Live data from Hacker News

Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?

dpreview.com

161–170 of 291 posts

Re: Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?

#161
post #37

I love 50mm lenses but a lot of this stuff is ridiculously academic since photography is artistic & creative in nature. DPreview largely seems to write for the crowd that doesn't even care about the art aspect and just wants validation that they have better photo gear than others. These new 50mm lenses often defeat the point cause they're enormous, heavy, very expensive, and have little benefit over the slower versio…

Completely agree with this, if I open a 50mm to f/1.4 I usually don't care about extreme sharpness, I want the shallow DoF. I'm a Pentax weirdo, I have a couple of old 50's - one of them is even AF.

(OTOH if I open a 200mm as wide as it goes I definitely do prefer it sharp - different scenario.)

Re: Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?

#162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if it were the case, what is wrong with that? I mean, we can buy fancy cars without having a background in engineering, right? All the sneering about people being bad photographers and not needing the latest gear is out of touch. Average photographers benefit immensely from fast autofocus with full frame coverage, better sensors and better optics that make taking pictures in difficult conditions easier. Besides,…

Average photographers can certainly benefit from better gear to a degree. But for many people (myself included) a $300 lens will work as well (or even better) than a $3000 one. Which I think is the point the original commenter was making. The sneering is pretty typical for any hobby that lumps practitioners and collectors under the same heading. The former group tends to see the gear as mere tools, to be used as need…

> Average photographers can certainly benefit from better gear to a degree. But for many people (myself included) a $300 lens will work as well (or even better) than a $3000 one. Which I think is the point the original commenter was making.

I agree somewhat, which is why I mostly use a cheap lens, and an ancient EOS 60D. However, I think the $3,000 lens is a red herring. The vast majority of lenses sold are kit lenses or cheap plastic. Because whilst there is an awful lot of average photographers, not all of them are millionaires. Now, to actual millionaires $3,000 are probably worth less than $300 for me, so I don't see how I would have a moral high ground.

Honestly, this is a made up problem. Some people prefer working on composition, some are better at capturing subtle lights, and some have a technical mind. These people still buy camera and take pictures, as a hobby. So why wouldn't they be called "hobbyist photographers" like the rest of us? And why does it have any importance whatsoever?

Re: Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?

#163

I had an old metal very well regarded 50 mm prime, 1.4 f. I also had a modern plastic 18-55 mm kit lens, high f (starting at 3.5). But the colors on the modern zoom lens were so much better. Hard to explain, but they just looked better, kind of like a DSLR photo has "better" colors than a phone photo. It was very confusing, I was expecting differences in sharpness maybe, but not in colors.

I've also had this "shock" with lenses much closer in generation. I had a Canon 40D a while ago, and at first I was using a 17-40/4. I absolutely loved the colors I would get. Gradients would have a certain "creaminess" to them. Then I figured I'd change it for a 17-55/2.8, to get some extra light at night. That was pretty much when I stopped going out taking pictures altogether. I just wasn't getting the pictures I…

What were you editing the output with? Did it have accurate lens compensation?

Even just fixing the vignette some lenses add is enough to make pictures no longer depressing. If the lens adds chromatic aberration that's quite difficult to fix though.

Re: Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?

#166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A while ago I read a comment that was really eye opener: most big YouTube photography channels out there are mostly about gear, not about "taking pictures". It shows how much money the industry moves (or how prevalent GAS is).

Same situation with my hobby, making electronic music. While there are a ton of amazing tutorials for how to write music there are way more gear review videos with orders of magnitude more views. Its fun to shop for new toys, learning new things is work.

The forums for guitar players are often dominated by gear discussions unless carefully moderated. The good forums make efforts to sequester all the GAS discussions to their own corner.

Re: Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?

