Archive 2010 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
Guest
Guest
p.4 #1 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
Yeah, I tried a Tokina 16-50 on my Mark II N and it's different from some lenses that become usable after certain FL... no matter what FL I'm zoomed to, there's a lot of hard vignetting, increasing as I stopped down. I've heard the Nikkor 16-85 is the same, so the EF-S 15-85 is probably like it.
Maybe when I have some spare cash, I'll grab the 24-85 and hope it's not too bad. They say the silver version is better so I might want to wait for one though.
p.4 #2 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
Lens technology although still progressing, has fully matured.
(D)SLR technology is still undergoing rapid development, which may enhance the sense of importance.
As the capability of cameras was enhanced, it gained importance in the system
Metering
Programs (AV, TV etc)
Auto focus
Now the digital sensor has been added it has become one of the most important variables, it is in fact the film you can't change. Any significant improvement in sensor technology will result in the obsolescence of previous generations of sensors. That doesn't mean that the older sensor technology can't continue to produce the same good results it has previously, it just means that our standards and/or expectations have been raised.
p.4 #3 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
Lars Johnsson wrote:
Buying the best lens under the sun is not gonna get you very far if you use it with a crappy body. On the other hand, buying a decent lens that meets your shooting requirements coupled with a great body will get you much farther.[/
What do you consider as a crappy body?
Besides, a great lens 10 years ago is still a great lens now, and probably still would be 10 years from now. A great body 10 years ago is already rendered almost obsolete now... let alone 10 years later.
Aug 14, 2010 at 03:58 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #4 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
n0b0 wrote:
What do you consider as a crappy body?
Besides, a great lens 10 years ago is still a great lens now, and probably still would be 10 years from now. A great body 10 years ago is already rendered almost obsolete now... let alone 10 years later.
Not going back too far in time. And only talking about the Canon bodies that I have owned. My 10D is rather crappy if I compare it against my 1Ds3 or 1D4. The 10D can still take descent images but it's a huge difference from the other two bodies.
a lot more difference than my older Canon lenses when I compare those against my latest lenses
p.4 #5 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
Lars Johnsson wrote:
Not going back too far in time. And only talking about the Canon bodies that I have owned. My 10D is rather crappy if I compare it against my 1Ds3 or 1D4. The 10D can still take descent images but it's a huge difference from the other two bodies.
a lot more difference than my older Canon lenses when I compare those against my latest lenses
I think you're confused about the difference between being old and obsolete to being crappy.
I did say a great camera from the past won't be great anymore now while a great lens from the past will still be a great lens now.
Aug 14, 2010 at 06:49 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #6 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
n0b0 wrote:
I think you're confused about the difference between being old and obsolete to being crappy.
I did say a great camera from the past won't be great anymore now while a great lens from the past will still be a great lens now.
And I belive you are a bit confused So what bodies and lenses do you belive are crappy ?
p.4 #7 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
I don't think there's any crappy body to be honest, just the ones that don't meet your requirement, eg. burst speed too slow, body too small, etc. That's why I said "decent one that meets your requirements", not "crappy one" in my first post here.
As for crappy lenses, my old EF-S 17-85mm lens was pretty bad. Bad distortion, not really sharp even at f/8, bad purple fringing. Not sure what else since I don't deliberately buy crappy lenses but I think there are some Canon non-L and 3rd party zoom lenses plus superzooms in general that are held in low regard.
p.4 #8 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
n0b0 wrote:
I don't think there's any crappy body to be honest, just the ones that don't meet your requirement, eg. burst speed too slow, body too small, etc. That's why I said "decent one that meets your requirements", not "crappy one" in my first post here.
As for crappy lenses, my old EF-S 17-85mm lens was pretty bad. Bad distortion, not really sharp even at f/8, bad purple fringing. Not sure what else since I don't deliberately buy crappy lenses but I think there are some Canon non-L and 3rd party zoom lenses plus superzooms in general that are held in low regard. ...Show more →
but by that logic almost nothing is crappy Maybe there are people that do not mind the 17-85 distortion / IQ flaws, therefore it meets thier needs, but does not meet yours
p.4 #9 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
PetKal wrote:
When you see an image, here is what I believe goes into it, prioritized by importance:
(1) photographer's capture effort & skill
(2) environmental factors including light (lighting) and luck
(3) postprocessing effort & skill
(4) lens
(5) camera
Other than in some special cases (eg., large billboard or very low light photography) cameras represent the worst photographic return on your investment $$.
Well said. Agree 100%. Last night I made a large print (about 16" X 20") from an old shot taken with a Canon D60. My wife looked at it and assumed it was taken with my 5D II.
p.4 #10 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
NDP_2010 wrote:
but by that logic almost nothing is crappy Maybe there are people that do not mind the 17-85 distortion / IQ flaws, therefore it meets thier needs, but does not meet yours
C'mon mate... Who do you think the article in the original post was targeted at? Advanced enthusiasts/pros who know their gear or at beginners/tourists who leave their camera at full auto mode?
p.4 #11 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
Snopchenko wrote:
The primes are (mostly) fine. I'm speaking about the old junk like 28-80, 28-90, 75-300 and whatnot... that still sells for $70 on KEH.
