You generally seem to try to incite arguments. Different people will prefer different qualities in lenses, which is perfectly fine. Too sharp, not sharp enough, etc. Trying to create arguments over what ultimately is personal preference is a fools folly.
vdo1 wrote:
Rumours has it that National Geographic will stop accepting photos that are not taken with lenses approved on this forum as having "good renders".
Too sharp? Too punchy? Sterile? Clinical? No character? Rejected!!! Get with the program and secure a good renders lens!
tsdevine wrote:
You generally seem to try to incite arguments. Different people will prefer different qualities in lenses, which is perfectly fine. Too sharp, not sharp enough, etc. Trying to create arguments over what ultimately is personal preference is a fools folly.
Then what's the point of posting personal preferences on a forum. Especially when accompanied with derrogatory / dismissive comments regarding other people's preferences?
Who posted derogatory comments? Unless I missed some posts, I saw some say they love the GM and others say they didn’t prefer it, but even then they seemed to say it was a good lens. At least that’s how I interpreted it….lensfan I believe. Is it Philip you’re taking about? I don’t think he said anything derogatory about any person here.
But your comment seems to go directly at people.
vdo1 wrote:
Then what's the point of posting personal preferences on a forum. Especially when accompanied with derrogatory / dismissive comments regarding other people's preferences?
tsdevine wrote:
Who posted derogatory comments? Unless I missed some posts, I saw some say they love the GM and others say they didn’t prefer it, but even then they seemed to say it was a good lens. At least that’s how I interpreted it….lens can I believe. Is it Philip you’re taking about? I don’t think he said anything derogatory about any person here.
But your comment seems to go directly at people.
No I have no issue with Philip, I was looking at posts located at the very beginning of the thread. Where I had a deja-vu sensation from the other threads where the latest 1.8 35mm's where introduced and discussed. A newer, better corrected, better AF, better handling, better colors, better an all measurable parameters lens is introduced (like the 35 GM here) and is taken down as "sterile".
I have nothing more to say than that I fully agree with Daran here:
This context is extremely helpful, and if you you had given more in the earlier post I think I would have (maybe others) interpreted it in a more constructive way. Just came across a little confrontational as is.
I tend to buy the sharpest/best corrected lenses, as I do mainly landscape shooting. But I do also see shots from some lenses that I am drawn to, which aren't necessarily the sharpest or most corrected. For example, looking at shots with the Sigma i35/2 (I know that thread went south...and I do want to drag there into here) and the Tamron 35/1.4 (non Sony E mount). But the GM seems like a fantastic lens.
I'm shooting mainly the CV 35/2 APO for 35mm. But I often think of maybe getting a faster 35mm with AF. Right now I have the Tamron 35/2.8 and the Zony 35/2.8. But I don't *need* another 35 really.
vdo1 wrote:
No I have no issue with Philip, I was looking at posts located at the very beginning of the thread. Where I had a deja-vu sensation from the other threads where the latest 1.8 35mm's where introduced and discussed. A newer, better corrected, better AF, better handling, better colors, better an all measurable parameters lens is introduced (like the 35 GM here) and is taken down as "sterile".
I have nothing more to say than that I fully agree with Daran here:
rob_ww wrote:
In terms of pop, it provides an excellent base from which to start post-processing if that is what you are after. I am also a fan of the Batis lens range, but held back from the Batis 40/2.0 because the 35GM has not let me down in any situation: landscape, portraits, interiors, night shots, bright sunlight, overcast, seascapes, B&W high and low contrast, etc. etc. etc.
Exactly. Almost flawless images (by today's standards) provide robust foundation to produce the needed result in post.
I don't shoot for money or share on social networks, I'm more about the joy of picture taking process and appreciation of the moment/gear, so I don't spend much time redacting the images and want them to be close to final desired outcome sooc.
Earlier, lenses were much less perfect and there were many other issues to worry about before I would say they are too well-corrected to be interesting. Actually, this is the first time I felt something like that, as sharpness/resolution and acuity was something I probably valued the most.
And the best thing is that we are getting this great optical performance for a super-useful 35mm focal length bundled with high 1.4 speed and mechanical performance.
tsdevine wrote:
I saw some say they love the GM and others say they didn’t prefer it, but even then they seemed to say it was a good lens. At least that’s how I interpreted it….lensfan I believe.
Absolutely - I love the 35GM lens. Even got another one today - 50GM from a fellow FMer. We should expect some bashing of that one in the future. So far I got a few sample shots of my shoe - love the sharpness wide open. Very-very impressed with the auto-focus speed - something to experience on a 1.2 50mm lens which have always been slow and inaccurate. I know, I will be using it on super rare occasions but could not resist getting that one.
