And that is the crux of our debate: my position is that it is not the lens that takes better photos, the photographer does. The lens might take technically superior photos, but that still does not translate directly into better photos.
That's like saying, "The car doesn't win the race; the driver does."
It's true in a sense, but it also completely overlooks the fact that said driver better be in a @%$#!&* fast car to begin with
or he won't even be in the race. In short, it takes both
a top-notch car and
a top-notch driver to win the race.
Perhaps… but such issues are best handled with one's shrink.
I can: it is a matter of raising false hopes and priorities. By relying on the lens' "magical" features, by believing that it is the lens that takes better pictures, by expecting to improve one's photography by employing "better" lenses, one is inevitably downplaying photographer's role in producing better images by concentrating on creativity, vision, idea, feel, etc., things that actually result in truly better photos. Why bother after all, when using a "legendary" lens is supposed to result in "legendary" photos?
Huh? The only thing "false" about your silly post is downplaying the importance of lens selection. First of all, no one has said anything about "magic," so you're still jerkin your pud here. I am just talking about tools for the job
and the advatages/disadvantages of each.
If you don't think lenses are important, go try to take an ultra-close shot of a bird 500 yards away without a super-telephoto lens and you'll see what I mean (and you'll also see why there's a ~$6000 tag in getting such a lens). Or try to take an ultra-close 5:1 shot of a dragonfly's eye without the right lens (or stacked equipment) and you'll also begin to "get it" about the importance of lens selection.
Sure, maybe there's a lot more flexibility of choice when talking landscape lenses, I realize this, and I also realize the creative vision of the artist needs to be at the helm of any effort. No shit, Sherlock.
But that still doesn't mean a person can't really try to zero-in on which tools for the job
might best suit him ... as well as make an earnest effort to get the very best quality equipment his budget will allow him to. Because, yes, some lenses are
simply better than others and these better lenses are the ones I want to discuss (as well as which focal lengths are most suitable).
Since this particular forum is entitled, Cameras, Lenses, and Shooting Gear
, I feel my subject matter is appropriate here (whereas your nonsense is not). I was just trying to get ideas from more knowledgeable and experienced forum members, and (thankfully) several have stepped-up to offer some suggestions I hadn't considered as well as confirmed some things I was noticing. If you want to sit here and ridicule my questions, that's cool I guess, but you're swingin-n-missin by a country mile.
I don't doubt for a minute that I have to keep improving my compositional skills, my knowledge of equipment, my roundedness in using Photoshop, etc., in order to get the most out of what I am trying to do. Again, no shit Sherlock. But if a person wants to be
in the race, he's got to first sit his ass down in a "fast car" ... and he has to select the right type
of "fast car" for his kind of race.
A straight-runner won't be much good for a slalom race ...