Essential The Official Photography Thread

[Pressure]

I am not a huge believer in glass tho

It used to mean something u til autofocus took steroids

Not only will lightroom glass profiles fixe their issues....but what used to add value to those expensive glasses was minimized with DPAF and eye focus.

If ur not a pro who wants close to 100% reliability..u will do away with decent glasses.


But i am weighting ur point heavy tho...will let u know if i cop it.

I'm a Sony shooter. If you shoot any kind of low light you'll notice the difference.

50 1.8 unusable with AF in low light and is soft.
85 1.8 is sharp, but still hunts.
35 1.8 sharp and doesn't really hunt much at all in low light.

Tamron 28-75 is somewhere between the 35 and 85.

If you're always shooting during the day, MF, or a tripod then sure it might not matter.

Just my two cents.

Sony FE lenses are expensive in general so if you aren't getting the performance out of them it stings a lot more.

Granted I do a lot of paid work in less than ideal situations so I agree that's probably why it matters more for me now than 16 months ago.

 

[Kamikaze Revy]

I am not a huge believer in glass tho

It used to mean something u til autofocus took steroids

Not only will lightroom glass profiles fixe their issues....but what used to add value to those expensive glasses was minimized with DPAF and eye focus.

If ur not a pro who wants close to 100% reliability..u will do away with decent glasses.


But i am weighting ur point heavy tho...will let u know if i cop it.

My man...good glass is an absolute game changer. When I first started I thought the ONLY reason you got a new lens was for different focal lengths....once I stepped into getting some high-ish end lenses like the sigma art series I immediately noticed a major increase in my image quality. Bokeh, colors, sharpness, all got a major upgrade, ESPECIALLY when shooting video (which is what I do primarily). I shoot fully manual 90% of the time and only put on autofocus for some gimbal shots.

 

[G-Zeus]

My man...good glass is an absolute game changer. When I first started I thought the ONLY reason you got a new lens was for different focal lengths....once I stepped into getting some high-ish end lenses like the sigma art series I immediately noticed a major increase in my image quality. Bokeh, colors, sharpness, all got a major upgrade, ESPECIALLY when shooting video (which is what I do primarily). I shoot fully manual 90% of the time and only put on autofocus for some gimbal shots.

Back in the analog days.. it meant the difference between great shots and decent shots..and also succesful shots and failed ones..


Back in the t2i, 5d mkii days...it was between sharper corners and quicker focus...(with the nifty fifty beating expensive primes at certain focal f stop


nowadays....you get great result either way...but could get a bit better.

so long were not talking the yongnuo or neewer of the world of course.

 

[GoldenGlove]

I'm a Sony shooter. If you shoot any kind of low light you'll notice the difference.

50 1.8 unusable with AF in low light and is soft.
85 1.8 is sharp, but still hunts.
35 1.8 sharp and doesn't really hunt much at all in low light.

Tamron 28-75 is somewhere between the 35 and 85.

If you're always shooting during the day, MF, or a tripod then sure it might not matter.

Just my two cents.

Sony FE lenses are expensive in general so if you aren't getting the performance out of them it stings a lot more.

Granted I do a lot of paid work in less than ideal situations so I agree that's probably why it matters more for me now than 16 months ago.

I just YouTube the comparison videos and make a decision.

I have a local rental spot as well that I can get stuff for that I need for specific shoots.

I had the 16-35mm GM a few weeks ago for a week. Used it for an interior design photoshoot, a real estate photoshoot and a video shoot.

35 bucks for a day and like 113 for the week.

 

[G-Zeus]

I just YouTube the comparison videos and make a decision.

I have a local rental spot as well that I can get stuff for that I need for specific shoots.

I had the 16-35mm GM a few weeks ago for a week. Used it for an interior design photoshoot, a real estate photoshoot and a video shoot.

35 bucks for a day and like 113 for the week.

Exactly what i do...

And if i do a paid job....i charge the rental extra

 

[The Devil's Advocate]

Back in the analog days.. it meant the difference between great shots and decent shots..and also succesful shots and failed ones..


Back in the t2i, 5d mkii days...it was between sharper corners and quicker focus...(with the nifty fifty beating expensive primes at certain focal f stop


nowadays....you get great result either way...but could get a bit better.

so long were not talking the yongnuo or neewer of the world of course.

They are showing you a picture of a picture, on a computer screen that you watch, on your computer screen.. Of course it all looks good enough. This is like when people tell me their phone can do good enough compared to my a7iii... Yea... If we looking side by side on Facebook....

