing?
> -Push-pull zoom vs. turning interface?
> -Lengthening during zoom vs. internal focus?
> -Rotating front element, or stationary?


And lets not forget the basics...
-Max aperture
-Constant max aperture vs. variable max ap over zoom range
-Fixed vs. zoom
-Bulk/weight
-Odd vs. standard filter size
-Full-time manual focus vs. manual mode switching only
-More I haven't included.


Lottalottalotta reasons why people don't always agree...

-MarkČ
--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by MarkČ at:
www.pbase.com/markuson


 
Reply With Quote
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-25-2006
Denny B wrote:
> Many times in this newsgroup a question will be asked
> about a particular lens for a Nikon or Canon or Pentax
> or Olympus and other brand name cameras.
>
> Most times a group of answers will be it is a very good
> or good lens, in the same thread others will answer it is a poor
> lens.
>
> How can this be? This is confusing and just plain stupid.
> Assuming the picture takers know how to use their respective
> cameras, light metering, focusing, hold camera steady or on
> a tripod, use a flash if necessary etc. How can you have conflicting
> answers. This cannot be, something is wrong.
> Is it because some posters want to knock others. Or the Canons
> want to belittle the Nikons. Or is it just to give a foolish answer?
>
> A particular lens CANNOT be good and bad. Most people have
> the ability to tell if a picture is good or bad.
> Is it only the latest and most expensive D-slr bodies and lenses
> and their owners that can take good pictures?
>
> Denny B
>


"Good" and "bad" are, by their nature, opinions, and different people
have different opinions about things. A lens may have good features,
and bad features. For instance, a lens may perform optically with
satisfactory results, and most users will consider it good, but if it
tends to make a bit more noise than most when zooming, some users will
consider it 'bad' because they don't want the lens to make noise. That
same person may consider a really quite lens to be 'good', even if the
optical performance is not as good as the noisy one. It comes down to
what factors are most important, and what the user needs/wants.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Floyd L. Davidson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-25-2006
"Denny B" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Most times a group of answers will be it is a very good
>or good lens, in the same thread others will answer it is a poor
>lens.
>
>How can this be? This is confusing and just plain stupid.


No lense is perfect for everything. For the photographer
using some given lense for what it is indeed good for, it
is a good lense. For another photographer who needs to do
something that lense is not good for, it is a poor lense.

And hence opinions will vary drastically. That is more true
for less expensive lenses too. A $20 lense that can actually
be used for _anything_, is a great lense; while a $2000 that
can't to what the $20 lense does is a real annoyance.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Joseph Meehan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-25-2006
Denny B wrote:
> Many times in this newsgroup a question will be asked
> about a particular lens for a Nikon or Canon or Pentax
> or Olympus and other brand name cameras.
>
> Most times a group of answers will be it is a very good
> or good lens, in the same thread others will answer it is a poor
> lens.
>
> How can this be?


Let's look at the kit lens for the Canon. I consider it a very good
lens because it is inexpensive to buy, it covers a very useful zoom range
for most people and general photography, and it produces very good results.
However it also "feels" plastic and cheap. It does not perform to the same
level that an "L" series lens would and it is not as fast as some lenses.

Someone who is critical of each and every photo they take, demanding
that it be of the highest possible quality would not like this lens. But
someone who wants good quality and seldom enlarges larger than 8x10 is
likely to be very happy with it. Myself I seldom find the need for myself
or my audience for better quality than this lens can produce.

Is it a good lens or not? You have to read the fine print to find out
if it is good for YOU or not. Of course someone who simply says it is *(&(%
does you no service as you know nothing about the lens on which to judge for
your use.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit


 
Reply With Quote
 
Rich
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-25-2006
The problem being that if you have two photographers with roughly equal
talent,
the one with the L-lens is going to produce technically better
pictures, solely due to the
lens's superior technical qualities. Not all pros are producing images
that are going
to be blown up to 40x30 but it's highly unlikely a pro would choose to
use a lesser lens
for any assignment, unless there was a dire need for the utmost in some
other lens attribute, such as weight savings, in the case of the
18-55mm kit lens.
The real problem with things like kit lenses (some of them) is that
they narrow the margins of what you can do to produce a decent
photograph. There are always compromises with them, usually speed and
aberration control. Even build quality can have an effect on ultimate
image quality. Another big one, where amateurs would likely suffer
more than pros because of their inexperience is the lack of IS on cheap
lenses. If EVER there was a feature amateurs could use, that is it.
The higher-end lens provides greater latitute which is exactly what an
amateur needs, not having the shooting discipline of a pro. With
automated programs becoming more
sophisticated in cameras, that latitude could be a real asset.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Good Lens/Bad Lens? the_niner_nation Digital Photography 6 06-29-2007 10:55 PM
FS: Canon G2 Tele Lens and Lens adaptor Molly Digital Photography 0 02-18-2005 10:49 AM
FS: Canon G2 Tele Lens and Lens adaptor Josie Digital Photography 0 02-18-2005 12:00 AM
Anyone use the Kodak DX6340 Lens Adapter and Telephoto Lens? Amyotte Digital Photography 3 02-11-2004 10:25 PM
Good everyday lens for Digital Rebel -- kit lens, 17-40mm f/4L, or...? Mike Kozlowski Digital Photography 5 12-30-2003 08:04 AM



Advertisments