-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Community Obssessing about lens quality
- Thread starter rhlpetrus
- Start date
For Community specific topics, whether DPR or the Community itself generates them.
Ryan Schwartz
Senior Member
I don’t think the general public has the obsession over the technical aspects of the photos that photographers would. Some of the most iconic photos in the history of the world has been taken on more imperfect optics.
Last edited:
Well, one of the most iconic cars was Ford Model T but I wouldn’t buy anything close to it today.
MyReality
Veteran Member
I think that the people that like The Mona Lisa is more than just 'a small circle of friends". Ansel Adams 'Moonrise ... " photo also comes to mind. Everything is not average.
MyReality
Veteran Member
You might have to take out a loan first to buy some of them. How about a 1963 Corvette for $50,000 and it does not even have AC or cruise control. The same thing can be said for some old photos.
Photo content still sells photos above anything else.
MyReality
Veteran Member
Artists do not blame their tools for bad art that they created.
MyReality
Veteran Member
In other words, photo content is all the matters.
I do not buy or sell photos.
I agree about professional photographers who make a living from it. I interact with some, and they usually want to get the job done with the lowest cost gear they can manage with. If they cannot buy for long term use, they rent for individual assignment.
I meant mostly hobby photographers, many of whom are as much interested in the gear as they are with actual photos, if not more.
rhlpetrus
Forum Pro
Exactly, my view as well. And I asked some non photographers about the image, all liked it, due to the context as you say, and some pointed to the flare as meaning something reminiscent of early religious paintings, like rays emanating from angels or God’s hands.Here's mine...I was reading the last issue of The Atlantic online (great publication!) and they have a great weekly photographs section. This week's, enjoy the great variety of photography displyed:
https://www.theatlantic.com/photography/archive/2025/10/photos-of-the-week/684573/
If you scroll down a bit you'll find this image, shot, if I understand from credits, by an Ukraine's army photographer (Reuters).
It's an absurdly impactant image in all aspects, with the sun's behing the cat effect truly fantastic. But, some will say, the person used a poor lens, the flare is not what one would expect from top-notch optics. Does it matter? I'd like to hear opinions,
The context for every image is important. Without knowing that this is from a war zone, the photo has poor lighting, lot of shadows, cat moving in the foreground, ruins in the background, etc. It portrays a "dark situation". Lens quality is not what anyone thinks of for such a photo. Many viewers won't even understand flare.
--
Renato.
Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)
The ones I talked to, gear addict or not, had high quality gear, and certainly knew what they were using. One was complaining that the most recent Nikon 300/2.8 was too expensive, so he had to buy the older version, but he was not using whatever the camera store guy recommended (and we do not even have a proper camera store here anymore). The other one had two Sony A1 cameras with big whites. A third one was shooting an event with an 1D camera and 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 lenses.
Tony Hall
Senior Member
For me, "lens quality" is most important in the sense that it won't break if I drop it and it won't get dust inside if I use it in dusty environments. A solid lens that's reliable and well made.
I've got a Sony 18-105 f/4 that I left on the roof of my car and it didn't fall off until I went around a corner. The lens went flying. Still works perfectly. Now I love that lens (not the sharpest one in the bag though).
Another time, I was using a cheap Sigma 30mm f/2.8 and I dropped it (about two feet) while changing lenses... that was the end of that lens.
As for optical quality, I just use a lens and see how I like the pictures. If the lens has a characteristic that's bad enough to get my attention, then I'll get rid of it. Hasn't happened very often.
I've got a Sony 18-105 f/4 that I left on the roof of my car and it didn't fall off until I went around a corner. The lens went flying. Still works perfectly. Now I love that lens (not the sharpest one in the bag though).
Another time, I was using a cheap Sigma 30mm f/2.8 and I dropped it (about two feet) while changing lenses... that was the end of that lens.
As for optical quality, I just use a lens and see how I like the pictures. If the lens has a characteristic that's bad enough to get my attention, then I'll get rid of it. Hasn't happened very often.
Cherry_F
Senior Member
This image works for me, and this is what matters, especially regarding war reports.
The flare doesn't bother me, and the light behind the cat's tail evokes religious icons, which is obviously most appropriate in a church.
When looking at the image on theAntlatic website, however, I noticed the soldier and I found it a bit disturbing. I believe this kind of image would be stronger without a human being.
___
Photography is so easy, that's what makes it highly difficult - Robert Delpire
The flare doesn't bother me, and the light behind the cat's tail evokes religious icons, which is obviously most appropriate in a church.
When looking at the image on theAntlatic website, however, I noticed the soldier and I found it a bit disturbing. I believe this kind of image would be stronger without a human being.
___
Photography is so easy, that's what makes it highly difficult - Robert Delpire
Agree there big time. And maybe "more" instead of "as much".
Kipplemaster
Member
- Messages
- 39
- Reaction score
- 23
The thing about "once in a lifetime" shots like that is that there is usually something technically quite bad about them which would annoy the photographer, but the audience don't tend to care.
I would love to have taken that one. But the thing which would annoy me is that it is not focussed on the cat. The flare is great - definitely adds to the image in my view.
I would love to have taken that one. But the thing which would annoy me is that it is not focussed on the cat. The flare is great - definitely adds to the image in my view.
The cat was moving. The DOF is quite deep.
rhlpetrus
Forum Pro
I think that too, it works here to make image somewhat phantasmagoric, including the almost invisible soldier, which I hadn’t seen at first.
felix from the suburbs
Senior Member
There are times when obsession is a useful thing - such as Michelangelo taking a long time to work on the Sistine chapel. However, most of the time most of us are not really creating work that is intended to last for centuries and convey multiple levels of meaning. So I believe that while we should always strive to perform at our best some judgement should come into play and getting the best out of our tools should sometimes be more important than striving for the best tools.
What’s wrong with striving for the best tools? If you can afford them, of course? Do people buying luxury cars need to get the most of the cheaper ones first? Or don’t buy a nice house before you get the most of what you have now?
Jack Simpson
Forum Pro
... but, in all sincerity, I don't give a ratsas about the lens nor camera. It is intriguing photo and I, truly, hope that the photographer is still alive and continuing to shoot pictures 
Cheers,
Jack
--
STREET PHOTOGRAPHY DOCUMENTARY:
(*UPDATED NOV 16th*)MY BLOG.... www.nakedmanonawire.blogspot.com
****MY EMAIL ADDRESS IN IS MY 'VIEW PLAN'****
It's amazing what one can do when one doesn't know what one is doing
Cheers,
Jack
--
STREET PHOTOGRAPHY DOCUMENTARY:
****MY EMAIL ADDRESS IN IS MY 'VIEW PLAN'****
It's amazing what one can do when one doesn't know what one is doing
Last edited:
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum