The unfortunate thing with these types of threads is that newer folks get mislead by incorrect assumptions. It is very important to do research on what you buy and fit your gear to your needs. There is no one type of lens that is better than all the rest. Find out what meets your needs/style and get the best you can for your application.
Prime vs zoom - which ones give better IQ
- Thread starter hulk2012
- Start date
Browncoat
Senior Member
Then you should know that most people DO make purchasing decisions based on feelings and perception. Since you're interested in data, you should also know that most shoppers begin their process with a Google or Amazon search. They're looking for reviews and customer experiences. They're not looking for charts full of data. People make purchasing decisions based on recommendations from friends, discussion topics (like this one), previous experience, and "gut feelings".
Give an average person a choice between 2 lenses, and some are going to inevitably buy the more expensive model based on the sole feeling that more money spent=higher quality. Others will choose the cheaper lens because less money spent=more value. It's all about perception. That's a major portion of the buying experience for most people. I will go even further and say that more people would be influenced by looking at actual comparison photos between lenses versus looking at a chart riddled with data.
You pasted a chart that you found on the internet and droned on and on about how much more you know than the rest of us, and you were wrong. Rick and Glenn are doing a fine job of calling you out on that issue, so I see no need to dogpile and beat you up over it, as much as I'd like to. The point that has been finely illustrated in this thread is that all that data means nothing if you don't know how to interpret it. I said it earlier, and you've pretty much delivered the final blow yourself by showing that it looks easy to blow a lot of hot air about stats and figures, until someone who really knows what they're talking about shows up.
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
I'm curious what field you work or have experience in that deems a single data point a better indicator of overall performance than a cross-sectional performance-based average? Who is this "we" you refer to? Because that sounds like that tired, old and baseless argument of "that's how everyone else does it!" (cue the crickets chirping in the background and tell the Tumbleweed he's "on" in three... two... one...) as absolutely no one rises to defend this premise. And lastly, how is a performance-based average a misinterpretation of the data you supplied? Do you have issues with my calculations? If I've miscalculated please point out the error. It appears to me you are looking for evidence in support of your belief and are doing so to the exclusion of contradictory evidence. Anyone who points out this flaw in your logic you attack, saying they are, "misinterpreting" the facts.
Well, there's a word for this act of selecting data that conforms to a predetermined or desired outcome, and to the exclusion of contradictory data; it's called the Fallacy of Incomplete Evidence or, more commonly perhaps, "cherry picking". You might also want to look up Confirmation Bias at your leisure.
Lastly, climb off that high horse of yours thinking you've got us all in a dither over here like a bunch of nervous school-girls because you manage to post a table of what you simply expected us to accept as proof of your claims. You posted some data and made some comments. Some others here, myself included, happen to disagree with you on the finer points. To that end I have posted my thought's and calculations backing up my assertions. What I absolutely don't need to do is stoop to insults and name calling, implied or otherwise; I save *that* sort of thing for those people here on the forums I really, really like.
I am curious one, however, and so look forward to your considered response to the questions in my opening paragraph.
......
Don Kuykendall_RIP
RIP :(
Back in the real world here for a minute. Take the two lenses, set them both on the same setting, same camera same scene and shoot time. When I mean same I mean the middle of the range. Now go through the same post processing and now print them at 8X10 or even 11X14.
Now put the two up side by side and at average viewing distance is anyone going to be able to tell the difference?
Now put the two up side by side and at average viewing distance is anyone going to be able to tell the difference?
I´m reading Daniel Kahneman and getting to know more on his prospect theory. Not only do people make purchasing decisions on perceptions, these perceptions are wrong and thus the decisions are irrational.
Whiskeyman
Senior Member
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
Logic Stop...
Wrong does not constitute irrational. Irrational means there is a lack of logic or reason.
If I make a decision in accord with information that is logical and reasonable (rational), yet incorrect, the decision itself can still be rational. Suppose I am given directions to a gas station by someone while I'm in an unfamiliar neighborhood. I am told to turn left at the light but those directions are incorrect. To get to the gas station I *actually* need to turn right at the light instead. I based my decision to turn left on the information provided yet I don't find the gas station. It's entirely logical to follow the directions I'm given, but I'm still wrong in that I don't find the gas station.
.....
As that great American philosopher, Jimeny Cricket said,"It's not what you got, but what you do with what you got that wins out in the end'. The most expensive prime out there is not going to do you a darn bit of good if you don't learn to use it to it's full potential. And a good photographer is going to be able to get good results from the cheapest of zooms because he knows what he's doing.
Blade Canyon
Senior Member
Another example of inappropriate negativity in a forum devoted to photography. This isn't life or death stuff, folks. We can disagree without going medieval on each other's flash.
Browncoat
Senior Member
Another example of inappropriate negativity in a forum devoted to photography. This isn't life or death stuff, folks. We can disagree without going medieval on each other's flash.
That was my fault. I forgot to include a disclaimer: No unicorns or care bears were harmed in the making of that post.
:heart::rainbow::heart::rainbow::heart::rainbow::heart::rainbow::heart::rainbow::heart::rainbow::heart::rainbow::heart::rainbow:
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
Yeeeeeeeahhh... I suppose we *could* but what fun would that be?
And remind again who it was that brought the heat down on themselves?
,,,,,
Where your statement is correct, you dropped the perception part.
You make the decision in accord with the perception, the information stops to be rational, even if you use a rational process afterwards, you tweek the real data in your perceived data. So you believe to be logical, you perceive it as logical, but you manipulate the input leading to an irrational result ( = not what an unaffected mathematician would calculate based on the data iso the perception.) We all do it and it is almost impossible to notice it in ourself.
To come back to the thread:
Better IQ justifies a higher price. However even if science shows better IQ of a lens, in the final result, the picture, (most) human perception might not be able to see it or it might not be of application for the use we foresee.
The unaffected mathematician might see: if the picture does not have better IQ, go for the cheapest. But we will believe that we will see the difference and spend a lot more based on the science.
I´m certainly overspending on IQ that I do not need and I do find it reassuring, I´m happy with my action.
SkvLTD
Senior Member
Did we cover prices points and well, post-processing? In the film days, sure, better overall would be the clear winner, but today doesn't this debate only really apply those who shoot jpeg vs raw? Then it also depends on the body quite heavily, so it becomes best lens + best body vs just best lens.
dramtastic
Senior Member
x 1
But I'd add best within your budget as well. The law of diminishing return applies. A lens that costs 6k doesn't ever give you 6 times the IQ of one that costs 1k whether it's prime v zoom, prime v prime or zoom v zoom. Not to my eye at least. IQ is only part of the story, there are tons of sharp picture with great contrast etc but they aren't particularly interesting. A picture that is not perfect that captures a moment in time that really puts you in that place or tells a wonderful story beats an uninspiring technically perfect image every time in my book.
Also agree with the poster who wrote, learn to use whatever equipment you buy to the best of it's abilities. My semi-pro mate once took a Kodak point and shoot of mine and shot photo's I could only have dreamed it was capable of. In other words, the camera had a lot more ability than I had bothered to learn about and put into practice.
As an aside my Sigma AF 100-300mm EX IF HSM APO arrived today and it only weighs as much as the Nikon 300mm F4 Prime. Originally I was going to get the Nikon Prime but after reading a heap of reviews and viewing many images from the Sigma I decided the versatility of the Zoom better suited my needs. Oh and it was only $750 in virtually perfect order.