The best photos that I've seen
Mar 27, 2021 10:56:56 #
User ID wrote:
The elevate what’s already “great” (your term) to a level even “more greater yet” (my term). Is that the result you would anticipate if your wish came to pass ?
It’s not meant to be a loaded question. I’ll confess up front that for me “great” needs no elevation to further realms of greatness. “Great” is perfectly adequate (sounds funny, but not joking).
It’s not meant to be a loaded question. I’ll confess up front that for me “great” needs no elevation to further realms of greatness. “Great” is perfectly adequate (sounds funny, but not joking).
Tell that to Nat Geo when you submit photos taken with less than the best equipment.
Mar 27, 2021 11:20:24 #
starlifter wrote:
If I could afford primes or want to carry around a load of lenses' I might consider it I have 1 prime (a Tamron 45mm) and hardly use it.I wonder how many shots you might miss because you didn;t have the right reach or were too close.
That 45 is the center of my fave 3-lens kit. Being the center piece I often leave out its wider and longer pals and just carry the lone 45.
No need to wonder how many shots I might I might miss for lack of reach or width. I’ll tell you right up front it’s in the tens of thousands. Let me just say I’m into Quality-Not-Quantity.
It is my accurate observation that those who feel compelled to equip themselves to avoid missing all those thousands of shots fail to attain Quality-AND-Quantity. They are stuck at Quantity-NOT-Quality.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
The intention, desire, and-or ability to “gather everything” is, by definition, the antithesis of selectivity. You want some “greatness” ? Try to achieve it without exercising tremendous selectivity.
Full Circle: A single FL in your bag is the route to fewer-but-better images. As a maker of better images I have no regrets concerning all those other, but lesser, tens of thousands of images that I willingly “missed”.
Mar 27, 2021 13:30:06 #
cameraf4 wrote:
I would still say that a quality prime is sharper than a high quality zoom at a specific FL. But printed and hanging on a wall or, certainly, viewed on a PC screen the difference really doesn't present itself.
Mar 27, 2021 14:53:41 #
SteveR wrote:
have all been shot with prime lenses. There are a few photographers that I know who take great photos who I wish shot with primes.
You need to increase your "exposure" to look at other work.
When I was in the market for an 800mm lens, I looked at the two that were available - both Sigma. Their 300-800 F5.6 was clearly sharper than their 800 F5.6 prime. Nikon's newest 180-400 is painfully sharp and crisp - even with the dedicated 1.4X TC. I'd put it up against the 400 F2.8, which is a sharpness monster - when using both at working apertures -(F5.6 - F8). I have a handful of primes - PC-E lenses, but not because they are that much sharper than their zoom counterparts - they are actually about the same - but because they offer tilt and shift for very specific situations where only they would work.
If a photographer says he uses prime lenses because they are better, then I would question his/her credentials. Each lens is different and making a generalization like that just makes no sense.
Mar 27, 2021 15:14:10 #
SteveR wrote:
Tell that to Nat Geo when you submit photos taken with less than the best equipment.
Never been a problem b4.
Mar 27, 2021 15:20:21 #
Gene51 wrote:
You need to increase your "exposure" to ... (show quote)
So true ... but UHH tradition calls for sweeping didactic generalisimos from clueless experts. As they’ve always said “That’s entertainment !” the roar of the grease paint, the smell of the crowd ...
Mar 27, 2021 17:16:37 #
To me, "best photos" are those images which have the most effective communicative power - images that say something. That's what really matters. I don't see any reason why a zoom lens cannot produce such images as well.
Mar 27, 2021 17:37:45 #
Some of the world's greatest images were captured by people not smart enough to know they needed a better lens.
Mar 27, 2021 17:56:24 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
Some of the world's greatest images were captured by people not smart enough to know they needed a better lens.
Ain't it the truth!
Mar 27, 2021 18:25:12 #
Gene51 wrote:
You need to increase your "exposure" to ... (show quote)
It's not just sharpness, Gene, it's bokeh. Checkout Abi's photos and I think you'll see what I'm talking about. From this point on I'd like to have a discussion with those who have viewed Abi's photos, not just those who want to have a theoretical discussion about primes vs. zooms.
