Let me summarise what I meant to say in my last article. Given the power of current post processing software, lenses produced today by prominent manufacturers have probably ceased to be a significant constraint in our efforts to secure quality images.
Class by class, it probably doesn't matter whether your lens is made by Canon, Nikon, Leica, Sony, Pentax, Olympus, Sigma, Tokina or Tamron. All other factors being equal, any given image (except maybe resolution charts) will look much the same.
It is interesting, by the way, to see how all of the makers are lining up to define lens classes. Looking at APS-C sensor bodies, all makers seem to offer some entry level (or NEAR entry level) zoom versions of (circa)18-55, 18-120, 18-200 and 70-300. The 18-55s are often surprisingly good if flimsy, the 18-200s are fairly solid but optically iffy while the 18-120s and 70-300s are something of a compromise.
Then there are the 12-24s, and 70-200s. In both cases, the optical and build quality usually represents a major step up in class. Then too, there is a slight step down from this latter level to the often reasonably fast (circa) 17-70s.
Leaving specialised items like macros, fish-eyes and super telephotos out of the discussion, the really rugged up-market lenses (some new designs plus some scrubbed-up film era designs) seem to be reserved for the full frame bodies principally in the fast 24-70 sort of range.
Most new lenses (that aren't intended for stabilised bodies) seem to incorporate a form of optical stabilisation. Significantly the most professional full frame models often leave this latter feature out. Presumably the lack of such complexity may render the lenses in question more ultimately reliable, the limited focal length ranges make stabilisation less vital ... and then again, the potential users should have pretty reasonable hand held technique at their disposal, rendering its usefulness questionable.
To my mind, given my aforementioned observations on optical quality, the choice of lenses, probably comes down to two major parameters:
- How much does it cost?
- How well is it made?
If you are basically a keen amateur whose gear often sits for long periods in dark cupboards, you might easily be best served by something cheap and (if it comes to that) easily replaceable. If you work your gear on a regular basis during which jolts, bumps and even drops are effectively inevitable, maybe you are better off with something more ruggedly constructed.
Yes, but what about primes (i.e. fixed focal length lenses)?
Let me return to our macho types, pixel peepers and status chasers on the web forums. These people constantly complain about the lack of prime lenses - at least modern versions of same. A lot of these people own lens collections consisting ONLY of primes. They seem to think that such will bestow upon them some sort of professional aura and/or ultimate image quality. In reality, except for some highly specialised applications (dedicated portrait & macro advertising studios, high profile sports photo-journalism and papparazzi work perhaps) they are probably deluding themselves.
Thirty years ago there may have been some point in all this. The quality of zoom lenses was pretty dismal. At the same time, most accumulating dust finding its way onto light sensitive surfaces in the camera was whisked away with every turn of the film winder.
These days, if you have to change lenses every couple of images, your digital sensor will soon be caked in muck, more than negating any alleged optical advantage offered by primes. More importantly, with all of the fooling around, you will more than likely miss vital shots. Anyone will tell you that the good (but technically less than perfect) image of the perfect composition/subject is a long way better than the technically ultimate image of the perfect composition/subject you just missed.
I am inclined to think that, for most general use at least, prime lenses may have had their day.
No comments:
Post a Comment