Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

My posts · My subscriptions
  

  Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #11247941 « Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS Resolution Tests! »

  

gdanmitchell
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
Re: Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS Resolution Tests!


stanj wrote:
gdanmitchell wrote:
My photography is no better when I use a $2000 lens than when I use a $200 lens.


While I don't believe that, I admire you for that if true.


I threw out that $200 number, without thinking. It actually is not accurate. My least expensive lens is actually my old 35mm f/2 which seems to be available for roughly $300. I have a soft spot for this lens and really enjoy using it when I want to lighten the equipment or when I want to optimize IQ at 35mm. I use it for several things - mostly street photography but also for occasional landscape photographs when I work with primes. Here is an example:







(Believe it or not, this is an example of urban street photography, shot in an alley in the Mission District of San Francisco.)

On occasion when shooting street I may take only this lens. In a few other cases it is part of a small set that also includes the 50mm f/1.4 and the 85mm f/1.8. I sometimes use a different set of three primes for street that replaces the 35mm and 85mm lenses with 24mm and 135mm primes. Sometimes I shoot street with a zoom or two, or even combine a prime with a zoom.)

I'm agnostic on the question of whether or not a lens has a red band and a letter L embossed on it - I literally do not care about this when I'm shooting. All of the lenses I have can produce excellent image quality, and I select among them primarily for functional reasons - the subjects I'll be shooting, how I'll be shooting, whether I am on foot or working from a vehicle, and so forth.

So, yes, I'm just as good of a photographer when I'm shooting with my inexpensive non-L primes as I am when I choose to shoot with more expensive stuff.

Dan

And just for fun, some photographs made today with the 24-105. Did not take the 24-70 since I was doing long-exposures with a 9-stop ND... and the 24-70 requires a larger 82mm filter. :-(
















Jan 07, 2013 at 04:49 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
Re: Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS Resolution Tests!


stanj wrote:
gdanmitchell wrote:
My photography is no better when I use a $2000 lens than when I use a $200 lens.


While I don't believe that, I admire you for that if true.


I threw out that $200 number, without thinking. It actually is not accurate. My least expensive lens is actually my old 35mm f/2 which seems to be available for roughly $300. I have a soft spot for this lens and really enjoy using it when I want to lighten the equipment or when I want to optimize IQ at 35mm. I use it for several things - mostly street photography but also for occasional landscape photographs when I work with primes. Here is an example:







(Believe it or not, this is an example of urban street photography, shot in an alley in the Mission District of San Francisco.)

On occasion when shooting street I may take only this lens. In a few other cases it is part of a small set that also includes the 50mm f/1.4 and the 85mm f/1.8. I sometimes use a different set of three primes for street that replaces the 35mm and 85mm lenses with 24mm and 135mm primes. Sometimes I shoot street with a zoom or two, or even combine a prime with a zoom.)

I'm agnostic on the question of whether or not a lens has a red band and a letter L embossed on it - I literally do not care about this when I'm shooting. All of the lenses I have can produce excellent image quality, and I select among them primarily for functional reasons - the subjects I'll be shooting, how I'll be shooting, whether I am on foot or working from a vehicle, and so forth.

So, yes, I'm just as good of a photographer when I'm shooting with my inexpensive non-L primes as I am when I choose to shoot with more expensive stuff.

Dan

And just for fun, so photographs made today with the 24-105...
















Jan 07, 2013 at 04:47 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
Re: Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS Resolution Tests!


stanj wrote:
gdanmitchell wrote:
My photography is no better when I use a $2000 lens than when I use a $200 lens.


While I don't believe that, I admire you for that if true.


I threw out that $200 number, without thinking. It actually is not accurate. My least expensive lens is actually my old 35mm f/2 which seems to be available for roughly $300. I have a soft spot for this lens and really enjoy using it when I want to lighten the equipment or when I want to optimize IQ at 35mm. I use it for several things - mostly street photography but also for occasional landscape photographs when I work with primes. Here is an example:







(Believe it or not, this is an example of urban street photography, shot in an alley in the Mission District of San Francisco.)

On occasion when shooting street I may take only this lens. In a few other cases it is part of a small set that also includes the 50mm f/1.4 and the 85mm f/1.8. I sometimes use a different set of three primes for street that replaces the 35mm and 85mm lenses with 24mm and 135mm primes. Sometimes I shoot street with a zoom or two, or even combine a prime with a zoom.)

I'm agnostic on the question of whether or not a lens has a red band and a letter L embossed on it - I literally do not care about this when I'm shooting. All of the lenses I have can produce excellent image quality, and I select among them primarily for functional reasons - the subjects I'll be shooting, how I'll be shooting, whether I am on foot or working from a vehicle, and so forth.

So, yes, I'm just as good of a photographer when I'm shooting with my inexpensive non-L primes as I am when I choose to shoot with more expensive stuff.

Dan



Jan 07, 2013 at 02:38 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
Re: Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS Resolution Tests!


stanj wrote:
gdanmitchell wrote:
My photography is no better when I use a $2000 lens than when I use a $200 lens.


While I don't believe that, I admire you for that if true.


I threw out that $200 number, without thinking. It actually is not accurate. My least expensive lens is my old 35mm f/2 which seems to be available for roughly $300. I use it for several things - mostly street photography but also for occasional landscape photographs when I work with primes. Here is an example:







(Believe it or not, this is an example of urban street photography, shot in an alley in the Mission District of San Francisco.)

On occasion when shooting street I may take only this lens. In a few other cases it is part of a small set that also includes the 50mm f/1.4 and the 85mm f/1.8. I sometimes use a different set of three primes for street that replaces the 35mm and 85mm lenses with 24mm and 135mm primes. Sometimes I shoot street with a zoom or two, or even combine a prime with a zoom.)

I'm agnostic on the question of whether or not a lens has a red band and a letter L embossed on it - I literally do not care about this when I'm shooting. All of the lenses I have can produce excellent image quality, and I select among them primarily for functional reasons - the subjects I'll be shooting, how I'll be shooting, whether I am on foot or working from a vehicle, and so forth.

So, yes, I'm just as good of a photographer when I'm shooting with my inexpensive non-L primes as I am when I choose to shoot with more expensive stuff.

Dan



Jan 07, 2013 at 02:32 AM



  Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #11247941 « Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS Resolution Tests! »