Why does this happen?

[bdunbar79]

So I was over on LinkedIn in a Canon group discussion and someone posted which was better, the 85 f/1.2L II or the 85 f/1.8? First response was "Get the Sigma" but you know I really expected that one, someone always says something like that. Then it got into zoom lenses, etc.

Finally, someone suggested that the only way to step up your game in photography is to shoot with all primes. He suggested that the OP's goal should be to acquire the 24L, 35L, 50L, 85L, and 135L.

My question is, why do people say such stupid things?

Secondly, why do I do this to myself? At first I wanted to slap the guy, but then I thought, maybe I should just slap myself for even reading the post and worse, responding to it. Yes I admittedly responded to him.

My real issue here is that the OP mainly does portraits. He already has the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS lens so I suggested the 24-70 f/2.8L II is pretty much sharper than any prime in that range. Then the "only primes" post. I didn't think my suggestion of spending $2299ish was out of line considering the total price of the primes he listed.

Why do some people feel as though to do well in photography, you must be a purist? It's like if you don't shoot in M mode, manual focus, and use an L prime, you're not doing it right.

 

[Jim Saunders]

Maybe he is insecure in his choices and wants to hear people agree with them.

Jim

 

[Maximilian]

My question is, why do people say such stupid things?

Ever hear of trolls
Ok, to be serious:
If it comes to a question "a" or "b" I also sometimes throw in a "how about c?" depending if it is fitting to the question.
This "L primes only" guy is IMHO not a troll but one of those, that are always willing to spend other people's money and that always in huge amounts.
So this is irrational in relation to the OPs question and demands.

Secondly, why do I do this to myself?

Why? Because you're one of the "good guys". You want to put things right. You want to get the discussion back on track. And that is, what I would want to do as well. And this is GOOD.
The only thing is, that you have to learn to focus on the results and gain some distance if not a friend is involved.
You won't be able to convince the "L primes only" guy.
But if you can reach the OP and he notices the irrational arguments of the other, than you did a good job.
And if not, then say, you did your best and don't get angry if people stop listening to you.
It's only important that your partner, family and friends keep listening.

 

[dak723]

You must be new to the internet, where all opinions are created equal, regardless of whether the person is knowledgeable or ignorant, wants to be helpful or wants to be an annoyance. Alas, I think you will often find that many folks aren't even interested in answering the OP's question, but just try to show off how smart they are or try to stir the pot, so to speak. Of course, that is just my opinion....

 

[dak723]

Great cartoon! Thanks for posting!

 

[Oceo]

Great cartoon! Thanks for posting!

Cartoon is from http://xkcd.com and you're right -- the cartoon is great! It's a continuing strip so use the arrows at the top to see others earlier and later. If you go to the web page and hover the mouse cursor over the strip the artist's comments/explanations will pop up. If you try this be sure to drag the cursor from outside the strip box into the box.

 

[wickidwombat]

I usually respond get the sigma in the what 85 discussion
The canon is a tiny bit better optically but if its not on a 1d its painfully slow to focus
Compared to the sigma the sigma is 1/3 the price of the canon and is lighter and a bit smaller
By f2 there is no difference in sharpness between the 2 and the difference at f1.4 is so small
You can only see it pixel peeping

But the Prime only thing is stupid personally I like 2 bodies 1 with zoom and 1prime
What those are depends on what I'm shooting

 

[sdsr]

My real issue here is that the OP mainly does portraits. He already has the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS lens so I suggested the 24-70 f/2.8L II is pretty much sharper than any prime in that range. Then the "only primes" post. I didn't think my suggestion of spending $2299ish was out of line considering the total price of the primes he listed.

Why do some people feel as though to do well in photography, you must be a purist? It's like if you don't shoot in M mode, manual focus, and use an L prime, you're not doing it right.

Well, one might argue that sharpness isn't the most important feature of a portrait lens; that while the primes-only guy may just be some fool showing off, it may have less to do with purism than the fact that fast primes have a different look from sharp 2.8 zooms (though it's not clear why someone who mainly does portraits would be much interested in a 24mm or 35mm, L or otherwise - especially when he asked about 85...); and point out that Ls aren't required - there are even some cheap, fast, old(ish) manual 85mm lenses that make rather nice portrait lenses, even if unacceptably soft wide open to the sharpness police.

