What lens to use for Dante vs. Petkal Ducky Shootout ?

Petkal wrote in post #2111357
To beat an L ? That's a tough concept which has some shaky underpinnings.
One needs to understand first and foremost what an L stands for. Then, one needs to appreciate that there are many L's......just about the only thing common to all of them is a red ring.....otherwise, they are all different.
Sure like heck the L lenses are not photography magic wands, we know as much, right ?

In the end, experience and application counts for a lot. Tool quality helps but seldom decisively so.

I do understand that...but almost daily there are threads on "what lens should I buy" and invariably the L contingent (and don't get me wrong I own/use several so I'm not against them by any means) chimes in with "if you want really good photos....buy this L" I'd just like to see someone prove that non-L's can take darn fine photos when one knows what one is doing. (That often the failure of the photo isn't the glass...though, I realize CA & softness is the glass, but most of the time it's inexperience or poor technique.) Since this "contest" has got some publicity behind it (if you ever go into marketing Petkal, you'll make a fortune ) I think it will be a good example of many things....well, maybe "good" is too strong a word

Are we having action duck shots or static stuff guy's..:p

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

I was thinking.

I think this competition is unfair if both photographers are NOT using lenses of the same classification. If one uses a telephoto, the other should also use a telephoto in my opinion. Unless of course we are looking at judging 2 shots from completely different point of views (a duck shot taken at 10mm is going to look thousands of times different then one at 300mm.)

BTW, I wonder if you can get duck shots with a 85 1.8 on a 1.6x body. Busters photo is taken with a 135mm on a 1D MK II (which is what, 1.3x?) so hmm..

Permagrin wrote in post #2111390
I do understand that...but almost daily there are threads on "what lens should I buy" and invariably the L contingent (and don't get me wrong I own/use several so I'm not against them by any means) chimes in with "if you want really good photos....buy this L" I'd just like to see someone prove that non-L's can take darn fine photos when one knows what one is doing. (That often the failure of the photo isn't the glass...though, I realize CA & softness is the glass, but most of the time it's inexperience or poor technique.) Since this "contest" has got some publicity behind it (if you ever go into marketing Petkal, you'll make a fortune ) I think it will be a good example of many things....well, maybe "good" is too strong a word

I hear you there...Look in the photo sharing section. That comment is proved wrong on a daily basis!
L only affects sharpness, contrast, saturation, build, etc. L will not affect composure, exposure, composition, artistic ability.

Permagrin wrote in post #2111390
I do understand that...but almost daily there are threads on "what lens should I buy" and invariably the L contingent (and don't get me wrong I own/use several so I'm not against them by any means) chimes in with "if you want really good photos....buy this L" I'd just like to see someone prove that non-L's can take darn fine photos when one knows what one is doing. (That often the failure of the photo isn't the glass...though, I realize CA & softness is the glass, but most of the time it's inexperience or poor technique.) Since this "contest" has got some publicity behind it (if you ever go into marketing Petkal, you'll make a fortune ) I think it will be a good example of many things....well, maybe "good" is too strong a word

Sadly, the contest of this sort would not add cogently to the debate you are talking about. We all normally wish to acquire the tool reputed to be the best one for the job. What's often missing is sufficient experience with tools as well as the job. So sometimes we end up overbuying and overspending.........t​he tools get underutilized or not used appropriately, that sort of thing.
Sorry if you think I am hedging or not helping much.

Mr. Clean wrote in post #2111426
L only affects sharpness, contrast, saturation, build, etc. L will not affect composure, exposure, composition, artistic ability.

As I have said many times, you can buy a sharp shot but you can't buy the ability to take a shot worth looking at.

busterboy wrote in post #2111396
Are we having action duck shots or static stuff guy's..:p

Timmy, wheather you know it or not, that's a good lomography shot.

I had to look that up!
Interesting article on it though...never heard of it before.

Here Timmy, this is what you need, a shooter training duck.....comes on wheels too, as it should. Please call back sometime in January next year.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

condyk wrote in post #2102711
Remember who's involved son This isn't SSim and CDS They've already agreed to raise the bar by negating stuffed and drugged quacks.

great post Dave. i was thinking the same thing

is petkal the one who owned a photo store?