I should have added that you can achieve very fine results with all your lenses, even those that are not so highly rated. As Rob pointed out, the difference between great lenses and consumer grade lenses is negligible in most cases. I've been very happy with the Vivitar zoom that I bought for less than a hundred bucks. But in reality, it's a coke bottle compared to today's best glass. How you work is much more important than the tools you use. Workflow, workflow, workflow.
> I think you may gain something in terms of the way light and shade are > rendered > with better glass. But it would be more in regard to finer rendering of > detail > within those areas rather than opening up shadows or preserving highlights. > Some > of the lenses you mention are not highly regarded. But you don't have to go > to > another brand to get good glass. Many Pentax lenses are counted amont the > best > you can buy. Some of yours fallinto this category as well. That M 50/1.7 is a > marvelous lens, and it's quite inexpensive. > > But I think what you're really talking about is the way detail is rendered in > shadows and highlights. These attributes are much more dependent on workflow > than equipment. If you're shooting digital, you'll have to shoot RAW and > process > each frame very carefully to achieve optimum results. If you're shooting > film, > you'll have to find a film that works well with the processing that's > available > to you. Then it will have to be printed or scanned just so to achieve good > results. Most labs will just pump up the saturation and contrast so that the > machine prints "pop." That's why I'm very enamored of the digital workflow. I > control the entire process. If the results aren't good it's my fault. > > > > Mike, > > > > Ability to render very subtle changes of light and shade. This in turn > > gives the image very 3D look. You almost feel like you're present on > > site. > > > > This is what I would call plasticity. > > > > The lens that is not like this has very few distinguishable > > transitions from light to darkness and back. So you get mighty > > contrast image but it lacks detail, lacks fine representation, lack > > this natural look. > > > > Do I make sense? > > > > > Not sure what you mean by plasticity. > > > > > > mike > > > > > > -- > > Boris > > >
