Actually, all things being equal and in a studio controlled environment, anyone who wants to can clearly observe the very obvious difference in image quality between various levels of lenses.

Pick two lenses to compare and the camera body of your choice... [u]Lens Comparison</u>

I have owned mid range glass that, as a walk around lens, was adequate but only until I became more familiar with photography and processing RAW images in photoshop. Eventually the resolving detail and performance just became too much of an issue for me so I upgraded to all f2.8 Ultra-Low Dispersion glass and I have never looked back or regretted ever since.

Also, and to add another point to Splitboader post, not all the good lenses are expensive or even marked "L" by Canon for that matter. I would absolutely agree that the 50mm f1.2 is a fantastic lens in so far as it's sharpness and usability. Indeed one of the sharpest zooms Canon has ever produced in the wide angle range is not an "L" lens either, and only mid range in price.

Bottom line is that the glass you use will make a noticeable difference in the final image quality, and that is observably undeniable.

Thank you, you're not wanted here either.

Not because he has a different viewpoint, but because he's an asshole.

That is your viewpoint, that you are free to express if it makes you happy.

Does it look like I care how I look to you? If only people were a little more independent...

You miss the point that a great lens doesn't make a photo great, and that a good lens doesn't make a photo good. Seeing that you're mentioning "good contrast and colour" does not help either. Why are you comparing a 50/1.8 lens wide open to 70-200/4 wide open? If you were comparing them both being at f4, then the 50 will put the 70 to shame. Pixel peeping aside, you will not see a difference and it will not make a great photo just a "good" photo. Flare resistance...of course, but we're talking about technically great photos. Shooting into the sun (aka being completely oblivious to where the sun is) is not technically great, but technically awful. I understand there are some special situations where shooting into the sun would make a great photo, but these are minimal, and even an expensive lens will have enough of visible flare.

I see the same thing over and over again among SLR beginners. First they ask what camera you use, so they would buy the same one, ignorantly assuming that all it takes is a nice big black camera. They buy the camera, then they progress to the next logical step: whine about how absolutely what's holding them back from taking great pictures is the consumer grade lens they got. They buy an "L", and realize that their pictures still suck. If they're smart, they will start looking at themselves as being the source of all the problems. If they're stupid, they'll just put their expensive toys on ebay and find themselves a new pocket sized P&S camera. It would have been much better if they would instead used and learned what they had, mastered their skills, and hit the ceiling, then they would precisely know the limitations of their current gear, and why they need something more expensive. So what I'm trying to say here is a photographer makes a great/good/awful photo, not his equipment or his status (pro/amateur). If someone is taking just good or awful photos, then he should look for problems in his techniques and fix them. If I still didn't get my point across, then it's likely that we have a different definition for great/good photos. For examples of great photos you can look here: http://borievky.com/gallery.php or here http://www.photographybyvarina.com/

For examples of good photos...I'm sure you can find them yourself all over the internet.


About what?

In landscape photography the most evident scenario you will ever see is in the amount of CA. By this I mean see in real life, not pixel peeping. However, that will not render a technically great photo just "good". Besides, any such flows are later easily removed in PP anyway.

Oh, OK, Monster, I'm very happy for you...now you can spend a week or two on that site picking out the best lens, buying it, and then showing us all these beautiful charts in your trip reports or maybe even get one of your charts seen in the new CT calendar.

Since you're an asshole, I don't feel bad saying here that your pictures still suck.

Huh? What?!?! The 50/1.2 is one expensive "L" lens. It is not a zoom, it is a prime. It is not a wide angle lens. It is not mid range in price. I can't believe this n00bness.

I'm looking forward to seeing the great charts you visited in your next trip report, which otherwise would have been just good.

Realizing that you are a bit sensitive about me Arnold, I hope I can find a way to say this with out inciting your volatility.

Your own examples of "great photos" argue against the very point you are trying to make. I did not even have to go to the pages that explained what equipment was used to produce those images in order to clearly see that all of them were taken with very high quality, ultra wide glass (but I did anyway).

Not one part of this discussion was ever about the lack of value in acquiring good photography skills but your point about glass not being a noticeable quantity in final image quality is not only wrong but... demonstrated wrong by your own examples of "great photos".

Notice the period ending the first sentence, or maybe the word "either" after I referred to another sharp Canon lens in the very next sentence?

Oh well, thanks for catching my typo on the 50 f1.2 thing, I was referring to the 50 f1.8 that Splitboarder mentioned, and agreeing that it is a very sharp lens at a mid range price.

These photos didn't become great because of the glass that was used, but because of the photographers' skills. I clearly can see why you cannot understand that simple fact, because you merely cannot describe why a particular photo looks great. You only see a great photo and you know in your mind that it's great, but you don't know why, and all you can resort to is the usual novice answer: it must be the camera/glass! My point was that a less than expensive glass will not (magically) transform a great photo into just a good photo. Your pixel peeping you can leave to yourself and other alike pixel peepers, as I wasn't even discussing that subject.

Even if it is a typo, you were still talking about the 50/1.8 as if it's a wide angle zoom lens. The price is not mid range by any means either, but simply cheap.

Well Arnold, time to add you to my ignore list; maybe I'm one of the last here on CT to do so. I don't appreciate you coming in here and hijacking this thread with your insensitive and thoughtless arguments.

I found this thread interesting to start. Over the last few years I have learned a great deal from this site and the people on it. While Ill agree in part that it is the photographer that makes the shot, I have seen the difference good glass can make. I have also had some outstanding captures from a P&S but they dont compare with a DSLR.
I dont know why Internet Heroes feel the need to be belligerent 90% of the time. My guess is that they just lack some serious social skills, both on-line & in real life.
Most of us here constantly hone our photographic skills and use this form as an exchange of ideas and techniques.
Too bad people cant put personal opinions aside to give intelligent input!
I guess Ill have to finally use that ignore button myself.[V]



"Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst."
Henri Cartier-Bresson

"Why are the pictures square if the lens is round?
Steven Wright

"You miss 100% of the shots you never take.
Wayne Gretzky

I really don't care where you put me. It's not as if I'm dying for you to read my posts. I did not hijack your thread though. My reply was to your post about great/good photos, which you started.

Shit disturber! []

good one -

a well known figure head weighs in &lt;#photo geekery&gt;

I am ordering the 7D as my backup camera, as my XT is on its last legs. I will let you know how this camera makes out.

Anyone else order one?

Rebates on the 7d! Now $ 1699 body only. Bought one. Self-admitted amateur that will just shoot pictures of friends without pretensions of becoming pro.

Can we look forward to you exploring the amazing video quality next ski season?! Hope so!

I'm sooooo stoked about the video quality; the better weather-sealing (was terrified i was going to destroy the T1i using it in pretty demanding conditions); and the higher fps. Oh god shiny new toys