My 'issue' with 35GM was that I did not feel the punch having flipped though a decent amount of images, it was not thousands but still.
tsdevine wrote:
This context is extremely helpful, and if you you had given more in the earlier post I think I would have (maybe others) interpreted it in a more constructive way. Just came across a little confrontational as is.
I tend to buy the sharpest/best corrected lenses, as I do mainly landscape shooting. But I do also see shots from some lenses that I am drawn to, which aren't necessarily the sharpest or most corrected. For example, looking at shots with the Sigma i35/2 (I know that thread went south...and I do want to drag there into here) and the Tamron 35/1.4 (non Sony E mount). But the GM seems like a fantastic lens.
I'm shooting mainly the CV 35/2 APO for 35mm. But I often think of maybe getting a faster 35mm with AF. Right now I have the Tamron 35/2.8 and the Zony 35/2.8. But I don't *need* another 35 really.
You will never be able to reduce it to one single 35mm lens, for the simple reason that there will never be a single lens that is best in all usage scenarios.
Pretty much like I wouldn't chose a pneumatic screwdriver to fix a loose screw on my eyeglasses, I wouldn't pick a f/1.2 lens for my travel snapshots at f/8.
Yet some people will try to find an "universal winner" in all categories. Or will declare a lens as "best" without also mentioning the use case.
Agree, there is no "perfect" lens. There will always be pros and cons, and people will judge based in their style and priorities. Even one person's idea of what would be a "perfect" lens might be different from another persons.
vdo1 wrote:
You will never be able to reduce it to one single 35mm lens, for the simple reason that there will never be a single lens that is best in all usage scenarios.
Pretty much like I wouldn't chose a pneumatic screwdriver to fix a loose screw on my eyeglasses, I wouldn't pick a f/1.2 lens for my travel snapshots at f/8.
Yet some people will try to find an "universal winner" in all categories. Or will declare a lens as "best" without also mentioning the use case.
Well learning experience. Took my first trip since picking up the hobby of photography. Traveled to Billings and Red Lodge Montana. People here on FM forums said not to pack too much. Well I did not listen and packed way more than I needed or used. Everything I shot was using the 100-400mm GM and 35mm GM. Next time I will pack a lot lighter. lol. As a hobbyist I found the 35mm GM just fantastic.
Nov 14, 2022 at 11:15 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
vdo1 wrote:
You will never be able to reduce it to one single 35mm lens, for the simple reason that there will never be a single lens that is best in all usage scenarios.
Pretty much like I wouldn't chose a pneumatic screwdriver to fix a loose screw on my eyeglasses, I wouldn't pick a f/1.2 lens for my travel snapshots at f/8.
Yet some people will try to find an "universal winner" in all categories. Or will declare a lens as "best" without also mentioning the use case.
I don't think any one has tried to find a "universal winner," or declared there is one or even declared a lens as "best" without mentioning a use case. I agree that shouldn't happen and I am glad it hasn't.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I don't think any one has tried to find a "universal winner," or declared there is one or even declared a lens as "best" without mentioning a use case. I agree that shouldn't happen and I am glad it hasn't.
Some did try, like Steve Spencer here: "the 200 f/2 VR is the best portrait lens for Nikon".
IMO means In My Opinion....he prefaced the snippet you quoted with that qualification. We all have individual opinions on what we think it's the best. And we can all disagree. And based on our style, preferences, etc.....the things we value the most, we might be right in our eyes.
But at long as we present it as opinion, I don't see the issue. And each person can explain the qualities that make them think one lens is better than another.
And we can disagree. And that's ok.
vdo1 wrote:
Some did try, like Steve Spencer here: "the 200 f/2 VR is the best portrait lens for Nikon".
Not only did I express that as an opinion, I also specified the use case (portraits) and I made the comment in a totally different thread which was titled, "Best portrait lens for Nikon Z?", so your post both isn't about the 35 GM which this thread is about and it isn't relevant here. I think sharing my opinion about the best portrait lens for Nikon Z on a thread that asks explicitly about that is not off base and is not relevant to the discussion on this thread. I will comment no further.
tsdevine wrote:
IMO means In My Opinion....he prefaced the snippet you quoted with that qualification. We all have individual opinions on what we think it's the best. And we can all disagree. And based on our style, preferences, etc.....the things we value the most, we might be right in our eyes.
But at long as we present it as opinion, I don't see the issue. And each person can explain the qualities that make them think one lens is better than another.
And we can disagree. And that's ok.
The use of "IMHO" is superfluous, as everything is opinion unless it is an independently verifiable fact. And it doesn't excuse one from making the connected statement.
Don't worry though, I can find other examples from the times when the RX1 lens was the best 35mm or when the 24 GM was the best E-mount 35mm ("when shot in crop mode").
Actually, this is the first time I felt something like that, as sharpness/resolution and acuity was something I probably valued the most.
