135 f2 makes the better photographer

[James Axford]

On going from the discussion about equipment vs. the photographer.
this lens does make the "better" photographer.
I could have never taken these with out this lens.
only had it for a week and i love the results.

here's a few
and the rest all with the 135mm
http://jaxford.smugmug.com/People/ca...27709204_Xo5fh

[nisstrust]

Agreed!

[accesser]

One of my Flickr contacts use that lens it does give some great results.
(Love #2 shot the most btw)

[mudman]

I don't know about the lens making you a better photographer, but on my old film slr I had a 135mm and
it was regarded as an excellent portrait lens.
The images you have posted here would seem to re-enforce that opinion. Great shots.

[accesser]

It like any good lens is a great lens in the hands of the right person

[Steve Axford]

Good photos James. #2 shows some skill apart from just the lens, but you still needed the lens.

[Wobbles]

Fantastic shots James, particularly love 3. Can I ask if that was shot wide open at f2?
..hmmm another lens to add to the wishlist

Cheers
John

[phild]

That's one sharp Lens James, your skill with it is equally impressive. The 135 F2 is also popular for Astrophotography.

[James Axford]

Fantastic shots James, particularly love 3. Can I ask if that was shot wide open at f2?
..hmmm another lens to add to the wishlist

Cheers
John

yes, that's shot wide open. it's a stella lens. one of the best you can buy.

looking at the photos not i think i could have sharpened them a little more.

thanks for the all the replies.
I just wanted to make a point that it's more about the equipment than the photographer sometime.

[Xenedis]

On going from the discussion about equipment vs. the photographer. this lens does make the "better" photographer.

Respectfully, I'd have to disagree.

If you happen to be a terrible photographer, then having the best lens in the world will simply make you a terrible photographer with a terrific lens.

A good image starts behind the lens.

The 135/2L is a magical lens, though, and one I also own.

Sure, it can deliver results that other lenses cannot, but you still need a clued-up person operating the thing.

[James Axford]

Respectfully, I'd have to disagree.

If you happen to be a terrible photographer, then having the best lens in the world will simply make you a terrible photographer with a terrific lens.

A good image starts behind the lens.

The 135/2L is a magical lens, though, and one I also own.

Sure, it can deliver results that other lenses cannot, but you still need a clued-up person operating the thing.

you have to the the f stop the shutter speed and the subject... not very much really.
i could teach anyone in a day to take "good" (that is If you think these photos are good) photos with this set up. it's really not that hard.

[Xenedis]

i could teach anyone in a day to take "good" (that is If you think these photos are good) photos with this set up. it's really not that hard.

I'm not saying it is hard; I'm saying that gear alone does not make the photographer, nor the image.

A good photographer will capture a good image with any equipment; a bad photographer will capture a bad image with any equipment.

Of course, gear does help, but if the photographer has little or no capability, the gear won't compensate for that.

[mongo]

I’m not sure the lens makes the better photographer. However, it does far more easily produce the results which one would expect of a better photographer.

The results you have posted are a standout.

So lets talk chickens. Which came first – the better photographer or the lens ??

[JM Tran]

So lets talk chickens. Which came first – the better photographer or the lens ??

Ken Rockwell came first of course, duh!

lol

[Bails55]

Ken Rockwell came first of course, duh!

lol

That's gold!! I will go to my bed laughing!

(BTW, love the images James. Dare I say the lens enhances your obvious portraiture talents? I'm confident that if that lens were in MY hands, it'd be a different story!)

[James Axford]

I’m not sure the lens makes the better photographer. However, it does far more easily produce the results which one would expect of a better photographer.

The results you have posted are a standout.

So lets talk chickens. Which came first – the better photographer or the lens ??

i think mongo said it best here... no use arguing about it

[James Axford]

That's gold!! I will go to my bed laughing!

(BTW, love the images James. Dare I say the lens enhances your obvious portraiture talents? I'm confident that if that lens were in MY hands, it'd be a different story!)

I'm sure you'd get some great stuff from it too bails. Just need some interesting subject matter.

[Clubmanmc]

have to disagree...

the camera gear does nothing for the photo... its all in the photographer... where the light is coming from and other settings, and knowing what you can hand hold and what you need a tripod for... there is too much in a great photo for it to be just a good camera...

an example would be a portrait being shot with the sun in the back ground...
- a guy with a good camera, could get the aim right, but the settings in "auto" would be all wrong...
- a average guy with a camera, would try to over come the light with some fill flash...
- a photographer would manually set the F and Tv to suit the face conditions, or maybe just maybe, turn the subject around... so their face was lit byt he sun.....

there are the differences...

M

[kiwi]

great shots, love love love #1 and #3

[Bear Dale]

I'd rather use good gear than not so good gear.