Be it resolved that no lens is good enough.

[danfromm]

Therefore let us all stop talking about how good a particular lens is or all lenses from a particular manufacturer are and use glassless lenses, i.e., pinholes.

Posted after mulling over this http://forum.mflenses.com/hexanon-cheapo-t44968.html thread.

[poilu]

yes Dan, I agree and I would like to add to the discussion than ForenSeil sample don't prove anything
it is front focused on the beige chair, I agree that if the focus is missed a lens will never be good enough

[uhoh7]

Oh...this one will be

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?p=369805#post369805

[iangreenhalgh1]

For 3,300 bucks it better be!

That's an insane price to pay, I could buy a good used car for that money.

[visualopsins]

Or use a Lytro

Pinholes present difficulties as well. A tiny hole of precise size, cut cleanly and perfectly centered is not so easy!

[uhoh7]

[Mos6502]

Yes, but can you drive a lens to work? Or pick up a date with it?

[uhoh7]

[scsambrook]

[scsambrook]

[uhoh7]

[poilu]

[Orio]

Uhoh, I think that the point was not to say that photos with missed focus are useless,
rather, instead, to say that becoming anal about performance differences at pixel level
doesn't make sense unless one uses all the time the tripod and 10x liveview and a still subject
and studio lightings perfectly calibrated.
In other words, the variations due to normal human usage (shaky hands, slow shutter time, subject moving,
a drink too much, your mother-in-law ended up in your perfect children picture) usually produce
bigger "deviations" from ideal performance than the differences between two good lenses.

[danfromm]

Orio, in part I was making a joke. "No lens is good enough" can be read as "the set of lenses that are good enough is empty." If, however, we take "no lens" as the subject then we don't need lenses.

To put the joke in context, in the US girls who've been raised to believe that (a) they are wonderful and (b) the set of things that are good enough for them (nothing is good enough ...) is empty are called princesses. I once had a research assistant who was a princess. Went out to lunch with her one day. On the way back to the office she told me that it was her birthday and asked what I was going to give her as a birthday gift. "Your mother raised you to believe that nothing is good enough for you so that's what I'll give you. Nothing." She was not amused.

In part, though, I was teasing people who post about small, possibly imaginary, differences in performance between lenses.

Over the years I've bought a few lenses and have put most of them through acceptance testing. The point of my acceptance testing is to find out whether the lens tested is good enough to use as I intend (range of distances and apertures) to use it.

I've ended up with lenses of very similar specifications (focal length, maximum aperture), have had to decide which one to carry around and use. This isn't easy, since all lenses that pass acceptance testing are good enough to use. That some are heavier, some don't fit in my shutters or adapters, ... helps me choose.

I've done lens vs. lens shootouts that have sometimes helped me choose among similar lenses. But not always, because good enough to use means just that.

I've sometimes had to use lenses that really aren't good enough to use, i.e., aren't nearly as sharp as I'd like them to be. I've taken very satisfactory pictures with them. Superlative image quality isn't always necessary.

I agree with you that improving technique is a better way of improving image quality than using a marginally better lens. So, when I have problems with image quality the first thing I do is check my technique. In this context, "technique" includes silly things like checking that the fiddly little screws that hold tripod and head and ... together are all properly tight.

Cheers,

Dan

[ForenSeil]

[iangreenhalgh1]

This thread should be moved to the Dive Bar.

[GrahamNR17]

[F16SUNSHINE]

Think end result not lens result.

Over the years I have shot many styles and formats on both film and digital.
Sometimes with an Apo-Computer designed mega buck lens on a monster pixel camera.
Other times pinhole in a shoebox with a piece of print paper inside.
Every one of the "set-ups" had/has some advantage or gave some preference over some other.
Consider the end result desired when choosing a lens or kit.
Every lens is good enough for what that lens does best.
Sure you can make an Apo Lanthar look sort of like an old meniscus via PS.
A meniscus on film or a wet plate will give you the authentic look though and bring much more satisfaction.
As well the Apo lens on a digital sensor will reproduce reality in a way that the meniscus never would be able to do. Each has it's medal.
So which is better? The question needs to be answered in Context or it's not really an answerable question.
I'll shoot my Agfa Clack today because I like the look and it limits my subjects. I have an end result in mind not, a lens result in mind.
Some would think I'm crazy for not carrying my "top" lens. I would say that for what I want today, it is my "top" lens.