Luminous Landscape: "Enough Already!"

[Suhit Gupta]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/enough-already.shtml' target='_blank'>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/enough-already.shtml</a><br /><br /></div><i>"When I am out in the field photographing, I enter what for me is a “sacred space.” By this, I mean that I do not want to be disturbed in the field by the technology of the camera. Rather, I want to feel free, open to the moment and absorbed by the beauty of the view in front of me. It’s not about the camera, but about the moment. Given my feelings, I do not want a computer strapped to the back of my lens, with twenty-plus levels of menus, more buttons than are needed to launch a nuclear missile, and the perpetual pause to monitor that “all systems are GO!” .... Simplicity is an elegant solution and one sorely needed in digital capture. I hope that digital cameras will mature to the point wherein we no longer consider the image sensor as the primary component, but once again return the spotlight to the lens, the lens, and the lens."</i><br /><br />I have often thought about this issue. I bought the Canon 10D some time ago because of all the fancy things it could do, but I have realized over the last 2-3 years that it really is the lens that makes all the difference. For example, I used to have a crappy Canon 28-80 lens that felt like cheap plastic (bought it because of lack of money), and it certainly gave pictures that were sub-par. When I upgraded to a nice Canon 24-85 lens, the quality of my images went up tremendously. Does anyone disagree with the above linked article's conclusion?

[Jason Dunn]

Interesting stuff...beeing the DSLR n00b that I am, I thought that the image quality was all about the sensor on the camera, not the lens. The lens effects things like the exposure of an image, right? But does it also affect colours, tonality, etc.? Maybe I'm missing something, but I always thought that more expensive lenses were just faster (f/stops) and that's it. No? 8O

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Resolution, colours and tonality can be affected. Also aberrations vary from lens to lens. A photographer's requirements will also determine what level of quality matters to him/her.

[cameron]

Lenses can make a tremendous difference in quality. I picked up a Canon 70-200 4.0L lens a few months ago. Comparing the shots at full resolution to my old 55-200 lens (non-L), the differences were notable. The L lens was much sharper (I was taking a picture of my CD case and comparing the labels on the case spine). Additionally, the color was more accurate.

Back to the point of the article though. Would I love a Leica - you know it. I'm perfectly happy with my 20D, but I find myself shooting more and more with my 20 year old Mamiya RB67, despite the size of the beast. The manual nature of shooting with this camera that has absolutely no batteries and the way it makes me slow down what I'm doing and concentrate on making the best shot possible is much more fun than the "quantity" game I find myself playing with the 20D. With the 20D I find myself shooting 30 shots of the same scene, playing with composition, aperture, shutter speed, focal length, etc., hoping that one shot comes out great. With the Mamiya, I spend that time planning the shot and, more often than not, I take one shot that turns out great.

Of course, you have to take the author's style into consideration. He's a fine art photographer. His needs are much different than a sports photographer. When I'm shooting sports or an event, digital is the way to go.

All that being said, my bonus next month is going to find me a nice Leica M7.

[Jason Dunn]

Resolution, colours and tonality can be affected. Also aberrations vary from lens to lens. A photographer's requirements will also determine what level of quality matters to him/her.

Interesting stuff! Ok, what would be a good general-purpose lens for my 300D?

[cameron]

Jason,

Are you currently shooting with the kit (18-55mm) lens?

An excellent, inexpensive (relatively) alternative is the 17-40 4.0L. The lens is a bit faster on the long end than the 18-55, although you do lose some zoom . I've found that I don't mind the loss of zoom, as most of my shots end up in the 30-40 mm range (which is basically a "normal" focal length on my 20D and your 300D).

You can pick this lens up used for anywhere between $500-600 US. The new price on B&amp;H is $680.

I personally didn't find the kit lens to be too much of a dog, although there are opinions otherwise. That being said, I greatly prefer the colors I get from my 17-40.

Of course, if you want something faster, the 16-35 2.8L gains you an additional stop, at a price increase of another $600.

Another cheaper alternative is to pick up one of Canon's excellent 50mm prime lenses. Both the 1.8 ($75) and the 1.4 ($300) will give you a dramatic sharpness increase from the kit lens. I use the 1.4 for the additional 2/3 of a stop and the USM motor, which is faster and quieter.

The Canon 24-70 2.8L is another top performer - but it's pricey at $1,150. I've heard some great reviews of the Tamron 28-75 2.8 and it's extremely affordable at $380. Of course with both of these you lose a significant amount at the wide end, and the consensus is that you should pair these with a wide prime or the 17-40 or 16-35.

Also - see the discussion at http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/257291/0

[Neil Enns]

It all depends on what you like to shoot, Jason. I have most of the lenses listed below, and grab whatever is appropriate for the situation. The 17-40L is nice for wide shots (well, sortof wide, silly 1.6X crop...), but the lens I use most often is the 24-70L. It covers a nice range for portraits of single people, and gives you a bit of distance when you can't get close to something. I also have the 70-300 DO IS for long-range stuff, and the 50mm 1.4. The 50mm is rarely used.

Oh, and I love my 100mm macro for portraits and, well, macros :)

The camera is just a box. In film days the film and the lens were what mattered. Digital cameras are a tad different since you're stuck with whatever sensor is in the box for the life of the camera, so body (or rather, sensor) matters a more than it used to, but the lenses still have a huge impact.

Neil

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Interesting stuff! Ok, what would be a good general-purpose lens for my 300D?

That really depends on what you shoot. If you've read my article on zoom control you'll have an idea on how focal lengths can affect your photo. Ultimately you'll then decide on what you want to use. Back when I was using film I'd pack three primes; now I'm using the 18-70 that comes with the D70, though ultimately I think I'd be best served by a combination of a 12-24 and a 50mm.

[expletive]

I also have the 17-40 and have taken some fantastic pictures with it. It is a great upgrade from the kit included lens.

On the LL article, i think that just becuase we discuss the sensors of the DSLRs doesnt mean they are the primary quality component. Continuing to focus on their improved low light and high ISO noise performance doesnt mean they are a bottleneck, just that they continue to improve and offer photographers more flexibility than they had before.

This LL author just seems to be focusing more on the 'zen' of photography and how the LCDs and NiMH batteries can spoil that pristine organic environment by injecting technology into it.

When he says "I hope that digital cameras will mature to the point wherein we no longer consider the image sensor as the primary component, but once again return the spotlight to the lens, the lens, and the lens."

I think he should replace 'we no longer consider' with 'I no longer consider' because a lot of people are already there...

John

[Doug Johnson]

The lens makes more difference than anything else, at least in my experience. Since I got my 10D and later upgradedto a 20D, I have slowly switched over to using solely Canon branded lenses. Use the 28-135mm IS lens most of the time (about $400 street), and quite like the lens. Canon makes an equivalent EF-S version of this lens (17-85 I believe) but it is more expensive. On the wide end I use the 10-22mm EF-S. The 50mm 1.8 is also a very good lens. The 18-55 I got with the 20D shows excessive chromatic aberration and isn't as sharp as I would like, so I almost never use it.