Lensbaby, yes, or no?

[shorty6049]

i'm starting to lean towards not getting one.... (sorry supporters, the others were just more persuasive ) I would like to have a macro lens, but the problem is, i'm really trying to keep it under 200 dollars which would most likely mean i'd have to buy a used lens or something. i would also like to buy a flash, but i still dont know how much i'd use it... I dont really do any portrait photography, most of what i do is kind of just random stuff, walking around taking pictures of buildings, plants, etc. so i dont know if i'd benefit from having a flash or not... (suggestions?) i already have all the filters i want for now (polarizer, grad. ND, infrared, UV) so i think i'm set in that catergory , i dont need any studio stuff because i dont have the room for it, or the need for it since i dont really take pictures in a studio... I just dont know what i want..... i was looking at wide angle lenses, but the only good ones start at about twice the price i'm looking at. I dont know.. any other suggestions?

 

[dewey]

sorry Lens baby folks but I say put the $$ elsewhere... go to pawn shops looking for used lenses. You might get lucky and find what you need.

 

[rmh159]

i just feel better about it if i tell someone that i used a lens to create an effect than I do saying i used photoshop....

So you'd rather spend a few hundred dollars in order to explain how you got the shot to someone that doesn't know anything about photography? Haha sorry but after reading this I wanted to smack my forehead.

First off... I would never feel obligated to explain to anyone how I create the shots I do. Who cares. It's a hobby and the ends justify the means.

Secondly, as someone else pointed out Photoshop is a tool that replaces what the darkroom did for film... bottom line: if you take poop pictures it's not going to change them into gold.

Lastly... one of my biggest pet peeves with photography is people who think Photoshop is just used for putting one person's head on another's body or some lame chop job like that. The tools in Photoshop that digital photographers use are the same ones used by film photographers. Do people really think Adobe created this stuff from scratch?

Sorry to so much but in my opinion... when people put down digital cameras and Photoshop as artist tools they're only announcing their ignorance.

 

[shorty6049]

whenever i have an interesting photo, people always ask me "how'd you do that?" and i just like being able to say that it was something i did while taking the photo instead of something i did in photoshop. sure, its like a darkroom for digital, but it still doesnt feel like it. If i could afford to do film, and process my own photos, i would, but i cant afford it, so i use digital. I dont quite understand what you mean by "when people put down digital cameras and Photoshop as artist tools they're only announcing their ignorance." are you saying that cameras and photoshop ARENT artist tools then? what are they?

 

[rmh159]

...I dont quite understand what you mean by "when people put down digital cameras and Photoshop as artist tools they're only announcing their ignorance." are you saying that cameras and photoshop ARENT artist tools then? what are they?

No that wasn't what I was intending, sorry if I was unclear.

The point I'm trying to make (and this is strictly my opinion that may or may not be worth much) is that from time to time I hear comments about digital photography and Photoshop somehow cheapening the quality of a photo. I don't understand how that could possibly be true. That's the point I was trying to make. Hearing those statements from people just makes me wonder where their heads are at.

I apologize for derailing the thread so in an attempt to make things right again...

I use this rule of thumb when considering purchases. If I can create the affect in Photoshop it's not worth spending money on. Photoshop gives you the advantage of adjusting the affect while maintaining the original image where adding the affect "in-camera" makes it permanent.

 

[shorty6049]

yeah, you have a point there... i guess if i can just accept that the camera takes a digital photo, and anything you do to it digitally, just changes the pixels like working in a darkroom would change the look of a "real" photo..... so yea, i guess i agree that darkroom is to film, as photoshop is to digital... i'll pry buy a new lens or something

 

[xfloggingkylex]

sigma makes a 70-300 APO DG Macro lens for 200 dollars on sigma4less.com

I have seen pictures at 300mm of a dragon fly, and it wasn't at all soft (surprising for the price and the range).

when in macro mode it has like 50cm focusing distance and can produce 1:2 results.

