quote:Originally posted by Monster
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".
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.
quote: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.
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.