Is it really the operator?

[cjtinkle]

I'm a crappy photographer, I'll be the first to admit it, and won't post any pic's to torture ya'll with, but I'm curious about something. I've read time and again on these forums that the person behind the camera makes the picture, not the equipment, but I'm beginning to wonder about that!

I've a Canon 10D, and started with Canon consumer lenses. I have the 28-135, and have always hated it. I really disliked it when I got my first L, the 100-400. The difference in pictures was amazing. Recently, I got the 16-35, and I must say I'm stunned. With the 28-135, 90% of every picture I took of scenery, was either overexposed, bad color, or just generally didn't look right. With the 16-35, suddenly my skies are blue, my greens are the right color, and I haven't changed settings, just lenses! I mostly shoot in manual mode.

So while good glass may never make me a good photographer, it sure makes my lousy pictures at least more enjoyable! Now I just need a 1dsMKII.... :lol:

[reggie]

Ypu must have had a particularly bad 28-135 !!
That was the first lens I got with my 10D many moons ago and it was a cracker.

[midmadn]

Never fell in love with a single shot from my 28-135 IS either.

I'm using the Tamron 28-75 XR-DI to fill that spot right now and the results are much, much better.

Except for the range from 75 to 135mm. LOL

Jack

[Belmondo]

So while good glass may never make me a good photographer, it sure makes my lousy pictures at least more enjoyable! Now I just need a 1dsMKII.... :lol:

A good body won't make as much difference as god glass in normal shooting situations. Where you'll see a difference is in marginal conditions....low light, high frame rate, etc.

The one thing I've missed most, even on the 1-series body, is a 'talent' button. That is the one crucial missing element in most of my photos.

[Jon, The Elder]

This is strange. I gave my wife my 28/135 to put on her 300D,and she loves it.

I use a new 28/135 on my 20D and it performs very well. It has made me a lot of money this Winter.

I shoot centerpoint/Av/all ISO levels/AWB much of the time.

HOWEVER; I enjoy and use PS (7.0) for most shots. I use many of Fred Mirandas actions and other assorted software to get the right combination for printing. Many people do not realize that they bought into their own post production (read 'lab work') when they got into DSLR. The better you get - the better the shot.

www.pbase.com/jpferguson

[TammieO]

While I agree 100% that the photographer's talent is crucial to great photos, I also believe you need the right tools for the right job. Even the best photographer would have issues trying to shoot a small bird out in the wild without a longer lens.

[cjtinkle]

Nah, there isn't anything wrong with the lens, my hubby takes terrific shots with it, I'm just lousy. My point was, a better lens makes me a lot "less lousy". Hehe.

I use PS 8(CS), Noise Ninja and Mask Pro for editing, and am playing around with Raw Shooter as well, it seems to do a much better job with raw images than PS does. But regardless, the pic's out of the L glass just seem to need a lot less work!

I don't have any natural talent, I need all the help I can get. LOL

[CRE@TE]

A good body won't make as much difference as god glass in normal shooting situations. Where you'll see a difference is in marginal conditions....low light, high frame rate, etc.

The one thing I've missed most, even on the 1-series body, is a 'talent' button. That is the one crucial missing element in most of my photos.


You need a tripod to use a "Talent" button. ;)

[ssim]

I think that most of us have been through that "damn, am I bad" period. I can remember the first couple of lenses that I bought after getting my 10D. I couldn't get anything sharp and I was frustrated beyond belief. I took the L plunge and got the 24-70, 16-35 and 100-400. They took a little getting used to but the change was dramatic.

Even the best photographer in the world is going to struggle to make good images with bad equipment. The 28-135 seems to have a variety of good versus substandard versions out there. Some people love it. I have seen some portrait work by a lady here in Montreal and they were simply outstanding. These were done on a 1VHS film body.

I'm sure you will enjoy your new L toys. The choices that you made were excellent ones. I'm sure we won't hear how bad you feel are anymore.

[cjtinkle]

So where is that "TALENT" button located at? LOL

[CRE@TE]

So where is that "TALENT" button located at? LOL


Ummmmmmm....................this is a public forum. :twisted:

[Mike H]

I think there are a couple of things at work here. The first is that most people tend to start with consumer equipment and then move up to the more expensive toys if they stick with the hobby. So their L lenses arrive right about the time that they finally start understanding composition, exposure, post-processing, etc.. In other words, they get the better equipment when they are higher on the photographer's learning curve. Hence, they produce better work, and sometimes credit the equipment more than they should.

The second force here is that you've gone from using a standard zoom to a very long zoom and a very wide one. Keep in mind that these two lenses will allow you to create a perspective that is much different from the human eye, and therefore, add some drama (or potentially add drama) to your work. The 28-135 is much more limited in its ability to do that, not because it's a bad lens, but because that's the nature of the middle focal lengths. I once read where a prominent landscape photographer (can't recall the name) doesn't even carry medium focal lengths with him when he heads into the wilderness. The middle focal lengths allow a perspective that is just too close to that of the human eye for his tastes.

With that new wide lens you can get in tight with the lens zoomed out and put an object into the context of its environment by showing much more of its surroundings. Likewise, the long zoom will let you juxtapose two objects in the frame that are far apart in reality. Now you have many more creative posibilities.

I hope this helps.

