Is a good lens necessary to take good photos?
- Thread starter mazeppa26
- Start date
- Status
Good lens is useful but not necessary. I have shot good pics on even a 2mp Coolpix 2100. Of course, I could have gotten a technically better picture if I had a D70s with me at that moment, then again, a D200 or D2X might give an even better picture, technically, that is. But face it, you don't lug your whole dry cabinet out everyday, so having a Coolpix 2100 at hand is better than no picture at all. So, the bottom line is how you view it and when you press the shutter that makes it a good picture.ricohflex said:
This is such a loaded question. There'll be people who claim that the masters of the past took great pics with lenses which are far inferior to what you have today, that the basis of a great pix is the content and composition, not the lens.
However, if you have noticed the masters in any field, you'll notice that they use the best equipment available. Would you expect a top violinist to use a cheap violin or a Stradivarius?
He is good because of his talent, not because of the Stradivarius, but once he reaches that stage, he knows how to get the Stradivarius to sing in a way no other violin can.
Same for photog.
If you are good, you can make a good pix with any lens. But if you are really good, you won't just settle for any lens but the very best for your neds.
However, if you have noticed the masters in any field, you'll notice that they use the best equipment available. Would you expect a top violinist to use a cheap violin or a Stradivarius?
He is good because of his talent, not because of the Stradivarius, but once he reaches that stage, he knows how to get the Stradivarius to sing in a way no other violin can.
Same for photog.
If you are good, you can make a good pix with any lens. But if you are really good, you won't just settle for any lens but the very best for your neds.
mazeppa26 said:
Good in what way? As in a sharp and well-exposed photo or capturing the moment or effects?
I voted not necessary cos photography is all about the moment and even if i were to take a lower-end lens and snap away, it'll still be gd cos i've captured the moment and that's what i want.
I voted not necessary cos photography is all about the moment and even if i were to take a lower-end lens and snap away, it'll still be gd cos i've captured the moment and that's what i want.
many asked what is a good photo. to me, gd composition and exposure at minimum. sometimes it's not just wat we see that makes a good photo, but what the photo is trying to say. maybe this is more from a photojournalistic point of view.
well i still think the brains behind the camera is still the most crucial. real pros know how to get the most out of their equipment, know how to remedy lousy conditions even when they have lousy equipment. knowing how to improvise your equipment is important too. just like using bounce flash, if u get what i mean. u can have damn gd flash unit that can auto balance the output for u however u shoot it, but the pros can use simple flash units, use manual output, use bounce/diffuser or something and get the same effect.
well i still think the brains behind the camera is still the most crucial. real pros know how to get the most out of their equipment, know how to remedy lousy conditions even when they have lousy equipment. knowing how to improvise your equipment is important too. just like using bounce flash, if u get what i mean. u can have damn gd flash unit that can auto balance the output for u however u shoot it, but the pros can use simple flash units, use manual output, use bounce/diffuser or something and get the same effect.
Depends on your concept of a "good photo"...
When I first got my EF 75-300mm Mk II, I thought WOW! it takes good pictures! Then I bought my EF28-135 IS USM and EF75-300mm IS USM and then my old pics became lousy pics liao....
I'm sure when I get my first L lens, I'm gonna think my current pics are crap (in technical terms, of course).
As you get better lens, your concept of what makes up a good photo improves.
When I first got my EF 75-300mm Mk II, I thought WOW! it takes good pictures! Then I bought my EF28-135 IS USM and EF75-300mm IS USM and then my old pics became lousy pics liao....
I'm sure when I get my first L lens, I'm gonna think my current pics are crap (in technical terms, of course).
As you get better lens, your concept of what makes up a good photo improves.
We keep saying that the photographer's skill is much more important that the type of equipment he uses / he has. We also keep giving assurance to others by saying that we should not be intimidated by those with better equipment than us. We also keep saying that some of those with better equipment may not necessarily take better pictures. It all makes sense until we find ourselves running out to buy the most expensive equipment we can afford at the very first opportunity. Something's wrong, don't you think? :think:
(I say "we", meaning myself included. :embrass: )
(I say "we", meaning myself included. :embrass: )
good lens mean with large aperture, better element and faster Focus but you got to know the best angle to take the best photo. You got to know which kind of photography u want to go for and good element help you to have better picture quality. If you need that in taking photos then save $$ n buy lor.
I think a good tripod is more improtant as to stable ur camera. If u got the best len on earth and you cant stable ur camera during taking photo then that no point as the photo will be blur regardless how good ur len is. So let think n think n think again.
Yes and no. A good lens may give you an image with better resolution and colours, but a poor lens and camera in the right hands will produce an image that may still have superior appeal in terms of the mood it creates, the composition etc.
A fast lens is sometimes preferred to a slower one, and in less-than-ideal light, it is more flexible, allows you to use a lower ISO, allows a greater chance to freeze motion...but a slow lens can be used to produce images with motion blur that may give a greater impression of movement and energy than a subject that is simply frozen in time and space.
Both extremes of equipment have their applications, and I have a friend who is really happy with his $20 Holga, producing images with bizarre light streak effects that look surprisingly pleasing. :think:
A fast lens is sometimes preferred to a slower one, and in less-than-ideal light, it is more flexible, allows you to use a lower ISO, allows a greater chance to freeze motion...but a slow lens can be used to produce images with motion blur that may give a greater impression of movement and energy than a subject that is simply frozen in time and space.