May be worth looking at if you really want a macro lens for cheap that you can use for other things.

 

[EYEAM4ANARCHY]

Since you have an Alpha, another option for cheaper lenses is to check around and see if any camera stores have Minolta lenses laying around still. I bought a brand new macro lens about a year ago for less than half of the regular price because it had been in stock for a long time.

 

[shorty6049]

yea, the problem is, now everyone is buying minolta lenses for that reason, so they're still expensive (relatively) on ebay and there are usually quite a few bids, i'd have to check out a camera store though for some, maybe they'd have better prices. One thing i dont understand is , whats the difference between a macro lens, and something like a 70-300? its the macro lens just a lens that is always set at 100mm? would it produce close to the same results as a zoom lens at 100mm? (i would assume possibly they'd be clearer because it woudl be a prime lens, but is that the only difference?)

 

[Groupcaptainbonzo]

The Sigma EX range are very good, and for what you get are very cheap indeed. Of course really cheap second hand items are rather rare as yet.

 

[neea]

Does it really matter what we all think of them.

This is just as divided as Canon vs Nikon. The debate will go on until the end of time.
I did loads of research before buying one. I tried to find every picture available on the internet created with a lensbaby to see if it would suit my type of pictures, what i wanted my pictures to say, and if i thought i could use it for years to come instead of just a couple months.

I have yet to use it besides 5 pictures i took around the house the day it arrived (haven't got them developed yet) because the weathers playing mean tricks and wont decide if it's spring time yet or not. Once there's better weather I'll be out using it lots hopefully.

Photography for me is a way to express myself. I think the LB will help me be more creative, especially in times when I feel drained of all neat ideas.

 

[shorty6049]

I found a good example of what were were discussing earlier in this thread. Last night I was telling a friend (less educated in photography than I am) about carl zeiss lenses and how expensive they were. I said it was because they had better optics than some other lenses. And i said that this would result in sharper images. His reply was "does that really matter when you photoshop the sh*t out of everything anyway?" Now i dont photoshop much. Sometimes i'll play around with and and whatnot, but i dont do much other than enhance photos. and thats what i was saying earlier. to people who DONT understand how photoshop can be used an a replacement to a darkroom, they think that photoshop cheapens the photos or something, like why would i even need good glass if i have photoshop? i hope this makes sense to people, i'm having a hard time describing it, but just think if you were in that situation telling a friend about a nice lens, and got a response like that.

 

[Chase]

One thing that I feel is worth pointing out is that a Lensbaby, not unlike other lenses, makes you look at your photography different. Instead of taking a photo that was already shot and then trying to make it more interesting, you are taking a completely different approach when shooting the photo. Composition is different, etc. It makes you think about things differently, just like switching from a telephoto zoom to a 50mm would, but with yet another twist. Just my 2 cents (from a biased lensbaby owner ).

 

[rmh159]

... i'm having a hard time describing it, but just think if you were in that situation telling a friend about a nice lens, and got a response like that.

Oh totally... I get that all of the time. Nothing makes me want to go more than when I work hard to get a good shot and someone asks if it was Photoshop'ed. ALL of my pics go through Photoshop but 98% are Level'ed, Cropped and that's it. Try explaining that to a newb though. I've had people tell me too that dSLR's aren't better than P&S's cuz you can't get a live preview on the LCD. You either explain it and watch their eyes gloss over or you ignore their uninformed opinions.

While it's frustrating... it is to be expected. You could just blow it off and say "I don't exactly use Photoshop that way." then just smile and pat your friend on his head.

Lately I just say "No." when asked if I photoshop pics. I know what they're referring to and I don't use it in that sense so it's just easier than explaining myself... which I have too much pride to do.

If anyone else has advice on this one, I'm all ears.

 

[shorty6049]

yeah, i just asked him if it made me any less of a photographer, and then i tried to explain the whole "photoshop is like a digital darkroom" thing, but i dont know if he understands or not... as long as i still get complements on my photos, i guess I dont really care what some uneducated people say