Do we really need fancy lenses

Once you have them it's very easy to convince yourself that you need them. I absolutely need my 90mm macro Elmar. See how many bugs you can find in the photo below. And that's an APS-C sensor. Yep, I need that lens.

http://photojoes.net/tomatos.jpg
 
I don't know much but I can get on with any lens as long as it is in working condition and no haze or fungus. I have had more fun with the widely reviewed, dreadful Nikkor 43-86 f3.5.

I had a blast with that 28-85 when we had the lens across America challenge. It is very sharp, and has good contrast. I just didn't care for the feeling there was no lens on my camera but not a deal breaker.

I recently sold most of my gear to simplify. Last week I was organizing my darkroom and I stumbled across a forgotten, minty Nikkor 25-50 f4 AIS. I put in a weird place and totally forgot about it. I bought it for landscape and I have hardly used it. I gave him a workout yesterday with fall colors and Portra 400. I was regretting letting that 43-86 go and was looking to buy another one, really missing it. So hopefully this 25-50 will get along with me since I got it.

I love my Holga as well. So my point is.... For me, it's about the edge of the frame, composition, shadow, and light. Additionally, I just want to enjoy my time behind the camera and all that gear I accumulated was frustrating me. I now just grab and go, one lens, one camera. Simple.
 
I agree with the key point in the OP that some low cost lenses can produce great shots - my entry level Fuji XC lenses have provided great service over the years, and their light weight is an added bonus.

But for some shots there's no substitute for a wide aperture, and if you use AF lenses, you need to pay for the capability.
 
I agree with the key point in the OP that some low cost lenses can produce great shots - my entry level Fuji XC lenses have provided great service over the years, and their light weight is an added bonus.

But for some shots there's no substitute for a wide aperture, and if you use AF lenses, you need to pay for the capability.
Wouldn;t that depend on what you shoot. IF you shoot landscape on a tripod, and want a lot of DOF, wide apertures don't serve much of a purpose.
 
Alan, and at f/8 or above as you often do for landscape, most lenses are about as sharp. But the flat rendering of lenses with a dozen or more, up to 22 elements, does make a difference but there are plenty of low element count lenses for a song. The nikon 180 2.8 has 8 elements compared to a 22 element 70-200. How much light do you think 14 extra pieces of glass in the tube eat up or reflect, especially the low energy shadow detail?
 
Alan, and at f/8 or above as you often do for landscape, most lenses are about as sharp. But the flat rendering of lenses with a dozen or more, up to 22 elements, does make a difference but there are plenty of low element count lenses for a song. The nikon 180 2.8 has 8 elements compared to a 22 element 70-200. How much light do you think 14 extra pieces of glass in the tube eat up or reflect, especially the low energy shadow detail?
I'm not sure what your point is? Maybe you can clarify.

My point is if you're shooting for large DOF, you'll be using small apertures. You don;t need lots of heavy glass with big apertures to carry around. Plus the lens costs more and more glass could mean more lens distortion, chromatic aberration etc. A less bright, cheaper more simpler lens could be better for you.
 
Image 9-15-20 at 10.32 AM (2).jpg
My 50 prime is great from f/2.8 thru f/8 not the greatest at f/1.8 as most lenses benefit stopped down a bit even high price tag ones. Though the Nikon AF-S 300mm f/4-D IF ED I had was tack wide open and never a need to stop down other then DOF. I am sorry I sold it, IQ was stellar. My One and only Red-Shouldered Hawk from 300mm prime on the D7500
 
Last edited:
Alan, I completely agree a 2.8 lens isn't necessary for landscapes where you are usually stopped down for a greater dof. I will use a prime if possible and usually low element count ones. That 180 2.8 can be found used like new for $400. You do have to be careful with back lit shots because the elements added in more modern lenses were to eliminate it. But it can be removed in post with a couple of clicks or just converted to b&w. You are absolute right a landscape photographer doesn't have to incur the expense of lug the weight of a fast lens. Heck, a 70-200 2.8 weighs 3 lbs. Many of my lenses are manual focus and for landscape, you have plenty of time to focus on tripod and lock focus and on many cameras have focus peaking. I think we are saying the same thing, but I am advocating that you can get less expensive primes in the 400 -600 range that blow the doors off modern primes and zooms costing 2 or 3 times as much. When I use a $400 voighlander 58mm 1.4, every time I look at the lcd, I say wow. It's that good.
 
As has been stated above by a few in different way.

Do we really need fancy lenses? Yes and no.

Depending of the application and expectation of the user a fancy lenses may or not be needed or even worth the added cost.
I find that the more someone specializes in a particular form of photography they also find what works for them. Fancy or not.

Now having said this I own what would be called fancy lens. Do I NEED it? No. Could I get as good an image with a lesser lens? NO.

Sometimes the fancy lens DOES make a huge difference and no matter how good the photographer is, you can't overcome the glass or lack there of. I'm not talking about length of the lens or even how much light it lets in (although this becomes extremely important in a lot of situations) however the main thing is clarity, the ability to give good contrast and minimal artifacts. Most cheap lenses just DON'T compare. Some on the other hand are surprising little gems where their simplicity does in fact make for a crisp quality lens.

The real question ALL photographers NEED to ask is. Will anyone even notice the difference and is the added (whatever qualifier you want goes here) worth the extra cost. If you can't answer yes to both, then you're just spending for the satisfaction of owning a fancy lens.
 
My point with this is that in the range of 28-80 f/3.5-5.6, this little lens is hard to beat. I don't use it when I go birding as it would be worthless and I don't use it when I need to do serious macro but, as a "normal" FF zoom, it offers sharp, contrasty, pictures with minimal weight and cost.
 
Alan, I think a couple old film guys often have the same thoughts on photography.
 
I'm not sure what constitutes 'fancy' but after using my canon kit lens, i bought a wide angel EF-S 10-18mm, and it's really a sweet piece of glass. Not for all applications, but I can't put it down. It said 'renewed' - I'm guessing that means used? refurbished? Don't know, but i paid 230 for it and I'm fine with that.
 
I spent $58.00 USD for my Helios 44-2 lens last year. I consider it to be pretty fancy. f/2.0, a ring which widens the aperture to focus better, then twist it back to the chosen aperture. No other lens I have gives quite the same blur.
Does fancy mean expensive?
 
The photos came out really clear, I loved these photos. Specially the colors in the background are faded yet showing the true tone and the colors of the objects are so vivid that you can actually feel the original texture. The photos are looking really real and the details are too good. You have successfully capture the details of the flowers which was the most important part.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top