yeah, lenses don't make the photograph, the guy behind it does.
see my sig.
Possibly, if you find a way to re-animate Tim.The Timothy O'Sullivan print of the Canyon de Chelley from a digital file on my wall was shot with whatever lens was available in 1873. I wonder if the red-ringed Great White Whale Lens in the original post can take such a magnificent photo.
I don't even know what these (in this thread) lenses are, and I don't need to know. By 1975~, lenses had become good enough mainly due to a) coatings, b) glass types, and c) new designs with the aid of computers to do the calculating that no matter what I wish to do photographically, the equipment will be the last item to limit me.I'm far more impressed by the content of a given photo - composition, creative concept, its emotive effect - than by the lens used.
all my lenses are better lenses than I am a photographer.L lenses are nice, but they're not magical. I recently came across this rich 18-year old photographer on Flickr who had probably every L lens canon currently makes (and showing off all of them). His photographs were painfully bad. I call it the equipment to skills ratio: the photographer should always be better than his tools.
Rumour has it, Steve, that Hasselblad lenses are so good because they send more than 50% of the ones they receive from Zeiss after they have tested them are sentback. I don't know if this is true.That is what I say in my signature. I am Sirius Glass because of all my Hasselblad lenses.
Especially when it has a big red L on the end of it.
All this + a Polaroid Land Camera Model 80 - the Elan 7e which I already own = $2150.
Both are f4L's and are Image Stabilized. Can't wait to see some prints off that Elan 7e through these.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?