7 laws of lenses

[kvbarkley]

The online Photographer's 7 laws of lenses:

https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2019/02/mikes-seven-laws-of-lenses...

I won't mention any names but:

"Ctein's Axiom indicates that you can detect differences in testing that you cannot see in photographs, and, if you can't see them in photographs, then the differences don't make a lens "better" than another."

[Waddizzle]

“The sharpest lens in the world is a tripod.”

Most especially when you are using the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM on a tripod.  BTW, I think I used my T5 and an EF-S 10-22mm lens to take this shot , which was, of course, mounted on a tripod.

[EDIT]. Judging from the tripod foot, this looks like the 100-400mm.  

[ebiggs1]

"...if you can't see them in photographs, then the differences don't make a lens "better" than another."

A point which most on this forum and elsewhere ignore.  I have always maintained that thought. If you can't see it does it really matter?

[CaliforniaDream]

One of the things that I noticed and is important to me is color rendition.  Some lenses are better than others and I do notice it in my pictures.

[Waddizzle]

---

@CaliforniaDream wrote:

One of the things that I noticed and is important to me is color rendition.  Some lenses are better than others and I do notice it in my pictures.

---

Most lenses have comparable quality and price range may have small differences that can be measured, but barely seen by the eye.  I have noticed a bigger difference shooting with and without lens filters, though.  

Clear filters work the best.  UV, CPL, and ND filters seem to interfere with Auto WB and light metering a little more than I like.

[Tronhard]

I liked the article and like it's presentation style.   As one who does not tend to pixel peep I judge a photo on whether it will work for my purpose: be it on a screen, the web or a print, large or small.   If the gear lets me deliver what I am looking for, then I am happy.

The definition of a good picture is a rather nebulous one I think. When one looks at the quality of an image there is a big difference between judging one intended as fine art compared with a portrait, architectural, street or war photography image.  They all have different purposes, contexts and constraints. 

Many people go on about clarity, distortion etc. as absolutes in judging an image, but then I look at one like Robert Capa's  iconic image taken amongst the beach obstacles at Utah Beach, regarded as one of the important images of the 20th Century and if I viewed in in the context of technical performance alone it would have ended up in the bin.  Yet the very elements that make it less technically perfect render a sense of the chaos, fear and intensity of the moment.  Capa himself said at the time that his hands were shaking, but in the end it is a very celebrated and respected image.

That is what makes photography an art, and one reason why people will inevitably continue to debate image quality.

In the meantime I shall just continue to potter along and take images that make my eyes smile...

[DanielHarris]

]Great post! I totally agree with the point that sometimes the minute differences in lens testing are hard to perceive in real-world photos. It’s a reminder that the best lens often depends on the specific needs and preferences of the photographer.

[p4pictures]

There are many "truths" in those laws.

I purchased an EF 85mm f/1.8 USM not long after its introduction in the early 1990s and only got rid of it when it stopped being reliable on my EOS R6 in 2020. I purchased another EF 85mm f/2.8 USM brand new but it was not the same, and promptly sold it within 6 months. Also in the early 2000s I purchased an EF 135mm f/2L USM lens used from a large online auction site. I'm still using it and loving it almost 25 years later.