gdanmitchell wrote:
Virtually every fine photographer I know and speak with finds the "debates" like this one to be somewhere between pathetic and laughable.
It is not that they don't care about gear and about how their lenses work. It is that they recognize the difference between obsessing about minute and inconsequential differences between things that work very well and obsessing about the quality of one's photographs.
...
As an example, I know a handful of pretty highly regarded landscape photographers who use Canon gear. Some (but not all) folks around these forums would have you believe that if you want to produce (or should I write "draw?") excellent photographs of such subjects that you must use exotic speciality lenses (like the Zeiss gear under discussion here) and probably primes. Some will even insist that "if you are serious" about this stuff you'll use T/S lenses and that real landscape lenses are wide angle. Among the group of folks I mentioned in the first sentence of this paragraph, perhaps the most commonly used lens is - wait for it! - the EF 70-200mm f/4 non-IS zoom. Others are quite fond of the EF 17-40 f/4. ...Show more →
This made me chuckle. I guess you are not acquainted with the higher echelons of landscape photographers - i.e people that get their stuff exhibited at major museums and sell their work for astronomical prices. If you did you'd know that debating Canon vs Zeiss SLR lenses is the equivalent of debating if McDonalds or Burger King is haute cuisine. The really high end landscape photography is done by using large format cameras, not seldom with custom made lenses. The photographers in that segment are obsessed with equipment and it has always been so - starting with Ansel Adams.
You are forgetting that photography is a craft as well as an art. You can have a great creative vision but if your craftsmanship is crap then your photos will likely be crap as well. The same goes for excellent craftsmanship and poor creative vision - it's unlikely to result in great photographs. This goes for many other types of art as well. Most of the famous classical painters insisted on mixing their own colors to get them exactly the shade they wanted it to be. Even if a genius painter can create a masterpiece with a set of crayons the result will be better if the painter can choose the tools that go together with the creative vision. Photography is no different.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Virtually every fine photographer I know and speak with finds the "debates" like this one to be somewhere between pathetic and laughable.
It is not that they don't care about gear and about how their lenses work. It is that they recognize the difference between obsessing about minute and inconsequential differences between things that work very well and obsessing about the quality of one's photographs.
I often think that it would be good for some forum gear heads to find out what some of their photographic heroes actually use to produce their work.They are most certainly not all using the latest or the most expensive bodies, nor are the always shooting the most expensive or exotic lenses.
As an example, I know a handful of pretty highly regarded landscape photographers who use Canon gear. Some (but not all) folks around these forums would have you believe that if you want to produce (or should I write "draw?") excellent photographs of such subjects that you must use exotic speciality lenses (like the Zeiss gear under discussion here) and probably primes. Some will even insist that "if you are serious" about this stuff you'll use T/S lenses and that real landscape lenses are wide angle. Among the group of folks I mentioned in the first sentence of this paragraph, perhaps the most commonly used lens is - wait for it! - the EF 70-200mm f/4 non-IS zoom. Others are quite fond of the EF 17-40 f/4.
More time obsessing about photographs and less obsessing about gear for gear's sake can be a very productive thing. :-)
Many fine photographers use gear to achieve their artistic goals. This includes going Medium Format or Large Format.
I don't have photographic heroes, but I can appreciate a beautiful photo taken by a Canon / Zeiss, and notice differences in them.
The lens examples you provided are mainly due to size and weight. A landscape photographer trekking and carrying all his/her load will not be carrying a bag full of primes.
denoir wrote:
Sure, "drawing style" or "rendering style" or simply "look" is the encompassing term that includes all aspects of the optical signature of the lens. Colors, contrast at different resolutions, sharpness, bokeh etc all form the drawing style.
It's good to finally get a definition. I for one have never heard the term outside one little corner of the net. Other terms, yes, but not "drawing style", which has connotations you probably don't pick up if English is a second language for you.
I would argue that it is not a useful definition because in any correctly set up workflow the colour casts will go away. I am not arguing that they don't exist. I can see them, and you can easily show their existence by photographing a grey card with a Canon lens and a Zeiss lens under a true 6000K source (e.g. flash) and pushing the images through Adobe Camera Raw using the default processing. The Canon image will be correct, because Adobe assumes their colour balance, and the Zeiss one will be incorrect, i.e. not grey. (Actually, this has already been done by a prominent reviewer, but his work was rejected out of hand earlier in this thread in a personal attack.)
Of course if you take a test shot of a grey card at the start of the session and use only Zeiss lenses, or if you detect the Zeiss images in postprocessing and divert them to a different camera profile, the problem goes away. I suppose we all understand that at those prices Zeiss can't afford to produce two sets of coatings matched to Canon and Nikon.
The trouble is that the Zeiss colours are one of the major clues used to distinguish Zeiss and Canon images. If I put a blue mark at the top left of the Zeiss images and a white one on the Canon images, that would be a clue too, but not relevant photographically.