#167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Average photographers can certainly benefit from better gear to a degree. But for many people (myself included) a $300 lens will work as well (or even better) than a $3000 one. Which I think is the point the original commenter was making. The sneering is pretty typical for any hobby that lumps practitioners and collectors under the same heading. The former group tends to see the gear as mere tools, to be used as need…

> Average photographers can certainly benefit from better gear to a degree. But for many people (myself included) a $300 lens will work as well (or even better) than a $3000 one. Which I think is the point the original commenter was making. I agree somewhat, which is why I mostly use a cheap lens, and an ancient EOS 60D. However, I think the $3,000 lens is a red herring. The vast majority of lenses sold are kit lense…

The expensive lenses are usually big and heavy. If you don't need that degree of sharpness, then it's potentially a worse tool than a lighter (and cheaper) lens.

>So why wouldn't they be called "hobbyist photographers" like the rest of us?

I feel like I explained my thoughts on that in my previous comment. Basically if you're in it for the love of the gear rather than to make photographs that's fine, but your hobby is collecting rather than photography. Or, to put it another way, photography gear rather than photo-making.

>why does it have any importance whatsoever?

Sometimes the photo-makers get annoyed at being lumped in with the gear collectors. And a fair number of people get taken in reading the gearhead commentary and end up buying expensive lenses that won't actually help that person take better photos.

Re: Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?

#168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> GAS Haha... I was getting sucked into this, still am in a way. I spent about a year (2019) with a now cheap Sony Nex-5n with an 18-55 kit lens... but wanted to upgrade, more MP, higher video quality... got an A7II (24MP, 1080P) and then an A7RIII (42MP, 4K) ... I bought a 12-24mm F4 G lens at $1.3K __USED__ which to me is insane and that's not even that much in this space. It's just my car is $2K... I still can't c…

Wait, you got a car for $2,000?

Seems right for a used Civic in good working condition. And it will get you wherever the beautiful shots are without giving trouble.

Re: Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?

#169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've also had this "shock" with lenses much closer in generation. I had a Canon 40D a while ago, and at first I was using a 17-40/4. I absolutely loved the colors I would get. Gradients would have a certain "creaminess" to them. Then I figured I'd change it for a 17-55/2.8, to get some extra light at night. That was pretty much when I stopped going out taking pictures altogether. I just wasn't getting the pictures I…

What were you editing the output with? Did it have accurate lens compensation? Even just fixing the vignette some lenses add is enough to make pictures no longer depressing. If the lens adds chromatic aberration that's quite difficult to fix though.

I was using whatever the latest Lightroom version was at the time. I started using the 17-40 around 2009-2010 I'd say, and I bought the 17-55 much later, so I suppose that Lightroom support improved in the meantime. Plus the difference was apparent on the camera's screen, with all the controls unchanged between the lenses.

I actually tend to add vignetting in post-processing, so that's likely not the cause. The issues I had were with color rendition, and in particular with subtle variations in tone.

I don't remember there being any strong chromatic aberration either. I remember that both the 17-55/2.8 and the 17-40/4 where quite highly rated at the time, with the former having a better measured quality than the latter, even on a crop sensor.

Don't get me wrong, I don't remember there being any "technical" issues with the 17-55. It was plenty sharp and aberrations were kept to a minimum, especially since I never pushed my luck with strong backlight, etc.

But maybe that's the thing, images were maybe too "clinical". I wouldn't say the pictures were "depressing", they were just... "meh". Like random snapshots. Sharp, well-exposed snapshots, but snapshots still.

---

Edit: Regarding editing, I should add that I experimented with DxO optics, which had profiles for both lenses. The corrections were quite amazing, especially at the wide end. But given my usual subject matter, I never considered the change meaningful, so it didn't bother with it in my regular workflow.

Re: Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated?

#170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> GAS Haha... I was getting sucked into this, still am in a way. I spent about a year (2019) with a now cheap Sony Nex-5n with an 18-55 kit lens... but wanted to upgrade, more MP, higher video quality... got an A7II (24MP, 1080P) and then an A7RIII (42MP, 4K) ... I bought a 12-24mm F4 G lens at $1.3K __USED__ which to me is insane and that's not even that much in this space. It's just my car is $2K... I still can't c…

Wait, you got a car for $2,000?

Yeah a used one from the lot, it was a mistake, lots of money to fix it... another stupid moment.

Not saying you can't get a good car for that price but yeah.

Post reply on HN