But if we opened up Lightroom and compared an uncompressed RAW on expensive glass, to anything lower than that.... The expensive glass is going to blow that out of the water..


You just have to decide what you're actually going to use these pictures for and what high quality means to you

 

[G-Zeus]

They are showing you a picture of a picture, on a computer screen that you watch, on your computer screen.. Of course it all looks good enough. This is like when people tell me their phone can do good enough compared to my a7iii... Yea... If we looking side by side on Facebook....

But if we opened up Lightroom and compared an uncompressed RAW on expensive glass, to anything lower than that.... The expensive glass is going to blow that out of the water..


You just have to decide what you're actually going to use these pictures for and what high quality means to you

i rented expensive lenses and compared... it is better but not 1800$ better... UNLESS your printing it to paid media.... but even for a wedding the cheap lenses pics are amazing...

also.. again... in before the DPAF and EYE-AF those lenses are worth it.. but since then.. the amount of in focus shot you
get today with cheap lenses compared to expensive lenses pre the beefy AF is actually MUCH higher..

 

[Kamikaze Revy]

i rented expensive lenses and compared... it is better but not 1800$ better... UNLESS your printing it to paid media.... but even for a wedding the cheap lenses pics are amazing...

also.. again... in before the DPAF and EYE-AF those lenses are worth it.. but since then.. the amount of in focus shot you
get today with cheap lenses compared to expensive lenses pre the beefy AF is actually MUCH higher..

Unless you’re dealing strictly with prime lenses, a more expensive lens will typically give you a better and constant aperture (my sigma arts are 1.8 through the entire focal range) and they also give a better build quality and often times better focus pull. My cheaper lenses have that fly by wire digital crap that I hate for focus pulling.
If you find the cheaper lenses work for you that’s cool...but you can’t just dismiss the major benefits found on higher end lenses. There’s a reason they exist.

 

[richtree]

Like many if you mentioned, it really comes down to what the work is going to be used for and also who will be consuming. I used to think glass didn't mean much until some friends who were in the game longer let me use some of their more expensive lenses (sigma art 35 1.4, 70-200 2.8, 50 1.2) and the quality was unmatched.

Having durable, responsive and sharp lenses can make a huge difference if you're doing paid work.

 

[G-Zeus]

Unless you’re dealing strictly with prime lenses, a more expensive lens will typically give you a better and constant aperture (my sigma arts are 1.8 through the entire focal range) and they also give a better build quality and often times better focus pull. My cheaper lenses have that fly by wire digital crap that I hate for focus pulling.
If you find the cheaper lenses work for you that’s cool...but you can’t just dismiss the major benefits found on higher end lenses. There’s a reason they exist.

I dont...also.. i said the mid range ones..those canon 85mm 1.8 type.. or 50mm 1.4 or the 40mm stm...the 30 from sigma(pre art) or the old canon..

Those are nice lenses that will do awesome jobs...u dont need the L series unless ur doing paid job...then renting is the best option unless ur a traveler type.

Not L lenses...but not the super cheap ones too..
And technically speaking ...are mid ranges

They existed because the crop camera was starting out....it was yet optimal like now...
Now its more about being gearsluts unless ur really in the field

 

[WaveWhisperer]

while i was over seas i had a chance to go to ferrari world in uae. first time shooting film in low light as this so they turned out better than what i expected.



94DEEF34-6FD1-4732-85B3-1232A889C581 by giallo, on Flickr

 

[WaveWhisperer]

31D57F03-DEFA-47E0-8336-A950F372C72B by giallo, on Flickr

 

[WaveWhisperer]

A6C05152-702B-4ACF-BB2E-7327C61782F2 by giallo, on Flickr

 

[WaveWhisperer]

15931B2A-5CA0-4DC6-9C8A-B2BAFD05BD1F by giallo, on Flickr

 

[shutterguy]

Weighing on the glass discussion, I'm a Canon shooter and I have had their inexpensive kit lens at 18-55mm ($100), stepped up to their 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lens ($700), huge difference in quality. I do have the 50mm f/1.8 STM, for what it is it does an incredible job and is tack sharp. I also have a handful of their L lenses, 17-40mm f/4 L USM, 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM, and the 135mm f/2 L USM, they have all impressed me to where I wouldn't want anything less. I rented the 85mm f/1.2 L USM, was blown away by it, it's $1,800, worth every penny. I will tell you what changed the game for me with Canon's lenses, especially the L's, getting a FF body. Went from a 7D to a 5D Mark IV, quality is just impressive all around.