MARKFER wrote:
Content is king, but a great lens can make a photo of mediocre content interesting.
The fancy lens makes it more interesting to whom??
Makes it more interesting to the photographer with their nose glued to the screen.
But not more interesting to the consumer… And that’s my point.
Look around your house at the photography books, magazines, posters, etc., etc.
Can you tell me which lens was used? Can your friend who’s over for dinner tell?
Just to be clear, I am a photographer and I like nice things too… just making a point about why more photographers don’t invest huge amounts of money on these things.
If everyone who looked at their pictures stopped and said “holy smokes what lens was that?” Then I think there would be more sales.
ronno wrote:
Look around your house at the photography books, magazines, posters, etc., etc.
Can you tell me which lens was used? Can your friend who’s over for dinner tell?
Most likely not. But the photographer can and he has thought about which lens he wants to use and for what reasons. This is what results in the image. So it's not irrelevant because he is the one who determines the outcome and what you see.
ronno wrote:
The fancy lens makes it more interesting to whom??
Makes it more interesting to the photographer with their nose, glued to the screen.
But not more interesting to the consumer… And that’s my point.
Look around your house at the photography books, magazines, posters, etc., etc.
Can you tell me which lens was used? Can your friend who’s over for dinner tell?
Just to be clear, I am a photographer and I like nice things too… just making a point about why more photographers don’t invest huge amounts of money on these things.
If everyone who looked at their pictures stopped and said “holy smokes what lens was that?” Then I think there would be more sales. ...Show more →
If the photographer can see the difference…isn’t that what counts. Don’t you want to create the best you can or just good enough for your customers?
chez wrote:
You make it sound like manual focus is a bad thing. For my landscape photography, I use manual focus lenses that allow me buttery smooth precise focus exactly where I want it in my image. With auto focus you are not getting this level of precision.
I agree that content is king, but why not get this content as best you can? Why spend thousands of dollars getting to a destination and then using a subpar lens. The content would be the same, but the actual result will not.
I would bet that if you handed 10 people cameras, the auto focused shots would have overall better focus than if they tried manual.
I have bought 1.2 lenses, shot so many great pictures with a 50 1.8 that cost 90 bucks… the lens is not “subpar“ just because you can see some micro detail or what not in photoshop. Again it’s about the end result. Make an print and nobody cares about the equipment, just who got the better content.
chez wrote:
If the photographer can see the difference…isn’t that what counts. Don’t you want to create the best you can or just good enough for your customers?
Back on track, what we are talking about is Zeiss having a market big enough to keep the business afloat. It’s not about me and my nerdy friends staring at computer screens. Sure, it’s nice to tweak out and pixel peep, doesn’t mean someone’s gonna like my picture though.
And that’s the point.
ronno wrote:
I would bet that if you handed 10 people cameras, the auto focused shots would have overall better focus than if they tried manual.
I have bought 1.2 lenses, shot so many great pictures with a 50 1.8 that cost 90 bucks… the lens is not “subpar“ just because you can see some micro detail or what not in photoshop. Again it’s about the end result. Make an print and nobody cares about the equipment, just who got the better content.
10 people or 10 established photographers? Makes a huge difference. In this thread about Zeiss lenses, I believe we would be talking about 10 established photographers. If that’s the case, then I still stand by my statement that I can get more precise focus using manual lenses than AF lenses when I shoot landscapes.
As far as no one cares…you are wrong. I care. I want to achieve the best I can…not just good enough for someone else.
You see Annie L. shooting with Canon, Sony, Nikon, using random zoom lenses on advertising campaigns for some of the biggest companies in the world, like Disney.
Is anyone at Disney, or Moncler or Hyundai or Louis Vuitton or Amex or GAP or Vogue telling her to shoot with a Batis? Moncler has gigantic prints on the walls in their stores… It goes on and on.
Other photographers also shooting the biggest ad campaigns in the world right now are using a Canon 1DX @ 20 megapixels for Banana Republic etc etc. Almost always with zooms.
chez wrote:
10 people or 10 established photographers? Makes a huge difference. In this thread about Zeiss lenses, I believe we would be talking about 10 established photographers. If that’s the case, then I still stand by my statement that I can get more precise focus using manual lenses than AF lenses when I shoot landscapes.
