Community Obssessing about lens quality

rhlpetrus said:

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?

Click to expand...

No, "what some people say" doesn't matter.

rhlpetrus said:

I'd like to hear opinions, mine is, basically, no, 99% of people looking at this image won't care about it, many will find the effect a plus (they do, I tested at home).

Click to expand...

The remaining 1% can pack their lenses and travel to Ukraine to take "better" photos.

All lenses flare. Some flare less than others. I feel like the OP made up an argument where there isn't one. I can see the flare, I can see the motion blur on the cat. It is what it is. The moment is gone.

rhlpetrus said:

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, mine is, basically, no, 99% of people looking at this image won't care about it, many will find the effect a plus (they do, I tested at home).

Click to expand...

If it was taken with a much better lens and thus the lens didn't have the flare and the cat was sharp, I think it would be a better photo. Just my opinion.

--
Lance B

War photographers and/or photojournalists use what they are familiar with. Familiarity comes from practice under war scenarios, like this one in the photo. In this case, a soldier took the photo?

War photogs have to care much more with their safety and surroundings than having the latest and greatest.

biza43 said:

War photographers and/or photojournalists use what they are familiar with. Familiarity comes from practice under war scenarios, like this one in the photo. In this case, a soldier took the photo?

Click to expand...

Yes. He is both a photographer and a soldier:

https://www.ukrainianphotographers.com/photographers/oleg-petrasyuk

An interview with him in English:

https://www.ukrainianphotographers.com/en/photo-story/no-photo-is-worth-a-life

There is a YouTube video in Ukrainian, where at 10:33 he seems to be using the Canon RF 24-70mm F2.8L IS USM.

biza43 said:

War photographers and/or photojournalists use what they are familiar with. Familiarity comes from practice under war scenarios, like this one in the photo. In this case, a soldier took the photo?

War photogs have to care much more with their safety and surroundings than having the latest and greatest.

Click to expand...

100%

For all genres of photography, knowing the subject matter is more important.

Years ago an man I used to work with phoned up and said that he did not understand how it was that my pics were SO sharp and clear, wishing his Summicron on his Leica M3 was as good as my old screw Canon 50 f1.4 I used in my M3 with an adapter, and I gave these answers.

First I am still: whether its a riot or a waterfall, at least I do not move at the point of exposure. Still true now, my entire being concentrated on making perfect sweep panoramas with an iPhone, my movements even on muddy uneven ground turning a full circle with an unstabilized 14mm f2.2 (35mm equiv) ultrawide in almost impossible light are without camera shake at age 76, and this is because I put my entire mind/body into it.

I am not there for me. I am not there to impress colleagues or the media or my family or myself. I am there to do justice to Creation instead. And it is the same for people pictures: they, their being, their lives, their clothes, postures, everything are recorded as though they are divine extraterrestrials from another planet, and infinitely more important than me.

The trick is egolessness, and control: like a sniper, breath control, fixing your camera into your face completely. The equipment is secondary. But it helps, especially to be righthanded as all cameras are made for righthanded people. Jamming a Leica M into your face braced against your nose helps too. Wiping the sweat off your face and your hands regularly (I use old pillowcases).

And using image-stabil;ized equipment whenever possible takes the contrast and definition up several notches too in low light and even in bright daylight street scenes. Mirrorless bodies with zero-ish shutter lag are key, because what use is stabilization if you have relaxed before the shutter has actually made the shot. Imaging Resource published shutter-lag figures that Dpreview never has, and to discover that the shortest lag is STILL that of the Sony R1 10MP bridge camera with its 24-120mm f2.8-4.8 TWENTY years after its release may come as a surprise to you, but it says everything about who cares about what in the industry.

