Lens Snobbery

[Chris Watson]

As some of you may know, I'm a wedding videographer by trade so I get to work with professional photographers on a regular basis. Whenever one of my photographer friends ask me what's in my lens bag, I bring out the Helios, the Mir 24, Jupiter-9 and other lenses the poor guy or gal never heard of. It's pretty funny to see their reactions which range from "What's that?" to "If it works for you, cool". I get the distinct feeling that they feel sorry for me? That I have to make do with these poor no name lenses while they enjoy the Canon L lenses. I don't think there's any disrespect going on as they've seen my work and recommend me but I do think most pro photogs have the attitude that it's Canon L or nothing.

I was just wondering if some of you when you chat with your friends about your MF glass get the same reaction as I do. My personal feeling is that Canon did a bang up job at making their lenses more than just tools but also status symbols in the industry. What I'm curious about, especially since I don't do stills, is if Canon L lenses are superior to the lenses we chat about on here or if it's just clever marketing. My own opinion is that even if Canon glass is better, it's so ubiquitous as to be generic regardless of the quality. It doesn't have that extra something that attracts me to vintage glass. I guess lens snobbery goes both ways. Your opinions?

[thePiRaTE!!]

While I don't make a regular business of photography, I have been approached in public on a couple of occasions to ask what exactly was on the front of my camera. The silver lenses get the most attention (500mm Takumar aside), the 75/1.5 Biotar and 100/2.8 Trioplan both look rather unusual by most standards these days. I find in conversation more curiosity than anything, but again, this isn't during a gig where the manual lenses could distinguish me as going against the grain. After the curiosity gets past the silver lens, then I'm asked about the A900. Not a lot of them in general circulation it seems.

In the few paid gigs I've done, my manuals have featured prominently, and as you pointed out, its the results which do most of the talking. No client has ever mentioned about me manually focusing. That said, I can see where a pro invested heavily in a set of modern auto glass could be puzzled at intentionally going without the perceived advantages. I do have some class A modern AF stuff for the circumstances which call for them though and I guess in the end, we're simply better off in understanding both worlds and having the additional palette to draw from. We know why we like what we like and when best to use it. To summarize - no, I haven't personally felt pitied per say, but I may not be the true target audience to answer.

K.

[SkedAddled]

If I could afford L glass, I might do it, but there's nothing to show me
that L lenses are any better than the lovely classics we already own
and use.

There's a lot more to a picture than the lens used.

[martinsmith99]

My only L glass is the 70-200 F4 and it is very sharp. The only MF lenses I have that could compete with it are the Tamron 90 Adaptall-2 macro & the CZ 135.

[Rolf]

Sometimes it is necessary to work with "modern" lenses - for example action, sport, etc. - means all situations with quick objects.

For landscapes, flower, architecture, portrait, street etc. the "old" lenses are very often the first choice. And when you have a look on the price situation on the market - the investment in old glas with higher profits is much better than in Hedge fonds

Last month I bought a Konica Hexanon 2/35 from a professional portrait photographer. He works only with Russian Zenith cams and lenses like Helios etc. and only in b&w. The samples within his shop windows were much, much better than the average.

[hexi]

I can't afford either L series, but this is not what i'm looking for
last time i discussed with a person who have done photography as a serious hobby, and he was far than impressed with the Zeiss Sonnar 85 mounted on th 5D, he was even a Leica user, go figure

[Kabraxis]

*g* i just sold my Canon 300mm IS USM L to buy a Zeiss Mirotar
But there a many people out there who needs the newest equipment for a good feeling. But there is a point where everyone should recognize that equipment alone couldn't take good pictures. The lenses you use as a Photographer are still tools. And a good tool is the tool you feel alright with.

greetings from Switzerland
Pascal

[poilu]

I would like a 200:1.8L, cannot afford it
but it is so big, it would stay in the cabinet
and big white lens are not discreet enough
[url][/url]

[Mal1905]

I sometimes do studio work and social event photography for my partner and her company; this is the only reason I've held on to my f/2.8 24-70 L lens. I sold my bigger zooms and other L primes over a year ago, and have absolutely no regrets.

I've had the 'look' from other photographers which suggests that I'm a bit odd - especially when they see something like the silver Helios-40 or Steinheil Quinar (with its huge hood) on the EOS bodies. Mostly they don't bother to ask what I'm using, but those who do are always pleasantly surprised that these old gems are perfectly usable!

