Lenses or light...?

I am currently learning photography and all of its ins and outs.

I have come through the "equipment" collecting phase (possibly).

Now I am starting to think that "light" is more important than "lenses".

To test this idea, I thought of this question that I would be interested to hear some of your responses on:

What would you prefer (if these were the only two options of course)?

The day involves a nature shoot, a product shoot, a portrait shoot and a candid street shoot.

You are only allowed one lens.

1. Very poor quality light with a 2k+ lens for a day.
2. Very good light with a sub 1/2k lens for a day?

Over to you...

Mark

Light is all there is. Go with good light and any lens.

Depends... I could shoot fantastic photos with a 50mm/1.4 in horrible light, which is also like what, $250us? The only thing is shooting at 1.4 gives me a very tiny depth of field, so then it becomes context-dependent. (I wouldn't want to shoot a car at f/1.4, but I wouldn't want to shoot an insect at f/22 either)

It's really subject-dependent.

Since photography is all about light, that would take the priority if I had to choose one or the other.

My son started with a Canon Digital Rebel (I believe it was also called a 300D) and the original EF-S 18-55 lens. He's made quite a few VERY good photographs with what a lot of folks would laugh at for equipment today.

In other words, don't get all wrapped around the axle with collecting equipment until your skill has reached the limit of your equipment.

Define poor light. Poor in amount or poor in quality. Some of my best pics were taken when light is barely available but the quality of the light that was there was high.

I must admit, two things have really struck me as I am learning.

Peterson's book on understanding exposure (must read that again).

A recent wedding shoot instructional video on kelbytraining (cannot remember the guys name), where he just shot and talked you through the light. No flashes, no bounce cards, all day long shoot. I think I learned more from that than all the other videos put together...

gjl711 wrote in post #11639361
Define poor light. Poor in amount or poor in quality. Some of my best pics were taken when light is barely available but the quality of the light that was there was high.

I have amended the question so that it specifies poor quality light.

But what would you define as poor quality light?

mtimber wrote in post #11639363
I must admit, two things have really struck me as I am learning.

Peterson's book on understanding exposure (must read that again).

A recent wedding shoot instructional video on kelbytraining (cannot remember the guys name), where he just shot and talked you through the light. No flashes, no bounce cards, all day long shoot. I think I learned more from that than all the other videos put together...

this one? http://www.kelbytraini​ng.com …hy/course\266/l​esson\3809

LIGHT.

just take a look at this guy...

http://fstoppers.com/i​phone/

beautiful photos from an iphone....but he had abundance of light!

It's all about light. You deal with your surroundings. I personally would want a high quality lens in any situation. I like sharp images and in low light a fast lens helps as well. Besides the cameras these days are pushing that high ISO limit. I have no problem shooting my 7D at 12,800 ISO. They won't be fine art prints but I can get very decent results. I spent a lot of money learning this hard way. Lens for me - always.

mtimber wrote in post #11639380
But what would you define as poor quality light?

Noon summer sun. Lots of light available but at a high angle causing unpleasant shadows. That's an extreme example of poor quality.
Sodium vapor lamps can have lots of available light but at one frequency causing weird colors.
Gray overcast day. We get lots of those. Causes bland gray pictures but can actually be quite bright.

mtimber wrote in post #11639380
I have amended the question so that it specifies poor quality light.

But what would you define as poor quality light?

For me the worst quality of light is daylight mid-day on a sunny day. Its hard, harsh, creates terrible shadows, and creates scenes where the camera cannot record the entire dynamic range (shadows too deep, highlights too bright). So its certainly not always about quantity of light. Sodium vapor lights are bad as well because they dont have the entire color spectrum, so no matter how you set your white balance certain colors will not be recorded accurately. This is why you need to learn how to use a flash properly so that you always have some method of coping with bad light by providing your own.

I would choose good light and poor quality lens if forced to choose.

Chiche but...good photographers can get good photos with anything.

mtimber wrote in post #11639308
I am currently learning photography and all of its ins and outs.

I have come through the "equipment" collecting phase (possibly).

Now I am starting to think that "light" is more important than "lenses".

To test this idea, I thought of this question that I would be interested to hear some of your responses on:

What would you prefer (if these were the only two options of course)?

The day involves a nature shoot, a product shoot, a portrait shoot and a candid street shoot.

You are only allowed one lens.

1. Very poor quality light with a 2k+ lens for a day.
2. Very good light with a sub 1/2k lens for a day?

Over to you...

Mark

The problem with this is what you're shooting. Lighting makes a product shoot. For me, lighting makes my portrait work what it is. I know people shoot natural light portraiture, but when you have control of the light and can place it anywhere and create it anywhere, then you're not dependent on weather conditions and the time of day. With that, you can also create so amazing photos anywhere. You could stick me with a 300D, 18-55 MKI and a decent set of lights and I could give you some amazing photos.

Generally, external flashes aren't used for landscape and most street photography. You can, but they wouldn't be as useful. I know people have used lights to augment landscape photography, but trying to light an entire scene would take a very big amount of power. With street photography, most people aren't standing in one place, unless you have a portable solution like a Strobist jet pack, I don't see it as being helpful. On the rare occasions I'm shooting street photography at night, I'm glad I have my 5D MKII, f/2.8 zooms and fast primes.

So if really depends on what you want to shoot. I generally do about 90% of my work as portraiture, so I'm dependent on light. I'm starting to get into automotive photography, but it's the kind that I'm using lighting for, so for me it would be a no brainer.

How many days are you going to be shooting landscape, street, portrait, and product all in the same day? If you were to split up those 4 into the percentage of your total overall photography, what would it be?