Deciding which lens to buy

Truman Prevatt wrote:

Vernon Church wrote:

To each his own.

I traded my 35 1.4 for the 2.0 and couldn't be happier. That said I'm not a professional, pixel peeper, nor do I print to large size. I find the bokeh on the 2.0 and speed fine for my needs. I love how the tapered lens respects the OVF on the X-PRO2.

I had the current 23mm and thought it was WAY too big. For me, the beauty of a mirrorless system is the small size and hence portability. If you are using big glass, you might as well get an slr and call it a day as performance, in general, has until very recently been better.

A big package is a D800 with a 70-200 f2.8 ;-)! I've spent 45 years off and on on the street with my trusty Leica and in the woods with my RB and 4x5. I know small and I like small. However, at the end of the day if the trade off for small is image quality - then small is not worth that trade.

As Ansel Adams often said - your work is just beginning after you develop the negative. In the digital world that would compare to downloading your raw file. Or to quote W. Eugene Smith.

“Negatives are the notebooks, the jottings, the false starts, the whims, the poor drafts, and the good draft but never the completed version of the work… The print and a proper one is the only completed photograph, whether it is specifically shaded for reproduction, or for a museum wall.”

In order to get the best final print - one has to start with the highest quality raw capture.

Back when I was teaching - students would often ask advice about what camera and/or lens to buy. My advice was simple. Get the best lens you can afford and build around that. It is truly amazing given the GAS we witness today - how many photographers produce truly amazing work with a small kit of a single camera and one high quality lens.

I remember in the late '70's attending a gallery opening in Washington, DC for Robert Adams. Adams was an incredible artist that explored the Western US landscape - not like Ansel but the interface between man's impact on the land and the reaction of the land. His "The New West" is an incredible look of the scars that man has put on the land.

Later when I lived in Colorado I had the pleasure to meet Adams again and have a long talk with him at an exhibition in Denver. I also had a few prints hanging in that gallery.

Adams only owned two lenses - a 50 f1.4 and 35 f2, both Nikon and two Nikon bodies. He also owned a Rolliflex and an 80 mm lens. He roamed the western prairie for 45 years with a camera and two lenses and TriX. Like W. Eugene Smith who brought us his unique perspective of the WWII - through the 50 mm lens of his Leica - Robert Adams was less concerned about gear and more concerned about his vision and passion.

If you asked either of these artist they would tell you - get the best glass you can afford and work around that. That is the reason that in the mid 1970's I spent a whole lot more money than I really should have on a Leica M6 and a the wonderful Leica Summilux 50 f1.4. Although Leica has produced several updates of this classic lens - I would not trade my Summie in for any of them. However, that investment of the best lens I could afford - although I couldn't really afford it at the time - was the best investment I ever made;-). Interestingly enough my Summilux weights 10 oz - the same as the X 23 f1.4. Leica put a lot of metal in those suckers.

It's kind of like buying a large screen TV. In the store you can drive yourself crazy with side by side comparisons. But once you bring it home and it's the only one you have hanging on the wall they are all mostly great. Comes down more so to what you want to spend and how heavy an object you ant hanging on your wall.

There is a lot to be said for that. Get what makes you happy, learn it inside and out so it can disappear between you and your subject and help you realize your vision.

Cheers,

Truman

Yet you choose the Nikon 50/1.4 and don't consider the 1.8 version. The latter happens to out resolve the 1.4. Pretty well established knowledge. Pardon me if I see a lapse in credibility here.

35 years shooting Nikon up to a D800.