I was even told one day by a member of staff in a well-respected Dublin camera shop that there was no way in the world that the Nikkor-S 1.4/50 could possibly work on the 40D. "The electronics aren't compatible" was just one of the nuggets of wisdom from the learned member of staff. This after letting him take a few shots with that particular setup

[LucisPictor]

I have shot with 6 "L"-lenses:

- 2.8/20-35
- 2.8/24-70 (or was it the older 28-70? Can't remember.)
- 2.8/200
- 4/70-200
- 4/70-200 IS
- 2.8/400 IS

The 20-35 and the 24(28 )-70 were really good, but not that much better than e.g. my Tokina AT-X Pro 28-70 or Tokina 12-24.
The two 70-200 were amazing, some of the sharpest zooms I have ever used. The 2.8/400 was simply stunning - perhaps the best lens I have ever shot with (but also the most expensive one by a huge margin).
The real surprise for me was the 2.8/200. This lens is probably the cheapest "L"-lens you can get and thus not as highly regarded (this again shows some kind of snobbery, doesn't it?). But the copy I could shoot with was an absoluely fantastic lens!

Yes, I think there is some lens snobbery going on (or rather "gear snobbery" when we consider the EOS 1D hype). But this snobbery works in more than one way. If someone says that the best lenses are Zeiss lenses or Leica lenses and looks down on Russian ones, this also is a kind of snobbery, isn't it?

"L"-lenses are expensive, but not more expensive than new Zeiss or Leica stuff. The reason why we find many Leitz or Zeiss lenses for cheaper money than "L"-glass is mainly that these manual lenses are used and don't have AF. (This also has changed recently, as we know.)

"L"-lenses offer optimized sharpness and a pretty good corner to corner performance. They do not care about "character" that much, because pro photographers neither do care about lenses with special character, they need optimized lenses, lenses that produce the same kind of pictures through the whole range. And still some "L"-lenses can offer amazing bokeh and the like...

As so often, it is a matter of personal preference and value. What are you willing for pay for what you want to get?

[Boomer Depp]

The mindset of mine is better then yours lens snobbery from the preferred Leica,Zeiss,Voitlander,Canon L or what have you is the same whether it's lenses or a luxury auto or a fancy yacht...either you just brush it off and shoot what you like or buy a few L lenses for professional photo-shoots and use your treasured manual focus lenses for personal photography....personally I wouldn't worry about it,because many of them are nothing more then fanboys who don't have a clue about the capabilities of a wide range of vintage glass.

[M. Valdemar]

Under a different ID, I sometimes rudely post on POTN and other forums for fun. (I know, I'm immature)

Usually, there will be some thread where 10 or 20 posters agree that the most expensive "L" lenses are required for good images.

They all then make statements that "L" lenses are much sharper, have better "colors", "saturation" and "micro-contrast", make "unique images", and so on and on.

I'll stick in some post that I bought a $10 lens at a thrift shop or a cheap 1960's lens that takes as good or better photos as the "L" lenses, and then add that they are extremely naive and have fallen for marketing nonsense. I then add that many "L" lenses are not too good.

I'm usually wildly attacked, sometimes even banned. Tons of angry posts ridiculing me.

Sometimes I post a few images made with my vintage lenses that blow away the images made with the "L" lenses in the same thread.

They attack again, claiming I really used "L" glass and am faking it, or that I used other devious tricks because it is "impossible" to get good photos with less than $1000 "L" glass.

POTN nerds are usually the most brainwashed with marketing hype, but there are lots of incredibly dull-witted simpletons on RFF too, for example.

It's a lot of fun to troll once in a while, especially amongst those who have no idea what they're talking about, and were "born yesterday" concerning vintage glass.

I consider the posters on this forum intelligent, open minded and knowledgeable, far more than most forums.

PS: I have been a collector of weird photo gear since I was a little boy in the 1960's. I had a complete set of Russian lenses even then.

[Esox lucius]

Fanboys have long ago ruined most photography forums, and they are also the most influentive buyer force of today. It is people like them who drive photography today, because they live on what the camera manufacturers' marketing departments feed them, and camera manufacturers live on sales volumes.

Marketing commoditizes photographic equipment, and the long-since saturated market is taught it needs new gear to improve. Most DSLR photogs would improve more by buying a 20 EUR book on photography, at least that's the impression I get the odd time when I read/reply on Dpreview forums

My other hobby is hunting and rifles, and among hunters I see the same snobbery. It's kind of amusing seeing how the most expensive Swarovski rifle scopes and most expensive Sako models do not guarantee people hitting their target. Actually, most semi-automatic hunters I see destroy meat by putting a 2nd bullet in the deer/elk "just in case".

[M. Valdemar]

I agree, I'm glad there are plenty of suckers paying top dollar for future used equipment.

It keeps the manufacturers busy improving and selling with costs coming down due to volume.

[nemesis101]

I am sorry, but it is quite obvious that NONE of you know what you are talking about..

If you had the smallest smidgeon of intelligence and appreciation of great literature, let alone great glass, you would no doubt have read the famous phrase:

the road to L is paved with good intentions'?



Doug

[ramiller500]

If you can show the high quality of some photos you have taken with your X-the-unknown lens(es), that should put things in perspective.