But one won't, because that cartoon is so damn good....

 

[DRR]

My real issue here is that the OP mainly does portraits. He already has the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS lens so I suggested the 24-70 f/2.8L II is pretty much sharper than any prime in that range. Then the "only primes" post. I didn't think my suggestion of spending $2299ish was out of line considering the total price of the primes he listed.

Why do some people feel as though to do well in photography, you must be a purist? It's like if you don't shoot in M mode, manual focus, and use an L prime, you're not doing it right.

Well, one might argue that sharpness isn't the most important feature of a portrait lens; that while the primes-only guy may just be some fool showing off, it may have less to do with purism than the fact that fast primes have a different look from sharp 2.8 zooms (though it's not clear why someone who mainly does portraits would be much interested in a 24mm or 35mm, L or otherwise - especially when he asked about 85...); and point out that Ls aren't required - there are even some cheap, fast, old(ish) manual 85mm lenses that make rather nice portrait lenses, even if unacceptably soft wide open to the sharpness police.

But one won't, because that cartoon is so damn good....

This, 100%.

Personally, I like primes, especially in the standard range. I agree the 24-70 II is probably at or at least near as sharp as any prime in that range, but a huge appeal of primes to me, is that they are faster than f/2.8. That gives you a different look and gives you more ability in low light situations. That's my preference.

Also agree that sharpness isn't the only factor to judge. People spend a lot of time on gear review sites looking at 100% crops but I prefer to look at the whole photo. For example - a few months ago I had the chance to compare the Sigma 35mm with the 35L, trying to determine which lens to target next. (Can't afford it now but given the opportunity to play with lenses, I'll take it.) Looking at the photos I took, I liked the look of the 35L more, even though when I pixel peeped, the Sigma was sharper and had less CA. Overall they were very close and I'd be thrilled with either, but I don't put food on the table with my photography so I'm ok saving up a little longer for the 35L.

 

[pwp]

There are all sorts of "prime-tyrants" out there...trolls, pixel peepers, insecure gear-nuts who follow the trends and of course the many genuinely brilliant photographers who undoubtedly produce their best work with primes.

With the exception of 300mm and longer, I'm a zooms guy with 16-35 f/2.8II, 24-70 f/2.8II and the awesome 70-200 f/2.8isII. They keep bag weight down and hugely reduce the need for lens changes in dusty locations. For me "content is king" and a zoom's innate flexibility helps to deliver the goods. I sold three primes when I bought the 24-70 f/2.8II. It's that good.

Why do they do it? Hell, I don't know. I suspect the the most dogmatic offenders are dreamers with too much time on their hands who may not even own a camera.

-pw

 

[DRR]

There are all sorts of "prime-tyrants" out there...trolls, pixel peepers, insecure gear-nuts who follow the trends and of course the many genuinely brilliant photographers who undoubtedly produce their best work with primes.

With the exception of 300mm and longer, I'm a zooms guy with 16-35 f/2.8II, 24-70 f/2.8II and the awesome 70-200 f/2.8isII. They keep bag weight down and hugely reduce the need for lens changes in dusty locations. For me "content is king" and a zoom's innate flexibility helps to deliver the goods. I sold three primes when I bought the 24-70 f/2.8II. It's that good.

Why do they do it? Hell, I don't know. I suspect the the most dogmatic offenders are dreamers with too much time on their hands who may not even own a camera.

-pw

Personally, I like primes because it simplifies decisions for me. I'm generally a two-lens shooter - more than that tends to be overkill for my style (or, abilities, if you want to put it that way). I looked at EXIF on how I shot my 24-70 and 90% of the shots were at 30-40 range, or at 70. I figured with a little more discipline I could use primes and gain the ability to shoot with over 4x more light hitting the sensor over a fast zoom.

Needs and styles vary - that is why there is a range of equipment available. No two kits are alike because no two shooters are alike.