As far as no one cares…you are wrong. I care. I want to achieve the best I can…not just good enough for someone else.
I’m saying no one outside of photography circles cares. They’re just looking at pictures.
I personally spend the money, I have a Sony A1 sitting next to me…
I’m talking about why more people don’t buy the lenses, the topic of the thread here. I’m not questioning whether photographers should value nice things.
ronno wrote:
Back on track, what we are talking about is Zeiss having a market big enough to keep the business afloat. It’s not about me and my nerdy friends staring at computer screens. Sure, it’s nice to tweak out and pixel peep, doesn’t mean someone’s gonna like my picture though.
And that’s the point.
Have no idea why Zeiss stepped out of the photography lens market…you’d need to sit in their board room to truly understand their goals.
As far as liking my photo goes…number one customer is me. I need to like the photo before anyone else.
As far as “and that’s the point”…what exactly is your point?
Just to rephrase something from above:
Who do you suppose no one running the creative departments at Disney, or Moncler or Hyundai or Louis Vuitton or Amex or GAP or Vogue are telling their photographers to shoot with a Batis?
I think I’m just willing to admit that no one besides my photo friends and me and you forum people, cares about the minutiae that people discuss when extolling these lenses.
Apparently not enough to keep them afloat.
ronno wrote:
Just to rephrase something from above:
Who do you suppose no one running the creative departments at Disney, or Moncler or Hyundai or Louis Vuitton or Amex or GAP or Vogue are telling their photographers to shoot with a Batis?
I think I’m just willing to admit that no one besides my photo friends and me and you forum people, cares about the minutiae that people discuss when extolling these lenses.
Apparently not enough to keep them afloat.
You are still not getting it. The vast majority of photographers shoot for themselves, and if they can tell the difference with Zeiss lenses…that’s all that counts.
Y’all, if spending money on Zeiss or whatever floats your boat, fine. But there are tons of outstanding photographers who produce utterly great work using just about any good lenses out there, including the OEM lenses for whatever camera brand they use.
chez wrote:
You are still not getting it. The vast majority of photographers shoot for themselves, and if they can tell the difference with Zeiss lenses…that’s all that counts.
I think their market share and the decision to leave the market tell a different story.
Anyway chez, see you around the forums.
gdanmitchell wrote:
If they “think” they can tell the difference…
Confirmation bias is a terrible burden. ;-)
Y’all, if spending money on Zeiss or whatever floats your boat, fine. But there are tons of outstanding photographers who produce utterly great work using just about any good lenses out there, including the OEM lenses for whatever camera brand they use.
You. Cannot. Tell. By. Looking. At. The. Photos.
Really gdan. Why is it that you use your Canon L lenses and not just stick to the kit lenses or mega zooms…IF. One. Can’t. Tell. The. Difference. In. Prints.
ronno wrote:
The fancy lens makes it more interesting to whom??
Makes it more interesting to the photographer with their nose, glued to the screen.
But not more interesting to the consumer… And that’s my point.
Yes it's mostly about being more interesting to me. As I said previously, sometimes I approach photography from an art perspective, and when I am making art, I am doing it mainly for myself. If I was taking photos for someone else my priorities would be different.
But I did see an example a few weeks ago where better gear/process may have produced better prints. I went to a gallery and the photographer had very large framed prints on display(larger than 50 inches). I have no idea what gear was used to make the images or prints but the quality was disappointing when standing close to the prints (Within about 2-3 feet). I felt the prints would have been stronger at a smaller size. This definitely could have been a case where better gear could have produced better results, if the intent was to make such large prints.
ronno wrote:
I would bet that if you handed 10 people cameras, the auto focused shots would have overall better focus than if they tried manual.
I have handed plenty of non photographers my DSLRs and got photos that were out of focus too, so I hope you mean photographers. In that case, many photographers know how to MF a lens. For example, Astro photography almost always requires using MF. Macro photography and Landscape photography can require MF if you want precise control of focus.
ronno wrote:
Back on track, what we are talking about is Zeiss having a market big enough to keep the business afloat. It’s not about me and my nerdy friends staring at computer screens. Sure, it’s nice to tweak out and pixel peep, doesn’t mean someone’s gonna like my picture though.