[kissel]

Gentlemen, I personally see nothing bad about L lenses. In certain conditions, with specific tasks in hand, they justify the price tags. I own one, and i never regretted purchasing it. What's so bad about excellent sharpness and contrast, great performance in direct sunlight? I have no problem with MF lenses, and have used quite a few in this focus range, but none even nearly matched the 70-200/4L. And sometimes I wish i had a stabilized version. And some other times i wish it was black - in my country it draws attention of strangers like the spoiled meat attracts the green flies
While "hunting" with my favorite EBC Fujinon 135/3.5 few weeks ago i met an ex-co-worker, and he was very much surprised to learn that the "thing" in front of the camera is 35 years old, and that it even makes impressive pictures. I was feeling proud at first, kindda special, talked some about the good stuff that i'd got, and the junk they produce today, and then suddenly i realized that i am approaching the MF snobbery no-coming-back point. Hey-hey, i thought, man, integrity's what you need to preserve.
Lens is just an instrument. You just can't help fanboys paying for their big white lenses and bragging about those all over the internet. I just don't see the reason to dislike the actual lenses

[martinsmith99]

My L glass maybe white but that is fine by me. The only issue I'd have have is using Nikon gear on my Canon.....oh wait, too late!

[Esox lucius]

Fanboy is not equal to gear snob. Gear snob wants the best optical quality money can buy, which many times is not most useable motorized stabilized AF pro zoom or any other new equipment by brand X. Gear snobs pick and shop, often across brands and camera systems.

Fanboy is a brand addict, who refuses facts even when confronted by science - fanboys are blinded by brand preference. Fanboys actively use time to demote brands other than their personal choice, they are the idiots who wage brand clashes on Dpreview and other forums.

One of the reasons I prefer this forum (as opposed to others) is that the fanboys stay out of here. What I do find here is a large amount of photographers, who have twisted the traditional technical approach to a better one --> exploring lenses to their potential and creatively using them better than any fanboy ever could.

I think Mflenses is all about the craftsmanship of mastering photographic tools, as opposed to being mastered by photographic tools.

[Chris Watson]

To be honest, I don't mind it. I'm just surprised at how incurious some photographers are when it comes to alt-lenses. To be honest, I stumbled on to vintage glass when I was trying to save some money on lenses but over the past few months I've grown to really like the aesthetics and the functionality they provide me as a videographer. I've played with some L glass and while they are nice, they seem rather neutral to my eye. I'm sure if I shot stills, the resolving power of the lenses would convince me as to why they are so sought after. For now though, I'm pretty happy with my current lens set and I enjoy the opportunity to turn people on to these whenever possible.

[kissel]

[fish4570]

Esox, you nailed it with the hunting equipment analogy.
I am still a member of a major North American hunting/shooting forum that was once infected by Remington rifle/Leupold scope/Zeiss binocular snobs.
A fellow absolutely could not mention that he got just as much fun - and success - with an iron-sighted Model 94, or a Handi-Rifle chambered in .45-70 with iron sights without being set upon.
It is a much better forum now that a few guys are gone. Gosh, a fellow now can talk about his Tikka or Winchester or Weatherby or - gasp! - Browning A-Bolt without getting beaned ...

[fatdeeman]

High end lenses are usually very good and deserve the reputation they have but that isn't to say that older and less expensive options cannot compete, I think we all know that famous saying and most AF oriented forums have members that have spent thousands not only on a camera and lenses but also on software and still come up with photos that I can download and improve with 3 minutes of photoshop time, I think that says a lot.

Top of the range equipment is only going to show it's worth with a top of the range photographer using it, you could have a perfect sunset and a skilled photographer and have him use a Canon L lens and a 40 year old Canon FD lens of similar specs and there would be no fundamental difference between the two shots, maybe some CA or slightly less sharpness? a bit less micro contrast?

By the time you had applied appropriate processing to both images and printed them out at A3 size I bet the only real differences would be down to personal choice.

Hell, I often deliberately use a lens I know isn't the best of it's type just for the sake of variety and because it's more fun to squeeze every last drop of quality out of it.

[jjphoto]

Quite simply, I need to get the damn job done and I can't waste time with primes as zooms are optically excellent and simply much faster to use.

[fatdeeman]

Oh and I have to add,

This topic reminds me of attending a national technical meeting with work once where many people were packing Sony F828's, Powershot Pro1's, Konika A2's and various other 8MP prosumer digicams when they first came out, I'm not knocking the cameras, I still have a Pro1 myself and it's excellent but do you know not one of these people had the camera set to full resolution and quality.

These people had no idea about photography, had bought the cameras to show off the megapixels count and were saving the pictures at 3mp to save on card space!

Reminds me of people who swear by Apple macs as if they have some kind of special chip inside that makes them superior to a PC when using the exact same software such as Photoshop.

Sometimes people try to hard to justify their expenditure.

If you read recent reviews of the new Apple Ipad you would be forgiven for thinking they had invented the EBOOK!