Return any lens that is not sharp, period. You might need to buy two or three before you get a good one, but it is worth the hassle.What passes in factory checks may have been destroyed by bad packaging and careless handling on its thousands miles journeys to you, only to be dropped in-store by a clumsy salesman just to make sure it really IS a dud! AND, if you have a lens repaired or serviced, please do photograph well its condition before you give it up for repair.. I ages ago got a very sharp 24mm f2.8 AIS Nikkor swapped for a scratched duff one when my camera had its sensor cleaned, and I could say nothing as I had NO proof of the lens that was mine. NO photo. NO serial Number: I had to grin and bear the outrageous theft in silence.

Then brave the perils of software. I use DXO 5 still as it has the lens profiles for most of what I use AND its Deep Prime noise reduction is key to yielding the best contrast, definition detail and high dynamic range from even horrid files at high isos, so I dare guess its latest Elite version is at least as good & can be installed on three machines. It lacks profiles for most phones, my iPhone especially, but Apple's corrections on their recent Pro models are amazingly good. I just wish my 12mm Laowa that I stick on anything had moveable profiles too! But no... Bye, hope this helps!

I've forever heard and agree with the sentiment: "content is king."

The more important or interesting your subject, the less the other aspects matter, like image quality, lens flaws, etc.

If you have an interesting subject, great lighting, and a pleasing composition -- the only thing left is for your camera to reliably capture it (ie. getting focus, having enough detail/dynamic range).

It's why phones have become the most important cameras most people own for the simple reason that they're always there and have good hit rates.

In many conditions, the gear won't matter that much, but 'better gear' should be more reliable and produce higher quality results as the conditions become more challenging. That's why I've prioritized autofocus performance above other factors -- missed focus means missed shot. There's no fixing it. High DR is also important to help if the shot wasn't exposed exactly as it should have been -- more headroom to fix those hip-fire shots of fleeting moments. Same with high resolution, to potentially improve the quality of the framing (or even create multiple shots from a single capture).

On the same note as lens perfection, I would argue things like which camera body has the best colour science are equally overrated. It's the easiest thing to fix. People will go on about "colour science" then reveal they're using a 1080p monitor with 65% sRGB, completely uncalibrated I've never had a camera that had perfect colours in all shots, nor have any two bodies from the same brand ever produced identical colours.

I agree. Flobbering on about colour science is super-boring and presumably a sign of people who have never had the (hideous) experience of manually making colour prints in a darkroom. Everything about colours can be adjusted.

A recent experience which made me appreciate how irrelevant all the stuff about lens quality is was a visit to the optician. I could read the bottom line on the chart easily but with the lens adjustments it was sharper. "There's not much difference, though, is there" said my optician. My response was that there was a night-and-day difference of the sort that you would never see between the absolutely worst and absolutely best camera lenses available!

Kipplemaster said:

I agree. Flobbering on about colour science is super-boring and presumably a sign of people who have never had the (hideous) experience of manually making colour prints in a darkroom.

Click to expand...

My struggle for close to perfect music reproduction was never understood by my parents when I was teenager. Many of my friends later could not appreciate the system I built. I am enjoying it up to this day despite the fact that many people do not care.

Same thing with color. If the color of certain system bothers me, it does regardless of how boring it may look to someone else.

Kipplemaster said:

Everything about colours can be adjusted.

Click to expand...

I can "adjust" music, too, but I cannot make a poor system sound great.

Sunstars & flare behavior are some of those secondary metrics that have a way of becoming closer to primary metrics for me.

For my own EDC & travel usage, over time I find I "just like" lenses that behave a certain way with the sun in the frame. I want them to accentuate the fact that the sun is in the frame with some artifacts – but not too many.







For the OP example IMHO location, light, subject and historical context trump any & all considerations of optical nuance.

--

J A C S said:

Kipplemaster said:

I agree. Flobbering on about colour science is super-boring and presumably a sign of people who have never had the (hideous) experience of manually making colour prints in a darkroom.

Click to expand...

My struggle for close to perfect music reproduction was never understood by my parents when I was teenager. Many of my friends later could not appreciate the system I built. I am enjoying it up to this day despite the fact that many people do not care.

Same thing with color. If the color of certain system bothers me, it does regardless of how boring it may look to someone else.

Click to expand...

An analogy that doesn't really work here as it would be equivalent to dialing in the perfect display monitor.

People are far more likely to enjoy great music than a great sound system. There's limits to what people can hear (or see) and limits to what they'll even notice or care. You can have the perfect elevator music through your perfect sound system and nobody will enjoy it -- but they'll love a hit song played through the crappy PA at the dance floor.

Content is king.

J A C S said:

J A C S said:

Everything about colours can be adjusted.

Click to expand...

I can "adjust" music, too, but I cannot make a poor system sound great.

Click to expand...

The sound system is the display device, not the camera. None of the cameras have colours so off you can't make them look right or identical, even.

If you weren't the one creating and mastering the music, then you have no control over the 'colour' of the audio track.

For those who do create music, you still need to master your music and use the most accurate references, but you can't control that people will blast it from their phones.

Thirsty_Fox said:

J A C S said:

Kipplemaster said:

I agree. Flobbering on about colour science is super-boring and presumably a sign of people who have never had the (hideous) experience of manually making colour prints in a darkroom.

Click to expand...

My struggle for close to perfect music reproduction was never understood by my parents when I was teenager. Many of my friends later could not appreciate the system I built. I am enjoying it up to this day despite the fact that many people do not care.

Same thing with color. If the color of certain system bothers me, it does regardless of how boring it may look to someone else.

Click to expand...

An analogy that doesn't really work here as it would be equivalent to dialing in the perfect display monitor.

Click to expand...

*Close* to perfect. My monitors are pretty good.

Thirsty_Fox said:

People are far more likely to enjoy great music than a great sound system. There's limits to what people can hear (or see) and limits to what they'll even notice or care. You can have the perfect elevator music through your perfect sound system and nobody will enjoy it -- but they'll love a hit song played through the crappy PA at the dance floor.

Content is king.

Click to expand...

Speaking about boring - repeating this is a good example.

What "people" enjoy or not is the least of my concerns. I enjoy quality.

Thirsty_Fox said:

Thirsty_Fox said:

Thirsty_Fox said:

Everything about colours can be adjusted.

Click to expand...

I can "adjust" music, too, but I cannot make a poor system sound great.

Click to expand...

The sound system is the display device, not the camera. None of the cameras have colours so off you can't make them look right or identical, even.

Click to expand...

They capture colors in different ways.

Lenses are tools, and that's all. Sometimes you need an excellent tool to do the job, sometimes any tool will do, sometimes a "defective" tool will add a little character that the "perfect" tool cannot.

I like this image, and I don't find the flare distracting. In fact, it adds a little something to the image.

Yes, I pixel peep with the best of them, but some of my best photos were made with kit lenses.

Most lenses of 50 to 75 years ago do not have the same sharpness and contrast as modern lenses. There were still a great many excellent photographs made with those lenses. The eye and brain are the most important tools of the photographer. Excellent equipment and software can open up possibilities not present for lesser gear and software. If you don't have anything to say, you can not say it as easily with a cell phone camera as with a $10,000.00 camera/lens combo. If you have something to say, you will find some way to say it, even with less than optimal equipment - as long as there are no highly specialized requirements. You can't submit many winning images to Nikon Small World without having access to scientific apparatus, microscopes, or highly specialized macro lenses.

J A C S said:

Kipplemaster said:

I agree. Flobbering on about colour science is super-boring and presumably a sign of people who have never had the (hideous) experience of manually making colour prints in a darkroom.

Click to expand...

My struggle for close to perfect music reproduction was never understood by my parents when I was teenager. Many of my friends later could not appreciate the system I built. I am enjoying it up to this day despite the fact that many people do not care.

Same thing with color. If the color of certain system bothers me, it does regardless of how boring it may look to someone else.

J A C S said:

Everything about colours can be adjusted.

Click to expand...

