good glass: when we talk about good glass can we say zeiss is the best.

roy4711 Loc: Spring Valley IL.

when we talk about good glass can we say zeiss is the best.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

You can say whatever you want. Results will always be the determining factor.

travlnman46 Loc: Yakima WA

Nikonian72 wrote:

You can say whatever you want. Results will always be the determining factor.

Good answer Nikonian72... I'd add the person on the other end of the lens plays an equally important roll... I don't care how great the glass or equipment ... if the photographer is only a snap shooter, the results will generally look the same.. If there is a true photographer on the other end they will get great results no matter what equipment or glass they use.. Having said that it also shows the better the photographer, the better the equipment, the better the results.. Just my thought on the subject...

ggttc Loc: TN

If you want a good glass to improve your skills...I gotta say "scotch".

Does the brand of hammer make you a better carpenter?
Does the brand of garden trowel make your roses prettier?

amehta Loc: Boston

I think the photographer, camera, and lens should be of comparable quality for the most efficient results. If on is much weaker than the others, it needs to be upgraded to match the others. If one is much stronger than the others, it will generally be wasted.

The best photographer will not create masterpieces with poor equipment. And Tiger Woods will not win the Masters with average clubs. :-)

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

ggttc wrote:

If you want a good glass to improve your skills...I gotta say "scotch".

Does the brand of hammer make you a better carpenter?
Does the brand of garden trowel make your roses prettier?

Just as there are many levels of quality of lenses, ranging from Quantaray rejects to a $26,000 Sigma, and your level of "good glass" must be qualified...so are there glasses of blended bar swill ranging to 50 year old single malt!

ggttc Loc: TN

amehta wrote:

I think the photographer, camera, and lens should be of comparable quality for the most efficient results. If on is much weaker than the others, it needs to be upgraded to match the others. If one is much stronger than the others, it will generally be wasted.

The best photographer will not create masterpieces with poor equipment. And Tiger Woods will not win the Masters with average clubs. :-)

I agree...to a point...but I think there is TOO much reliance on equipment...and it seems to me that some think you can buy your way into being good at photography...

We both know that's not true.

Its patience, learning light, shutter speed, aperture and ISO.

Know those 3 things and you can get "magnificent" shots with a $200 piece of glass.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

ggttc wrote:

Its patience(1), learning light(2), shutter speed(3), aperture(4) and ISO(5).
Know those 3 things and you can get "magnificent" shots with a $200 piece of glass.

First, you gotta learn how to count.

ggttc Loc: TN

Mogul wrote:

Just as there are many levels of quality of lenses, ranging from Quantaray rejects to a $26,000 Sigma, and your level of "good glass" must be qualified...so are there glasses of blended bar swill ranging to 50 year old single malt!

I prefer Laugavulin a 12 year old scotch...my point is learn the taste of that before you try aJura Vintage 1977 Single Highland Malt Scotch Whisky.

I have seen more than a few posts here that say " I cant get my d800 to focus" (replace that with any camera or model number)...and I wonder why they bought that camera....did it make them better...?

amehta Loc: Boston

ggttc wrote:

Its patience, learning light, shutter speed, aperture and ISO.

Know those 3 things and you can get "magnificent" shots with a $200 piece of glass.

Maybe we first need to define "magnificent"?

While you "can", your odds and overall results improve significantly with better lenses.

amehta Loc: Boston

ggttc wrote:

I prefer Laugavulin a 12 year old scotch...my point is learn the taste of that before you try aJura Vintage 1977 Single Highland Malt Scotch Whisky.

I have seen more than a few posts here that say " I cant get my d800 to focus" (replace that with any camera or model number)...and I wonder why they bought that camera....did it make them better...?

Some say that you can't buy "too much camera", but I disagree with that as well. If someone is starting photography (as opposed to snapshooting), I think more entry level models make sense.

amehta Loc: Boston

ggttc wrote:

I agree...to a point...but I think there is TOO much reliance on equipment...and it seems to me that some think you can buy your way into being good at photography...

We both know that's not true.

Agreed, my point is that it's all about balance.

doduce Loc: Holly Springs NC

ggttc wrote:

I prefer Laugavulin a 12 year old scotch...my point is learn the taste of that before you try aJura Vintage 1977 Single Highland Malt Scotch Whisky.

I have seen more than a few posts here that say " I cant get my d800 to focus" (replace that with any camera or model number)...and I wonder why they bought that camera....did it make them better...?

Dalwhinney or Aberlour.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

Alas, I am a simple man of limited means who delights in Glenlivit.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

amehta wrote:

Maybe we first need to define "magnificent"?

While you "can", your odds and overall results improve significantly with better lenses.

Agree. Maybe "acceptable" rather than "magnificent".... There is a limit to the resolution of a lens irrespective of the skills of the photographer.