Lens Snobbery

Kram · Joined: 06 Feb 2010 Posts: 1344 Location: Portland, OR

Rawhead, lovely beast. A Crown Graphic with what lens? Love to see what you've shot with this.

Good to see another SL-66 shooter too.

Bruce · Expire: 2014-11-22

...and your biceps are getting bigger too, from what I remember. Laughing

rawhead · Expire: 2014-04-29

rawhead · Expire: 2014-04-29

Chris Watson · Joined: 12 Apr 2010 Posts: 168 Location: Fort Worth

fatdeeman · Joined: 13 Jun 2009 Posts: 780 Location: UK

larsr · Joined: 25 Jun 2009 Posts: 272 Location: Helsinki, Finland

Swappo · Joined: 02 Apr 2009 Posts: 327 Location: Sweden

I used to shot with my 5D and the following lenses:

16-35/2.8L
28-70/2.8L
80-200/2.8L

This is a really nice setup and pretty much everything I needed for everyday photography... But then I started to realize that my pics got better with MF lenses.
Why? Well, I guess it's for the same reason many people think they get better pics when using a tripod. You slow down and think more about the shot. That along with an interest for certain older lenses with some special caracter that cannot be found (or atleast not affordable among newer ones)...

I sold my 80-200 to buy the Voigtländer 180/4 APO Lanthar and the 28-70 to finance CZ Distagon 28/2. Smile

I don't regret it, but I could miss the zooms at some situations where it would be handy and I don't need the "artistic touch" ( Wink

).

I'm keeping the 16-35 as an ultrawide point & shoot and I'm thinking about buying a 70-200/4 for it's size and IQ.
One reason for buying an L lens is build quality. Some of Canons L lenses almost feels as good as and old, german lens from the late 70's for example. Smile

And by that said, I want to point out that I are a true amateur.

Regarding snobbery I haven't seen in reality, just at internet forums.
People mostly interested in my lenses are often curious and have a basic knowledge in photography and it often leads to interesting discussions about gear. I'm happy to explain the those old, cheap lenses might as well give image quality good as some lens that I could never even think about affording.

lulalake · Expire: 2011-11-18

woodrim · Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4058 Location: Charleston

Boomer Depp · Expire: 2011-12-04

I had a sneaking suspicion you're a Series 1 snob Rolling Eyes

....that said,just mount one and thumb your nose at the Schneider,Zeiss,Leica and Canon snobs.... Laughing

note*The mine is better then yours syndrome is human dynamics in action.... Wink

crm-114 · Joined: 14 Oct 2009 Posts: 12

surely the only section of 'that' other forum that is of concern to MF lens users would be the FD section - which it doesn't have Wink

Excalibur · Expire: 2014-04-21

For Canon FD fans there is a dedicated forum:-

http://photo.net/canon-fd-camera-forum/

tkbslc · Joined: 02 Jul 2009 Posts: 194 Location: Utah, USA

I think manual focus photographers are also prone to snobbery. I see it come in two forms:

1) I am so much more educated about "real" lenses than the average joe. While he spends money on boring modern AF lenses, I know about the classics from Takumar, Zeiss and Leica. I know about unique bokeh and color renderings and micro-contrast and am far too good to waste time on Canon L.

or

2) I am such a good photographer that I don't need those expensive new Nikkor G's and Canon L's. My skill and developed eye lets me take as good or better images with 40 year old throwaway lenses and no AF.

I've seen both kinds on this forum as much as I have seen the L-worshippers on the Canon forums. There is also as many people here as on AF forums who appear to be more into gear collecting than photography. Just because you have 90 manual lenses and a collection of test pictures of leaf bokeh, doesn't make you a great photographer any more than the guy with 4 canon-L's who uses green box.

So I think it goes both ways, it is human nature, and there is nothing that will ever stop it. We are probably all guilty at times.

ManualFocus-G · Expire: 2014-11-24

Great post tkbslc.

I just just thinking the other day how we are all astonished that trifox has managed such stunning shots from an L series Canon FD lens. Surely that's the same or a slightly worse lens than the AF version, and yet many of us MF die hards regularly write off these AF lenses!

For me, MF lenses was the way forward when I couldn't afford decent AF lenses. The results I got were better than the cheap, slow AF lenses I was using before. I suddenly had access to fantasic glass in a varitety of different focal lengths. Did it help my photography? Yes, because I could get fast primes for next to nothing, and I was learning way more about photography that I ever imagined.

So how could L lenses help me become a better photographer now? Well, I am already now used to sharp photos with shallow depth of field. I suppose IS would allow for more depth of field in available light situations and the special elements might reduce CA. At the moment, could I justify the extra £700.00 necessary on top of my Vario-Sonnar 80-200/4, to get the 70-200/4 IS? No way, but I accept that the L lens is more capable in those conditions. So I shouldn't be rude about Canon lenses Wink

Which leads me back to the first point about Trifox's shots. He gets great results because he is a fantastic photographer. Couple Trifox with a battered 300D and kit lens, and he will deliver lovely photos. Give him his 5D II and Contax lenses back and he will deliver you out of this world photos.

