The Seven Laws of Lenses

[Tronhard]

I found this article both entertaining and true, (I am still debating the comment about the value of lenses in digital photography though) with some good advice for when we suffer GAS...

https://theonlinephotographer.typepa...of-lenses.html

It certainly expresses my own experience, where some of my best and favourite images have been taken with rather modest equipment.

[DickyOZ]

It echoes my experience too.

I also liked: "Eight law: the Arthur Kramer law. The sharpest lens in the world is a tripod." - I am getting to the age when my hands just aren't as steady as they used to be; and worse, IBIS and IS can't hide the fact much longer. I will have to brush the dust off my monopod and tripod.

[inkista]

Man, I love TOP. I think my fave in that was Ctein's axiom to the Fourth law: "If you can't see it, it doesn't count."

[Manfred M]

On the other hand, I have yet to hear a photographer complain that their lens is "too fast", "too sharp", "too wide" or "too long"....

[Tronhard]

On the other hand, I have yet to hear a photographer complain that their lens is "too fast", "too sharp", "too wide" or "too long"....

Agreed, but I think that is covered by a combination of the Fourth Law: "You get no extra credit for using a technically excellent lens." and the Corollary to the Fifth Law: "If a lens works for you, it doesn't matter how little you spent for it or how little it might be esteemed by others, it's still the right lens."

[xpatUSA]

The Sixth Law "The proper number of lenses to own is the intersection between the sets "all the lenses you need" and "the lowest possible number." (Another way to say this is "enough but no more.") " rang a bell in my mind ...

My collection goes from 8-16mm up to 70-300mm, plus a 2X converter. So, given enough warning, I'm well enough prepared. Even so, a 17-50mm f/2.8 is virtually super-glued onto my 1.7 crop Sigma DSLR ...

[Tronhard]

I am probably due for a lifetime of purgatory, based on Law Six alone. I have many lenses and indeed got duplicates of a couple of them. I wonder if I can get time off for using them...

[Manfred M]

Agreed, but I think that is covered by a combination of the Fourth Law: "You get no extra credit for using a technically excellent lens." and the Corollary to the Fifth Law: "If a lens works for you, it doesn't matter how little you spent for it or how little it might be esteemed by others, it's still the right lens."

Perhaps I feel that the Fourth Law is suspect. Not so much in terms of optical performance, but in some of the other features of the lens. Better image stabilization, faster focus as well as superior optical performance means getting the shot that one might not otherwise get.

[Tronhard]

Perhaps I feel that the Fourth Law is suspect. Not so much in terms of optical performance, but in some of the other features of the lens. Better image stabilization, faster focus as well as superior optical performance means getting the shot that one might not otherwise get.

Interesting... I actually took the law to mean that if a photo was good in its own right, then saying you had spent $3k to get an f1.2 with 5 stops of stabilization would not actually make it a better image. In other words a good image is a good image no matter how you got it.

[Shadowman]

There should be an additional law in reference to the Third Law (obsessive testing) , "you cannot write a negative review after only testing wide open".

[Manfred M]

Interesting... I actually took the law to mean that if a photo was good in its own right, then saying you had spent $3k to get an f1.2 with 5 stops of stabilization would not actually make it a better image. In other words a good image is a good image no matter how you got it.

While I would agree with the premise that a good image is a good image, regardless of the equipment used to create it, I would also argue that better tools will increase the likelihood of creating a better image. In landscape photography, where one takes a long time to set up and the process is slow, this is less of an issue than in event photography or many other genres where the photographer deals with a fluid, dynamic shooting situation. That has certainly been my experience.

[xpatUSA]

While I would agree with the premise that a good image is a good image, regardless of the equipment used to create it, I would also argue that better tools will increase the likelihood of creating a better image. In landscape photography, where one takes a long time to set up and the process is slow, this is less of an issue than in event photography or many other genres where the photographer deals with a fluid, dynamic shooting situation. That has certainly been my experience.