The older kit lenses are fine. They will confound people looking technical perfection and have relatively slow apertures, but they can still easily take a nice picture.
Aug 14, 2010 at 09:05 AM
Guest
Guest
p.4 #12 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
Yeah, just like my old Sigma 28-300 could (and did)... but how many hoops you have to jump before they do? I'd rather work along with the camera/lens, not struggle against them. And if technical perfection equals basic sharpness, then count me out.
Aug 14, 2010 at 09:18 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #13 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
n0b0 wrote:
I don't think there's any crappy body to be honest, just the ones that don't meet your requirement, eg. burst speed too slow, body too small, etc. That's why I said "decent one that meets your requirements", not "crappy one" in my first post here.
As for crappy lenses, my old EF-S 17-85mm lens was pretty bad. Bad distortion, not really sharp even at f/8, bad purple fringing. Not sure what else since I don't deliberately buy crappy lenses but I think there are some Canon non-L and 3rd party zoom lenses plus superzooms in general that are held in low regard. ...Show more →
So what about the Canon EOS DCS3 , EOS DCS1, EOS D2000, EOS D6000.
they are a lot more crappy than your 17-85 lens
Aug 14, 2010 at 09:24 AM
Guest
Guest
p.4 #14 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
The technology was very underdeveloped back then so the comparison isn't really fair. So those old cameras are like the 1890s cars - can't really be compared with today's Fords, VWs, etc. The 17-85, on the other hand, is a modern abomination. Something like a Lada. And still it may be useful sometimes.
BTW I've seen some fans of ancient bodies like Kodak SLR/c over here, so it's all subjective.
p.4 #15 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
Lars Johnsson wrote:
So what about the Canon EOS DCS3 , EOS DCS1, EOS D2000, EOS D6000.
they are a lot more crappy than your 17-85 lens
Were they crap back in the days or is it only now? If they were great when they were still being manufactured, then as I said earlier, you're confusing the difference between being obsolete and being crappy.
The 17-85 was/is crap because it wasn't designed to be a great lens, not just because it's old. Again as I said earlier, there are many old but still great lenses.
Anyway, I'm off jigging now, hopefully I'll catch some big fish to take photos of. Have a great weekend.
p.4 #16 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
I haven't read every post in this thread, but I have read most of them. Some get it, some don't..
I think the author is saying more than he means, and he may have confused some people using the word "film", and at least half the people on these forums have never used "film" more than a few times.
Anyway, I agree with him. It's not JUST a question of lens vs. a body, but it's the gestalt, the whole, that matters more today. I've long said that digital bodies are disposable, especially if they ever encounter serious trouble. For the most part, we probably should dispose of our 5 year old cameras if IQ is paramount (very few of us want to do that... myself included...).
A body, or a lens, individually is but one factor in the system required to produce an image. I could take my 300 f/2.8 IS - purportedly one of Canon's best, - and use it on any body, but the final image today depends on the body, its age and features, as well as the shooting context, as much or more than ever. For any given lens, in any circumstance, it's the body that makes the difference.
If Canon introduces a new sensor that captures higher DR, better ISO, cleaner images without noise/artifacts at higher ISOs, then the onus will be even more on the body. Older bodies may/will produce images of lower quality compared to the new offerings, yet the lens will continue projecting/producing the same old image, unperturbed by the body.
Aug 14, 2010 at 09:39 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #17 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
n0b0 wrote:
Were they crap back in the days or is it only now? If they were great when they were still being manufactured, then as I said earlier, you're confusing the difference between being obsolete and being crappy.
The 17-85 was/is crap because it wasn't designed to be a great lens, not just because it's old. Again as I said earlier, there are many old but still great lenses.
Anyway, I'm off jigging now, hopefully I'll catch some big fish to take photos of. Have a great weekend.
Canon didn't design those bodies or the 17-85 with the intention of making crap bodies or lenses. So then everything will be good according to that kind of logic
Aug 14, 2010 at 09:55 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #18 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
NDP_2010 wrote:
but by that logic almost nothing is crappy Maybe there are people that do not mind the 17-85 distortion / IQ flaws, therefore it meets thier needs, but does not meet yours
p.4 #19 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
Mike Liu wrote:
Yeah, the sensor is the big difference now. In the film days, the film was what was crucial but the same high quality film could be used for different cameras, high end or low end. Nowadays, it's all about the sensor technology and that's gets better from camera to camera.
p.4 #20 · The Lens is Not More Important Than the Camera
My lensbaby has noticeably better tonality on my 1Ds mkIII than on my 5D. Noticeable with larger prints. Heck the tonality is better with all my glass but I wanted to prove a point..
The lens is only more important than the camera, not more important than the film. I promise you an image using an ancient lens design but on 4X5 film will smash what a modern L lens can do period. Glass is only more important when the recording medium is equal. Just as it was in the film days.