Both extremes of equipment have their applications, and I have a friend who is really happy with his $20 Holga, producing images with bizarre light streak effects that look surprisingly pleasing. :think:
ShutterBugL said:
True, that's why that saying should perhaps be modified slightly to state that although a photographer's skill is more important than the capability of the equipment, the latter surely helps a lot sometimes.
For example, I don't want to be caught in a safari with a 50mm lens because I'd be hard-pressed trying to get frame-filling shots of birds...or the other extreme...to be caught in a dimly-lit room with a 500mm f/8 mirror lens that my father handed down to me.
Sure, it's still possible to make interesting images in these scenarios, but wouldn't the possibilities be expanded if we had a greater amount of accessories for various needs?
Going further, it's good to consider that we don't need expensive equipment for photography. BUT, we should buy what we like, and what we need. If we have a certain 'bond' with our equipment, we're more likely to take it out, use it often, get lots of practice, and occasionally even get lucky and return home with some dazzling shots.
I think luck has a role to play in photography, and the more often we take our cameras out with us, the more likely it is for us to see something interesting that lasts only for a fraction of time, and then be able to capture that on whatever medium we use, and keep it forever. At least until the film disintegrates or the hard disk goes berserk. :bsmilie:
I think luck has a role to play in photography, and the more often we take our cameras out with us, the more likely it is for us to see something interesting that lasts only for a fraction of time, and then be able to capture that on whatever medium we use, and keep it forever. At least until the film disintegrates or the hard disk goes berserk. :bsmilie:
if u have "good" wallet, go get a gd lense... kekekek.. $ kenot take upto heaven..
nway, its really good to have it, ... dont give excuses not to buy gd lens. LOL
b4 it. u tell me, why u take photo? to show u use gd lens to take this photo? ..
not~, then a good photo hardly tell what lens taken....
nway, its really good to have it, ... dont give excuses not to buy gd lens. LOL
b4 it. u tell me, why u take photo? to show u use gd lens to take this photo? ..
not~, then a good photo hardly tell what lens taken....
a good photo define what what means? the photog or the audience, in general, a good photog knows what tools to use to improve his craft. Even terry Richardson uses good compacts to shoot, not use any equipment.
So in a nutshell, one must keep trying and learning and shooting to under his/her equipment needs. I rarely see genius who you throw a good lens and body immedately their photos becames works of art.
Your mind and eye is the most important photographic tool, if you have the right concept (thoughts), you use whatever you have to the best ability. When you find your craft will expand with the right tools, that is when you buy better tools.
So in a nutshell, one must keep trying and learning and shooting to under his/her equipment needs. I rarely see genius who you throw a good lens and body immedately their photos becames works of art.
Your mind and eye is the most important photographic tool, if you have the right concept (thoughts), you use whatever you have to the best ability. When you find your craft will expand with the right tools, that is when you buy better tools.
Quote:
Originally Posted by: eng_keow
There is more latitude, in that, it is more forgiving even if the photographer is not so good.
Hey, I did not mean tt. :nono: Anyone can take photos and less experienced photographers can take some are very good ones too.
What I am saying is that with a good lens, even if the exposure settings are not spot on, the picture will still be acceptable compared with other lenses.
Originally Posted by: eng_keow
There is more latitude, in that, it is more forgiving even if the photographer is not so good.
roti_prata said:
Hey, I did not mean tt. :nono: Anyone can take photos and less experienced photographers can take some are very good ones too.
What I am saying is that with a good lens, even if the exposure settings are not spot on, the picture will still be acceptable compared with other lenses.
personally, 2 me a good photo is 1 dat:-
1) best capture the moment
2) has a gd subject in focus(technically n metaphorically)
IMHO, gd lens only helps in d technical aspect.... a lot of good photos can still be taken without "good" lens
just my 2 cents worth...:dunno:
1) best capture the moment
2) has a gd subject in focus(technically n metaphorically)
IMHO, gd lens only helps in d technical aspect.... a lot of good photos can still be taken without "good" lens
just my 2 cents worth...:dunno:
eng_keow said:
No offence here but what has over-exposed or under-exposed images got to do with lenses???? I have seen badly over-exposed images (both slides and digital) from lenses such as a Sigma 28-80 variable aperture to a 600/4 IS..... The Canon still looks as badly exposed and that frame is no keeper at the end of the day...
To the thread starter: My driving sucks so give me a Diablo or even a EVO, I won't be a better driver....You see where Im coming from?
S11loop said:
I really like this comment by S11loop, thanks!
What are good photos and how much of it is influenced by equipment?! i think if you analyise this you will find that a shocking small amount is actually influenced by your lense and camera body... in other words you can spend 10 grands and still produce horrible pictures but you can also produce excellent photos with a 10$ disposable camera....
So, if you have not mastered composition, lighting, colour, mood and atmospere, exposure, aperture, DOF, Film choice / color management, then a good lense will not improve your photos.however, if you have mastered it, then a good lense and camera will open new worlds to you....
- Status