The problem being that "good" and "better" remain undefined ... ergo:

"One man's meat is another man's poison"

"all is not gold that glisters"

"A bad workman always blames his tools"

** This image was really "bad":



https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-f...aph-ever-taken

** For maximum spin, I left out "by modern standards" ...

[tao2]

His Fourth Law should be stamped on every camera. His Sixth Law is based on very flimsy logic... YOU CAN NEVER HAVE ENOUGH LENSES !

[Tronhard]

While I would agree with the premise that a good image is a good image, regardless of the equipment used to create it, I would also argue that better tools will increase the likelihood of creating a better image. In landscape photography, where one takes a long time to set up and the process is slow, this is less of an issue than in event photography or many other genres where the photographer deals with a fluid, dynamic shooting situation. That has certainly been my experience.

I think the critical word is "credit". To me that word says that the beholder of the image won't give you extra kudos or appreciation for the gear you used. They just want to see the result. So if you had to use a lot of setup and really invest in gear to get the image, then YOU will appreciate all that while the viewer will look at the image in it's own right.

I recall, and in fact have put on this forum the effects of people focusing on gear over talent, so here it is again.
A photographer went to a socialite party in New York. As he entered the front door, the host said "I love your pictures - they're wonderful; you must have a fantastic camera."
He said nothing until the dinner was finished , then "That was a wonderful dinner; you must have a terrific stove."

Sam Haskins

I used to have this as the signature actually:
"Photographers are not remembered for the gear they used, but the images they created"

[Manfred M]

I think the critical word is "credit". To me that word says that the beholder of the image won't give you extra kudos or appreciation for the gear you used.

That I totally agree with, but is also totally irrelevant, from the photographer's point of view.

What the photographer is trying to do is to get the shot. This is no different than any other time when we turn to an activity that requires tools. Concert pianists play on Steinway or Yamaha grand pianos, and no credit is given to the piano for a job well done. Patients go to hospitals where the most modern diagnostic and surgical equipment is in use.

I have found this strange thing when I work alongside well regarded photographers; they generally have "top of the line" camera bodies and optics. A coincidence? Do they really want to spend their hard earned money on the high end gear when no one cares about what equipment they use?

The stated "Fourth Law" is flawed because it hides behind the fact that the person looking at the work does not care what tools are used to create the results. It doesn't matter if we are discussing a photography, a piano recital or a medical procedure. We are only concerned about outcomes. The practitioner, on the other hand, does care as he or she is judged on the outcome and will select the tools that are most likely going to produce the desired results.

[DanK]

Expanding on Manfred's comment: I think an important part of the fourth law is the personal pronoun in

Ctein's Axiom If you can't see it, it doesn't count.

Who is the you?

Most people won't notice equipment-based differences, particularly when images are shown on computer screens. By the same token, most people can't tell the difference between a good or appropriate musical instrument and a bad or inappropriate one. That doesn't mean that musicians should ignore those differences.

Both I and one of my kids played brass instruments, so I will use that as an example. One of the factors that affects the tone of a brass instrument is the rate at which the bore expands as you move toward the bell. An instrument with a bore that remain narrow until near the end will have a noticeably different tone than one that widens early. The narrow bore produces a sharper sound; the wider bore produces a sound that is mellower and smoother. That's why trumpet players often bring both a modern trumpet (the narrowest bell) and a flugelhorn (the widest) to a concert. It's why symphonic trombonists often have a wide-bore instrument, while jazz trombonists often use a narrow bore. Even the mouthpiece (the width of the rim and the depth of the bowl) affects the sound of the instrument. Most people won't notice the differences. I do, and of course the musicians do.

I think it's much the same with photographic equipment. If you are going to display at 1024 x 758 on computer monitors, a lot of flaws won't be apparent, particularly most viewers. If you print, it's another matter. I have two 13 x 19 prints hanging on my walls that are in my opinion not what they should be because of equipment constraints (bodies in these cases). Most people don't notice. I do, and I suspect that some others here would too.

This is perhaps nit-picking. I agree with the sense of the posting, which is that many people get far too focused on expensive equipment, while they would do better, to paraphrase Ansel Adams, focusing on the 12 inches behind the viewfinder. Being more reasonable about equipment, however, isn't the same as saying that it is unimportant.