I read many photographic magazines and people send in photos taken with the latest camera and most expensive lenses. They have been shooting for 10 years, claim they are experts and yet often their photos are poor. Hook them up with the 300D and kit lens and you will see very little difference.

What is my point? High end gear is high end for a reason. It will help very good photographers to get corner to corner sharpness they demand, shoot in difficult conditions and allow them to be more creative with their photography. But you need a very good photographer first...IMO.

[/ramble]

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

I think many of us just like joking about AF lenses.
At least, I do.
So the thing should not be taken seriously.

poilu · Expire: 2019-08-29

ManualFocus-G · Expire: 2014-11-24

lauge · Expire: 2013-05-30

I have seen similar threads on another photography forum and have also experienced this in other hobbies (sport). I think it's great as it shows people care about their photography hobby, they spent a lot of time reading about equipment and buying what they think is the best, and when someone shows up with another setup they are ready to convince you with their own opinion. Imagine if people didn't care about the hobby then why have it then? If better equipment makes a hobbyist a better photographer, well it might or it might not but as it is a hobby I don't really think it matters.

fatdeeman · Joined: 13 Jun 2009 Posts: 780 Location: UK

I would say I'm probably somewhere in between a hoarder and a photographer, I buy old MF lenses to try them out, ones that perform well or are interesting I keep, others I sell on.

I use plenty of AF lenses too, some expensive, some cheap because I like to.... well I like to try them out.

I like taking a random lens from my collection, either MF or AF, either a high quality one or one with "quirks" going out and using it and then getting home to see what the results turn out like.

I would not claim to be an especially good photographer, but I enjoy taking photos and I enjoy taking a different lens each time I go out because I enjoy the variety in the results, especially when I get a nice surprise.

I think snobbery applies to both AF and MF, either way people spend a lot of money on gear and take photos very much below my standard and again, I'm the first to admit my images are mediocre at best.

When I post photos using cheap lenses on the canon forum taken with either MF lenses or elderly or cheap Canon AF lenses it does not matter how good the photos are, there are a few members who always attack me, putting words in my mouth and defending more expensive lenses when I haven't even attacked them.

The best lens I own optically is an autofocus Sigma, Canon L lenses are for the most part phenomenally good but having said that, for someone of my means the improvement from mid range lenses is not justifiable. I still have a lot more room to grow as a photographer in terms of technique, composition and good old practice and if need be I can comfortably carry on learning for a long time with the gear I currently own. I suppose by the same reasoning the people that annoy me are those that are photography new borns who can't fully utilize a point and shoot yet spend tens of thousands on gear and software only to achieve appalling images because they lack even the most basic fundamental skills

Blue · Joined: 26 Jul 2008 Posts: 304

Joosep · Joined: 25 Jan 2010 Posts: 305 Location: Estonia, Tallinn

Firstly. Im gonna throw out my ideas.
Firstly its about the **** size. Yeah, it is. Men feel they are inadequate so they have to buy fast cars, big guns and even bigger lenses. BUUHUU.
Secondly, now whats happening in the forums. Now everyone has surely proven theyr **** size, they now have to start waving it, no need to worrie, just dont feed them, they shut up as soon as they feel themselves as ALPHA-MALES.
Its somekinda need... need to know your gear is THE BEST, like the knowing will make you sleep better at night, so.. FIGHT ONLINE, rawr.
People cant possible believe that the glass they bought wasnt really worth the sum payed, IMPOSSIBLE ! FIGHT !

Think of it. Here, in Estonia. I can get a Helios 44-2 for 50 kronos (~4 dollars) and an used Canon 50 1.8 for 1500 (~120 dollars), can the Canon really be 30 times better, seriously.. 30 TIMES, thats ... impossible.

When I buy gear.
1) Do I need it ?
2) What is the quality/price ratio.

I work in a photostore, so yes, Ive tried them all. To be honest, theres like 3-4 L-s that have blown away me with quality. But I would say that was nothing compared to what I felt when I used a Helios 40 or when I used my 50 1.4 Tak for the first time, just, words cant describe it.

So when people ask me, why do you use MF lenses and film bodies. I explain. Lets say a guy makes sculptures. It takes him long time to make one, but they are beautiful, not perfect, but beautiful in theyr own way. So now theres another guy who builds a factory where machines make one sculpture a second. Ofcourse he has better quality and quantity. But hes sculptures dont have one thing... soul.

revers · Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 12:55 am Post subject:

I enjoyed your post Joosep. Smile

M. Valdemar · Joined: 14 Nov 2008 Posts: 93

I'm not so enamored of my "knowledge" of older lenses, but I can't stand to see the brainwashing by clever marketing of people who just parrot the things that have been fed into their heads. (not just lenses, almost anything is programmed into people these days)

While tkbsic is correct in some of his assertions, I just like to accumulate and play with the cheap older stuff. It makes me happy, I don't have any other ulterior motive.

I'm not claiming it makes me any better or worse photographer.

woodrim · Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4058 Location: Charleston