If you could pick 2 lenses

G

Gr8Tr1x

Guest
" For some reason, people like to believe that their glass is 'magic' and it's impossible to shoot great portraiture, landscapes, etc without having expensive 'pro' grade optics at one’s side. You want to know the truth, it's all completely B.S."

Your point also seems to be that you can make just as good an image with consumer glass as you can the more expensive stuff. Once again, you are wrong.
Phil, from the quote that you lifted, he doesn't say that 'you can make just as good an image with consumer glass as you can the more expensive stuff', you seem to be reading far more into it. All he is stating is that great pictures do not require expensive equipment. He doesn't say that expensive glass is worthless or overrated at all, in fact he went out of his way to make that clear several times.
 
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
131
Location
Midwest, USA
To defend someone who needs no defense, I have never found Unlce Frank to be snobbish to anyone (he loves his beast beyound reason and can't see the real benefits of the digital beast on a 1.5 sensor - but nobody is perfect).
I just returned a used beast and bought the digital beast.
I am no pro and I have just started using the digital beast.

My initial thoughts are that the images I was getting from
the beast were more pleasing to me than the digital beast.

Uncle Frank may be on to something. :smile:
 
Joined
Jan 31, 2005
Messages
386
Location
B&H Web Site, Lens Section
Phil, from the quote that you lifted, he doesn't say that 'you can make just as good an image with consumer glass as you can the more expensive stuff', you seem to be reading far more into it. All he is stating is that great pictures do not require expensive equipment. He doesn't say that expensive glass is worthless or overrated at all, in fact he went out of his way to make that clear several times.
I really don't give a rip what he thinks about lens A or lens B or their performance. This is *my* primary point:

"It would seem to me if you had a simple difference of opinion instead of saying most on this forum spout complete BS and are full of bull, the conversation might go a little better."

There was absolutely NO reason for him to use derogatory terms, i.e. complete BS, you can't handle the truth, etc, when discussing another poster's opinion.

Phil
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
1,011
Location
San Jose, CA
cadman, if you follow the thread backwards you will see that my argument started when someone stated "You just can't achieve decent portraits with slower glass".
I just followed your advice and re-read the entire thread to see how my remarks set off such a fire-storm. I think you misinterpreted several of my remarks.

And then once I posted a great example of what can be achieved with slower glass the whole 'you just got lucky' rebuttle started per Uncle Frank.
That wasn't my point. I didn't think you provided an example of a good portrait. I'll concede that it was very sharp, as any modern Nikon lens closed down a stop and shot in bright sunlight would be, and it rendered the colors nicely, so if those are your sole requirements for a good portrait lens, we need go no further.

My arguments are not about Wedding Photography...
This topic of this thread is lenses for wedding photography... and as far as I was concerned, that included the portrait discussion.

For some reason, people like to believe that their glass is 'magic' and it's impossible to shoot great portraiture, landscapes, etc without having expensive 'pro' grade optics at one’s side.
Who said anything about expensive pro grade optics? Here's the criteria I suggested:

A good portrait lens should allow you to take a picture in low light, so the subject's face is relaxed, allow for selective focus when the background is at more reasonable distances, and have good bokeh to render the OOF areas in a pleasing/complementary manner.

Any number of affordable lenses can meet those specs, including the 35/2, 50/1.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.8 and 180/2.8. These are lenses capable of rendering outstanding portraits that can be found in used mint condition for anywhere between $100 and $400.

Sorry about the confusion. I was trying to be tactful, and it created more of a tempest than if I had been direct.
 
Joined
Jul 28, 2006
Messages
1,120
Location
Myrtle Beach, SC
Frank

This is my last response to this thread, I think it's best as anything further said will only lead to more arguments (and I don't mean with you). I don't want to continue to throw this thread off track, hopefully people can jump past this and get back onto the original topic: wedding optics....

I just followed your advice and re-read the entire thread to see how my remarks set off such a fire-storm. I think you misinterpreted several of my remarks.



That wasn't my point. I didn't think you provided an example of a good portrait. I'll concede that it was very sharp, as any modern Nikon lens closed down a stop and shot in bright sunlight would be, and it rendered the colors nicely, so if those are your sole requirements for a good portrait lens, we need go no further.



This topic of this thread is lenses for wedding photography... and as far as I was concerned, that included the portrait discussion.



Who said anything about expensive pro grade optics? Here's the criteria I suggested:

A good portrait lens should allow you to take a picture in low light, so the subject's face is relaxed, allow for selective focus when the background is at more reasonable distances, and have good bokeh to render the OOF areas in a pleasing/complementary manner.

Any number of affordable lenses can meet those specs, including the 35/2, 50/1.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.8 and 180/2.8. These are lenses capable of rendering outstanding portraits that can be found in used mint condition for anywhere between $100 and $400.

Sorry about the confusion. I was trying to be tactful, and it created more of a tempest than if I had been direct.
 
G

Gr8Tr1x

Guest
A good portrait lens is one that allows you to take good portraits under any given set of conditions. This whole business of needing fast primes is silly, unless your goal is to be taking portraits in low lighting with available light.

The bottom line is that people who are satisifeid with the portraits they are taking with the equipment they are using are not wrong. If WatsonD50 is happy with his results who are we (you, me, or anybody) to tell him he using the incorrect tool? He is happy with his results. I am happy with my results with whatever peice of equipment I am using.

Heck, some people are very happy with OOF portraits, I prefer mine to be focused though.
 
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
623
Location
South of Chicago
In my experience, any lens from 35mm on out can take a bridal portrait. After all, it is not the pores in her face that we are looking for. We used to add filters to make a portrait even softer.
I have used lenses that were softer than others. I have used three zooms and I got rid of them all. They were all softer than my primes but for bridal portraits they were just fine.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
532
Location
Michigan
Zach, I suppose this is why I leave weddings up to pros that do this sort of thing for a living while I just stick to 'this and that' photography as a hobbyist. While I have shot a few weddings, I did it not as a professional, but just for fun and to provide the bride and groom with additional pictures. While the pro at the last wedding I shot sweated profusely lugging around two camera bodies and a couple of very fine (but very heavy) lenses and running around setting up off-camera flash I enjoyed myself eating, drinking, and capturing some fantastic candid’s with my more mobile (but understandably 'consumer') setup :wink:
I attended my niece's wedding in October with my D50 and 18-70 "kit" kens, and SB-800. Throughout the night, I took about 75-100 photos, staying out of the paid photographer's way as I always do when I bring my camera to these types of events.

I went to their house for a Christmas party in December and gave her a CD with the photos that I had taken as part of her present. We sat and first watched the photos that the pro photographer had taken, and they were very nice. We then viewed the CD of the photos that I had taken and everyone there was blown away. Why? Because I got the shots of people laughing, dancing, having fun - most of them totally candid. Shots of my niece, son and daughter with their arms around each other, laughing and smiling. The groom and his mother in candid poses that they both loved.

I am by no means a pro, or even close to it. My payment was when, at the end of the night, my niece gave me a kiss on the cheek and thanked me for the wonderful photos. It doesn't get much better than that.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom