philip_pj wrote:
I did this rugged walk in Tas in mid-winter and could not believe how flat this CV APO went. It would be a rough favorite for the title of flattest APO lens.
I’m afraid that the difference between the lens you used and whatever lens you think is the Most Poppy-est Lens In The Entire Universe would not turn these photographs into something significantly different. (That's not a criticism of your photography — we've all encountered those situations in which the Photography Gods are not on our side.;-) )
These are simply tough conditions and subjects, and photographing them effectively takes some significant time and imagination and technique.The same photos made with a different lens would look largely the same.
I once heard someone relate a story about a photographer who was also a teacher. (It may have been Vincent Versace, butI’m not certain.) To paraphrase as best as I can. The plot was that a student, still using somewhat less sophisticated gear, remarked, essentially, that “if I could afford the gear you use my photographs could look as good as yours.” So the photographer replied, “I’ll switch gear with you and we’ll go make photographs.” It turned out at the end of the experiment that the gear was not what made the difference…
To be clear — because I can anticipate the response after having these discussions for decades — I am not saying that “gear does not matter,” nor am I saying that crappy gear is fine or that all gear is equal. That would be an absurdity in a medium that relies on equipment for its very existence. I am saying that it often doesn’t matter in the ways some think or with the magnitude that some hope.
philip_pj wrote:
I did this rugged walk in Tas in mid-winter and could not believe how flat this CV APO went. It would be a rough favorite for the title of flattest APO lens.
I’m afraid that the difference between the lens you used and whatever lens you think is the Most Poppy-est Lens In The Entire Universe would not turn these photographs into something significantly different.
These are simply tough conditions and subjects, and photographing them effectively takes some significant time and imagination and technique.The same photos made with a different lens would look largely the same.
I once heard someone relate a story about a photographer who was also a teacher. (It may have been Vincent Versace, butI’m not certain.) To paraphrase as best as I can. The plot was that a student, still using somewhat less sophisticated gear, remarked, essentially, that “if I could afford the gear you use my photographs could look as good as yours.” So the photographer replied, “I’ll switch gear with you and we’ll go make photographs.” It turned out at the end of the experiment that the gear was not what made the difference…
To be clear — because I can anticipate the response after having these discussions for decades — I am not saying that “gear does not matter,” nor am I saying that crappy gear is fine or that all gear is equal. That would be an absurdity in a medium that relies on equipment for its very existence. I am saying that it often doesn’t matter in the ways some think or with the magnitude that some hope.
Nov 11, 2025 at 12:07 PM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #16926753 « which lens has the most 3D POP? »