Dan, those are standard terms used by photographers as well as engineers working with optics.
Which photographers? As for engineers, I reckon whatever term they use will be Japanese or German. Maybe, occasionally, something is translated into English for a conference paper. Perhaps you'd like to give a citation or tell us which designers you've spoken to in English.
I can recommend a text for you that will clarify a lot of these terms or you: How to read MTF curves
This is sales material. It doesn't show that these terms are standard.
ghozer wrote:
Whether that makes the image sell better isn't the point. There are tons of images that sell well which are technically a mess.
While it is true that some images that sell are a "technical mess" (I could, but won't, name names), the photographers I'm referring to do not produce work that is remotely "technically a mess."
SKumar25 wrote:
The lens examples you provided are mainly due to size and weight. A landscape photographer trekking and carrying all his/her load will not be carrying a bag full of primes.
Wrong. Although the post I was responding to ironically pointed to Rowell's fondness for primes (and traveling light), the folks I'm thinking of do little of their work in the backcountry.
If you ever visit the Ansel Adams Gallery in The Valley you could meet them at their exhibits.
Again, it is almost entirely a forum myth that folks who do great work that we all admire rely on these exotic lenses.
Many fine photographers use gear to achieve their artistic goals. This includes going Medium Format or Large Format.
Actually all fine photographers use gear. But I digress... ;-)
One highly-regarded landscape photographer I know (his exhibition is at the AAG right now) was a large format film photographer who has now switched to medium format digital. Last time we talked about this - in the Yosemite backcountry, IIRC - he mentioned that one of his most used lenses is a zoom.
Finally, thank you melcat for your follow-up regarding "Zeiss colors" and "drawing style," and for your successful though subtle take-down of a post typical of some who think that by using sophisticated and technical sounding but meaningless terminology their arguments will acquire more legitimacy - and who imagine that no one sees right through them. I had a laugh over his suggestion that I should go read about MTF in much the same way that you probably enjoyed pointing out the irrelevance of the link. :-)
I'm trying to think of a single example of anyone ever criticizing one of my images for lacking in "corner sharpness". Or anyone else's for that matter.
I think the technical details are really only of interest to photographers themselves, not people who appreciate photography.
charlesk wrote:
I'm trying to think of a single example of anyone ever criticizing one of my images for lacking in "corner sharpness". Or anyone else's for that matter.
Whether someone criticizes an image for lack of corner sharpness is not relevant as to whether the corner sharpness could have been improved by using a different lens.
I think the technical details are really only of interest to photographers themselves, not people who appreciate photography.
ghozer wrote:
Whether someone criticizes an image for lack of corner sharpness is not relevant as to whether the corner sharpness could have been improved by using a different lens.
True, but it's entirely relevant to the question of how important the entire issue really is, and therefore, how much it is worth giving up in dollars and features to get a lens that is marginally sharper.
In general, sharpness is the most overrated and over-obsessed-over image quality attribute in photography.
charlesk wrote:
True, but it's entirely relevant to the question of how important the entire issue really is, and therefore, how much it is worth giving up in dollars and features to get a lens that is marginally sharper.
But that can be said for just about any lens. There is a lens at half it's price that is 95% the quality of the more expensive lens.
chez wrote:
But that can be said for just about any lens. There is a lens at half it's price that is 95% the quality of the more expensive lens.
That's not really true, actually. With most technologies the curve of quality versus price is non-linear, and for most people the goal is to hit the knee of the curve, colloquially called the "sweet spot".
charlesk wrote:
That's not really true, actually. With most technologies the curve of quality versus price is non-linear, and for most people the goal is to hit the knee of the curve, colloquially called the "sweet spot".
charlesk wrote:
True, but it's entirely relevant to the question of how important the entire issue really is, and therefore, how much it is worth giving up in dollars and features to get a lens that is marginally sharper.
In general, sharpness is the most overrated and over-obsessed-over image quality attribute in photography.
Yes, sharpness is the most obsessed about quality and I don't disagree with what you are saying here at all. It comes down to personal preference and priorities.
You have the absolute best camera equipment? Drive the best car? Eat at the best restaurants? Wear only the finest clothing?
Congratulations, you must be very successful.
Was that necessary?
I am here because the best 35 mm lenses available is part of what I use and am interested in discussing. Most people are not interested in this, just in taking a picture.
You have the absolute best camera equipment? Drive the best car? Eat at the best restaurants? Wear only the finest clothing?
Congratulations, you must be very successful.
I can't speak for Alundeb, but I can describe my own situation. I have no car, I rarely ever eat out, and my clothing comes from the Salvation Army thrift store. My student research stipend puts me a bit above the poverty line. I also have ~$20K in camera equipment, much of it "best-in-class," because that's about the only thing I spend much money on. You may have to be rich to have the best of everything, but even on a small income you can aim for the best in one particular area of passion (so long the that passion isn't, e.g., yacht racing).