Mike

[cjtinkle]

So in other words I'm just like a little kid with new sneakers? "Watch me Mom, look how high these make me jump"! LOL

But yes actually, the ultra wide and ultra long end of the lenses is my favorite part, you have much better options with them. And to be honest, I find that what I enjoy taking pictures of never falls in the middle ranges, I either seem to want a super telephoto or super wide. Now I want a full frame sensor! hehe

Generally when hubby and I go sightseeing (in town) I use my 20mm, and it's almost wide enough, and I certainly like it better than the 28-135, but I can't wait to try the 16-35 out! I really love how fast the L glass focuses compared to the 28-125, although the 20 isn't bad, and I have a 100mm macro which works great.

[rfreschner]

So while good glass may never make me a good photographer, it sure makes my lousy pictures at least more enjoyable! Now I just need a 1dsMKII.... :lol:

That's why I started out with the good glass! :D OTOH, I have nothing to blame now!

BTW, took a quick look at your site and I am jealous! My wife and I have a trailer and love to get out in it, but are no where near financially able to go full time. Good for you! Your quote on your home page is one that I have in my sig on another forum and one that I truly believe in!

[brad.swanson]

I started out with 24-85 USM, and a 75-300 IS, and I have to say that both lenses were dull, not very sharp at most f-stops, and .... slow. Digging out the pocketbook, buying a 24-70 L turned out to be the best thing I could've done. And then the 70-200 f2.8 IS turned out to be even better. Now, I just need the 100-400L and a nice fisheye.

[cjtinkle]

The 24-70 is next on my list, although I want to play around with the 16-35 more, to see if I'd actually use the 24-70 much. I know it's probably the top rated walk around lens, but I think for me the 16-35 will be more so.

Rick, we fulltime in an RV because hubby is a contract engineer, always on the move. Ideally, he's only supposed to be working 2 2-3 month contracts per year, leaving us open to travel the rest of the time, but he always seems to get extended. The current contract, 8 weeks to start with, is in it's 8th month! Grrrrr.... LOL However... that equates to more "L" glass for me! LOL

[CyberDyneSystems]

I went through the same amazement the first time I put really good glass on my 10D!

The camera and lens combo suddenly exposed much much better than it had with lower quality glass.

[primoz]

I won't agree with you about this. You can take perfect photos with crapy equipment... if you are good. If you are not good then perfect equipment will still result in crapy photos. No L lens can change the way you look at world. Yeah it will be a bit sharper it will have a bit better contrast and a bit better color but if you don't have eye for composition it will still be crapy photo no matter if it was take with $100 worth equipment or with $20.000 worth one.
Want proof of that? :) I can't do anything else then admire guys shooting sport 30 years ago. Now I have camera with super fast af, with 8fps and 300/2.8 lens so it's really no big deal to shoot some skiing at 100km/h. 30 years ago you had film, 1 shot only because there was no motors, there was no af and are those photos any worse then those which I have? Not really! Yeah I probably do have higher percentage of good photos but does it matter? No! Editor wants one great shoot and that's what I have and that's what they had! So it really doesn't matter if you have good equipment or not. It's still man behind the lens.
Maybe it's a bit different with sport. You need better cameras to work easier but with landscape I think it's not the case. As I said, you can get perfect photos with EOS 300d and some crapy plastic fantastic lens (it's still sharp enough for 90% of landscape use, especially if you are not pro). And on other hand you can have 1Ds with whole line of L lenses and you don't have not even one good photo.
So I agree with someone mentioned learning curve and time when L lenses come. It's about you knowing more not about you getting better lenses :)

[rfreschner]

The 24-70 is next on my list, although I want to play around with the 16-35 more, to see if I'd actually use the 24-70 much. I know it's probably the top rated walk around lens, but I think for me the 16-35 will be more so.

I'll probably look into the 16-35 or the 100-400 next because I'd like more range at both ends, but for now the 24-70 is on my camera the most. It's a beautiful lens!

Rick, we fulltime in an RV because hubby is a contract engineer, always on the move. Ideally, he's only supposed to be working 2 2-3 month contracts per year, leaving us open to travel the rest of the time, but he always seems to get extended. The current contract, 8 weeks to start with, is in it's 8th month! Grrrrr.... LOL However... that equates to more "L" glass for me! LOL

Sounds like a great time - you'll have to PM me where you stayed when in CT. I'm sure we'd love to do it some day when we retire if I could only figure out where to put my 52 inch TV!! LOL !!

[Titus213]

I'm looking into that 'Easy' button I see advertised on TV all the time. Until I find it I'll continue to use the 'better equipment would have let me get a better picture' line to justify some new stuff.....

[charlesu]

By this logic, just think what will happen if you upgrade to a 1DS MKII!!!!

Seriously, it is the photographer. Yes, there are limits to certain gear. And, yes, given enough chances, a monkey can make a good portrait with a good camera. But the key here is that a good photographer gets as good of an image as is possible given his or her gear. It really is about the technical execution combined with the aesthetic choices (composition, pose, etc.).

[cjtinkle]

By this logic, just think what will happen if you upgrade to a 1DS MKII!!!!

Exactly the pitch I was going to use on my hubby! :D

Seriously, of course I realize it's the photographer who makes the picture, and I'm thinking I'll likely never be anything more than mediocre if that. But better glass DOES make my pictures look better, and for that, I'm ecstatic! I do this only for fun anyway, so my pictures simply have to please me.

I take pictures more for journaling purposes than for the photo itself, which is why I bought my camera to begin with, a complete novice at that point. I'd had a little Kodak P&S, and could never get the pictures I wanted. At that time, a large portion were farm shots that I simply couldn't get near enough to without a telephoto lens.

Anyway, it's all in good fun, I love my camera and the L glass makes me love it all the more! I don't post often, but I do read these forums all the time, hoping to learn!