And that’s the point.
Besides for Zeiss lenses having a unique look and top notch build quality, Zeiss also has a rich history in the photography world. Maybe it's sentimental thinking, but some of us don't want to see such a well regarded brand leave the photography world behind.
My gut is photography has become a very small part of what the company does, so it's not about if they can make money in photography but about how much money they can make in photography. I am sure the ZX1 camera hurt there photography enthusiam a bit too, but every company misses the market on product here or there, especaly when trying to create a new market.
Lastly, I feel like Zeiss has lost it's footing in the mirrorless market as it never completed the Loxi, Batis or ZA lens lineups in the E mount world, and have been completely quite in the Canon R and Nikon Z world. It's hard to sugest buying Zeiss lenses today to photogrpahers not looking to adapt lesnes. Something tells me if they made something like a Zeiss Milvus line, with the styling of the Loxi or ZF lenses I feel they would regain momentum. If they really wanted to shock the market come up with a way to add AF with a good MF experience too.
chez wrote:
Really gdan. Why is it that you use your Canon L lenses and not just stick to the kit lenses or mega zooms…IF. One. Can’t. Tell. The. Difference. In. Prints.
chez - outside of photo forms (nerds like us), have you ever had someone look at your print and say wow, what lens was that?? If so, was it due to microcontrast, or because they loved the content?
At some point, I had four or five prints hanging on the wall at auction at Sotheby’s in New York, arguably one of the most prestigious places to display artwork in the world. They are definitely concerned with quality there.
Do you care to guess how many people asked me about which lenses I used?
Hint: zero
Though I did get nice comments about my *craft.*
(The images were shoot with an old Canon 50mm 1.8, fyi)
I am about to get the Sony 50mm 1.4 - because it’s beautiful and I have the money. I am not against such purchases as this, manual focus Zeiss, whatever floats your boat.
But no part of me thinks anyone anyone is going to look at the resulting images and know or care that it was shot with my shiny new 50, rather than the old one.
So why should people who don’t have the disposable income bother? Why should people who aren’t interested in manual focus bother? Why should people who are only interested in the convenience of zoom lenses bother?
I wonder how Voigtlander, Leica, Laowa, Thypoch, 7Artisans, TTArtisan, MSOptics....and the tons of others I'm forgetting .....are in business. It's such a small market. I mean large enough for a bunch of manufacturers, but too small for all of these others AND Zeiss. It's just the right kind of small for everyone else now?
I guess my point is that niches are niches. Zeiss had been playing in that niche for years, and if anything, there seems to be a healthy business for that niche. At least gauging how many players there are now.
Most people who are into niche things don't care about how many people aren't into that niche thing....especially in gear forums, which are probably a little on the niche side to begin with.
I had thought Zeiss was exiting because the camera lens business was a small distraction to their industrial optics business.
I have had a friend ask several times what lens I used for various photos. Turns out she inherited her dad's camera stuff and it was more about focal length.
tschopp wrote:
I had thought Zeiss was exiting because the camera lens business was a small distraction to their industrial optics business.
I have had a friend ask several times what lens I used for various photos. Turns out she inherited her dad's camera stuff and it was more about focal length.
I’ve been asked numerous times here on FM to post the lens and camera details along with the images.
The size of the MF lens market is probably much larger than most think. Were I around new york, I'd quiz a manager at B&H. No one is going to make lenses for just a handful to buy.
Lenses make the difference to images. At the margin, the good ones provide a far higher percentage of keepers, and images from those lenses will feature prominently in each photographer's top 100.
You can use anything, of course, few would notice. People at shows and events/corporate are looking at the images as self-contained products, not the technical quality of the imagery. Most have poor taste.
Fred started a review of the Simera 50/1.4 November 3. It's a much derided M-mount lens from an unknown lens maker. Here is how it's going: '96,630 views | 224 posts'. Not many people actually post here, but many, many more read. MF and off-brand lens users are not dilettantes, they understand optics and the need for quality - IF excellence is the goal.
