BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

A double-gold versus a "low calorie" whiskey. That would take some serious and intense laboratory sampling (for the sake of science, mind you!).

rocketride Loc: Upstate NY

Well, that's a special kind of photography. Working within the known constraints of a particular piece of equipment is a particular challenge.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

i agree, as long as it's laphroig!

Budnjax Loc: NE Florida

Zeiss is normally excellent, but what's interesting about camera lenses is that frequently cheap lenses have excellent glass but the rest of the lens is anything but excellent. The mechanical (and today) electrical parts of a lens are probably more important than the optical parts (I say that because even if your glass is first-rate, if the rest of the lens doesn't work you're out of business). Lens barrels used to be brass-on-brass in high quality lenses while cleap ones used aluminum on aluminum and lots of grease to make them seem smooth....until the grease dried out. It's always amazing to me that so many folks spend most of their photo budget on a top of the line camera body and then put a less-than-stellar lens on it as if the first rate body is going to make an average lens perform better. It won't...I've always tried to buy better lenses which work just as well on a medium price camera body as they would on a $3000 one.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

I agree with you 100%.
But it's also pretty undeniable that the best bodies with the best glass will out perform the lesser combinations.
Where the line really start to blur, no pun int., is with demanding shooting, as in very fast sports in bad light, in the real world, the best performers are not always the combinations that produce the best still shots. It's all about photography in the real world. And where the rubber meets the road, is not at DXO. ;-)
SS

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

See, you were doing FINE until you mentioned DxO... :lol:

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Always glad to help out!! :thumbup: :lol:
SS

twindad Loc: SW Michigan, frolicking in the snow.

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.


Best chuckle I've had all day! Thanks!

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

From Wikipedia:

"Laphroaig has been the only whisky to carry the Royal Warrant of the Prince of Wales, which was awarded in person during a visit to the distillery in 1994. The 15-year-old is reportedly the prince's favourite Scotch whisky."

Well, I'll give it a try, but that's NOT the most glorious endorsement I've ever heard.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

think of something with enough peat in it to have the consistancy of crank-case oil - it takes a tad getting used to.

rocketride Loc: Upstate NY

And, frankly, good optics (the glass part of the lens aren't as much more expensive or difficult to design than not-so-good glass. The difference is more in the electronics and mechanicals.
If the glass itself is not good, it's because somebody really didn't give a crap or tried to cut corners a bit too far.

rocketride Loc: Upstate NY

And, frankly, good optics (the glass part of the lens aren't as much more expensive or difficult to design than not-so-good glass. The difference is more in the electronics and mechanicals.
If the glass itself is not good, it's because somebody really didn't give a crap or tried to cut corners a bit too far.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

uhhh...i think i need to take exception with that. the glass is hellishly expensive. and even more expensive if it carries the leitz, zeiss or rokkor taglines. if you ever have a chance, go through schneider's glass facility and take a look at what they have to go through. it's labour intensive, highly skilled, and the facilities are extremely expensive. and then take a look at the size of their reject pile!

the mechanics of a great lens are very simple. brass and steel, tight tolerances and metal lens mounts. the basics still hold. also metal screws, not the plastic ones which keep falling out and jamming the zoom feature of today's lenses of manufacturers who shall remain nameless, but who are continually racing to the bottom while telling digital users that this latest round of "stuff" is better than the last.

rocketride Loc: Upstate NY

Curmudgeonly, much?

You can take all the exception you want, but are you an optical designer? I am. I specialize in optics for astronomy and astro-imaging.

There was a day when what you describe was much more true than it is now. Advances in optical design software have brought the ability to design lenses of a given level of correction to more manufacturers. Manufacturers who aren't the ones you consider worthy of attention have have access to better manufacturing techniques (molding, grinding, polishing and coating methods) than anyone, including the holy trinity you mention, did 50, or even 25 years ago. Whether a given manufacturer uses the correct material for a given part is a different matter. And that is generally a matter of what "price point" the manufacturer is aiming for.

You, obviously, would be happy in a world where lenses cost a couple of thousand bucks a pop and having only people who have passed the I-can-afford-some-$2000-lenses test for fellow photographers. Some of us don't have that much money and don't want to haul view cameras around, anyway.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

During the greater part of the 1960's (except for a bit of military involvement), I served as a low-echelon technician in the aerospace industry, specifically the military industrial complex noted by Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1961. Surprisingly, I found out that my first few years, right out of college, "earned" me the title of "Rocket Scientist" on one line in a job history on a security questionnaire developed by the Department of Defense, later changed to "Aerospace Technician" during a personal interview. I knew then what many people, to this day, do not know. It was a combination of chemists, various disciplines of engineers, "laborers" and office geeks that built the massive weapons of mass destruction that were seldom tested and never used. And it was a small group of line supervisors that could feel, smell and knew in their gut whether a particular device or formulation was going to work. We had hundreds, no - thousands, of designers of "rockets" or missiles that were dreaded by humanity, but I never saw a damn one of them out on the production line. And years later, while I was conducting some mass properties tests of one of the now obsolete and de-classified missile components, I stood in disbelief as a high ranking military officer who had "designed/developed" this awesome rocket engine seriously and with a straight face asked a crane operator the name of the piece of equipment on which we were working and what we were doing. And I watched the officer's face turn white (and his company escorts turn red), when the crane operator told him that we were weighing the second rocket motor of the missile this militarized version of a "Rocket Scientist" had supposedly developed from its inception. So I don't want to hear from the guy who "designed" the Hale telescope on Mount Palomar; if I want to know how it works or what it's capable of, I'd rather ask one of the people who built or operate it! Job titles are just that - bestowed but relatively meaningless titles.