I can "adjust" music, too, but I cannot make a poor system sound great.

Click to expand...

This is a good analogy I think. People (including me when younger) sometimes spend too much time flobbering about with hifi equipment too. But in fact it is mostly irrelevant.

Kipplemaster said:

J A C S said:

Kipplemaster said:

I agree. Flobbering on about colour science is super-boring and presumably a sign of people who have never had the (hideous) experience of manually making colour prints in a darkroom.

Click to expand...

My struggle for close to perfect music reproduction was never understood by my parents when I was teenager. Many of my friends later could not appreciate the system I built. I am enjoying it up to this day despite the fact that many people do not care.

Same thing with color. If the color of certain system bothers me, it does regardless of how boring it may look to someone else.

Kipplemaster said:

Everything about colours can be adjusted.

Click to expand...

I can "adjust" music, too, but I cannot make a poor system sound great.

Click to expand...

This is a good analogy I think. People (including me when younger) sometimes spend too much time flobbering about with hifi equipment too. But in fact it is mostly irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant to whom? I listen even to the Weather Channel on my HT system. In fact, I forgot to put back the speakers of my TV when I had to replace the backlight some time ago.

J A C S said:

Satyaa said:

Bob A L said:

Satyaa said:

It is among photographers that the conversation then moves on to gear used.

Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. I have been close personal friends with three very successful professional photographers through the years and not one of them was a gear addict of any kind

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Not sure if your response was meant for my comment or Bob's, but I feel the conversation has moved a bit sideways.

What I said above was a clarification to Bob's response on my original comment. You don't see that comment in this post because it was snipped.

I will just leave it there.

Thanks.

J A C S said:

J A C S said:

J A C S said:

and often ask a lot of really basic questions about cameras, lenses, and technical aspects of using photography gear. None of them want any real part of such tidbits. They all are highly talented artists that use cameras as their tools and their success cannot be attributed to the gear they used in any way. They all have an eye for the killer photo and composition. If I were to ask any of them tomorrow what model their camera is they could not tell me. Was visiting with one of these people a few weeks ago and they were telling me about a new lens they have but could not give me particulars, just said their go to guy at the camera shop recommended it and it is really great.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Lance B said:

rhlpetrus said:

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, mine is, basically, no, 99% of people looking at this image won't care about it, many will find the effect a plus (they do, I tested at home).

Click to expand...

If it was taken with a much better lens and thus the lens didn't have the flare and the cat was sharp, I think it would be a better photo. Just my opinion.

Click to expand...

I think the lens in question is Canon RF 24-70mm F2.8 L IS USM. What would be a "much better lens"?

Dem Bell said:

Lance B said:

rhlpetrus said:

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, mine is, basically, no, 99% of people looking at this image won't care about it, many will find the effect a plus (they do, I tested at home).

Click to expand...

If it was taken with a much better lens and thus the lens didn't have the flare and the cat was sharp, I think it would be a better photo. Just my opinion.

Click to expand...

I think the lens in question is Canon RF 24-70mm F2.8 L IS USM. What would be a "much better lens"?

Click to expand...

One that didn't flare when pointed in that direction. Regardless of that, the image would be better without the flare, IMO.

--
Lance B

Lance B said:

1. Lance B wrote:

Dem Bell said:

Lance B said:

rhlpetrus said:

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, mine is, basically, no, 99% of people looking at this image won't care about it, many will find the effect a plus (they do, I tested at home).

Click to expand...

If it was taken with a much better lens and thus the lens didn't have the flare and the cat was sharp, I think it would be a better photo. Just my opinion.

Click to expand...

I think the lens in question is Canon RF 24-70mm F2.8 L IS USM. What would be a "much better lens"?

Click to expand...

One that didn't flare when pointed in that direction. Regardless of that, the image would be better without the flare, IMO.

--
Lance B
https://www.flickr.com/photos/35949907@N02/?
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b

Click to expand...

I think the flare is an integral part of the image.

A

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post