Mar 27, 2021 21:26:51 #
User ID wrote:
So true ... but UHH tradition calls for sweeping didactic generalisimos from clueless experts. As they’ve always said “That’s entertainment !” the roar of the grease paint, the smell of the crowd ...
Mar 27, 2021 22:05:30 #
SteveR wrote:
It's not just sharpness, Gene, it's bokeh. Checkout Abi's photos and I think you'll see what I'm talking about. From this point on I'd like to have a discussion with those who have viewed Abi's photos, not just those who want to have a theoretical discussion about primes vs. zooms.
Yeah, her pictures are very good, and your point is?
These images were all taken with zooms. No theory here. But more importantly, no mythology either. Each lens is different, and some primes I've used have awful bokeh, as well as some zooms (the dreadful 18-200 original Nikkor zoom was one of them). Yet, under the right conditions (aperture, distance to subject, distance between subject and background it could produce acceptable bokeh, as you can see in the last picture.
150-600
(Download)
150-600
(Download)
150-600
(Download)
150-600
(Download)
80-200
(Download)
100-300
(Download)
50-500
(Download)
24-70
(Download)
18-200
(Download)
Mar 27, 2021 23:18:17 #
SteveR wrote:
It's not just sharpness, Gene, it's bokeh. Checkout Abi's photos and I think you'll see what I'm talking about. From this point on I'd like to have a discussion with those who have viewed Abi's photos, not just those who want to have a theoretical discussion about primes vs. zooms.
Bokeh is toadally BS.
Can you hear the difference betwixt a Steinway, a Baldwin, and a Yamaha ? Probably not, but if you’re among the elite who can hear it, then you’d also know that while it *is* detectable it doesn’t really matter.
Believing that certain bokeh is the right bokeh while other bokeh is not, is like believing that the Baldwin color is right and the Yamaha or Steinway color is not.
Mar 27, 2021 23:49:40 #
Gene51 wrote:
Yeah, her pictures are very good, and your point is?
These images were all taken with zooms. No theory here. But more importantly, no mythology either. Each lens is different, and some primes I've used have awful bokeh, as well as some zooms (the dreadful 18-200 original Nikkor zoom was one of them). Yet, under the right conditions (aperture, distance to subject, distance between subject and background it could produce acceptable bokeh, as you can see in the last picture.
These images were all taken with zooms. No theory here. But more importantly, no mythology either. Each lens is different, and some primes I've used have awful bokeh, as well as some zooms (the dreadful 18-200 original Nikkor zoom was one of them). Yet, under the right conditions (aperture, distance to subject, distance between subject and background it could produce acceptable bokeh, as you can see in the last picture.
That last picture is the only bummer in the batch, but bokeh is not the problem.
The exact same picture in some parallel universe differs only in that it was shot with your preferred lens such that the bokeh is just how you like it.
But that other version is still the same awkward, hard to read, jumbled pile of elements.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Maybe thaz a very rare bird ? I wouldn’t know. But I do know a cullable pic when I see one. If it’s a special bird, you’ve got your documentation, but it’s a loser visually. Given your usual high standard I’m really puzzled why you’d post it.
Mar 28, 2021 00:15:29 #
Gene51 wrote:
Yeah, her pictures are very good, and your point is?
These images were all taken with zooms. No theory here. But more importantly, no mythology either. Each lens is different, and some primes I've used have awful bokeh, as well as some zooms (the dreadful 18-200 original Nikkor zoom was one of them). Yet, under the right conditions (aperture, distance to subject, distance between subject and background it could produce acceptable bokeh, as you can see in the last picture.
These images were all taken with zooms. No theory here. But more importantly, no mythology either. Each lens is different, and some primes I've used have awful bokeh, as well as some zooms (the dreadful 18-200 original Nikkor zoom was one of them). Yet, under the right conditions (aperture, distance to subject, distance between subject and background it could produce acceptable bokeh, as you can see in the last picture.
They're good, Gene, but I have to stand by Abi as the best. Pixel peep and you'll see what I mean. Perhaps the combination of the D5 with primes, I don't know, but I'll still stand by what I've said originally. There is one other photographer out there that I've seen who is on par with Abi.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.