There is a lot written about image quality these days. It is almost a hobby in itself. I, like most enthusiastic image makers have “done my time” obsessing about lens “X” vs “Y” and still do to point, but lately, the game has gone from “what is the best” to “what is the limit”.
By limit I mean the limit of what can come out of the creative stream. The realistic end point.
My end point is a print. Something in the A2 to A3 range, with enough quality to have a quality and no obvious signs of falling technically short.
This goes to another point worth mentioning and one that is emerging as a counter point to the “uber” lenses currently being produced. That is the defining of “quality” or “a quality”.
Recently a friend of mine decide to trade in his massive 85mm f1.4 after purchasing a tiny German f2 equivalent. The big bruiser was technically perfect, but at the cost of character. The mistake he made was exploring other options and seeing the difference.
As I have said before, perfection is only one type of good. Flaws, such as they are subjectively measured in photography are often where this character hides. His own tastes have drifted towards little gem lenses with modest maximum apertures, simply based on his responses to images made with them.
Bokeh is one area where more is not necessarily better. Bokeh is very subjective, but should not be limited to quantity only. Indeed the best lenses usually have qualities that really shine a couple of apertures in from fully wide open.
Taken with a kit lens (40-150 f4-5.6), used within it’s reality envelope. There are certainly better lenses, even better kit lenses (apparently there are a couple of Pana kit tele zooms that are brilliant), but how much does it matter to the viewer of a 12x18 inch print of this image?
My own needs have changed over the past few years, with the sudden realisation that super lenses like my 12-100 f4 get too little use, while little “junk” lenses like the 40-150 kit get too much.
Looking at my kit rationally;
I do not need tracking AF or super fast focus lenses. The majority of my work is methodical fine art or low profile street, needing neither super cameras nor lenses. All of my cameras produce images to the limits of my needs and all of my lenses are optically strong and application relevant.
I do not need lenses that perform faultlessly wide open, because I prefer some flaws/character and never shoot perfectly flat objects wide open. The 75mm is nearest to the perfect lens and it stands out, but it is also my least characterful lens.
I usually use the best aperture for the lens and subject, not the most extreme.
Technique has more effect on quality than gear. Or to say it another way, technique usually fails well before lenses do.
My print quality needs (my bar) are based more on processing controls more than purely “front end” lens/pixel quantity.
Too much gear, for me, has never produced more images. A core of primes with a couple of zooms for cover/landscapes, work perfectly. Any more than that and my focus changes for the worse.
With that in mind, I think I will shed my EM1 mk2 and 12-100.
Both of these pieces are arguably my best equipment, but neither fits into the balance-is-better equation I am seeking. The camera makes me want to buy a long, fast sport or birding lens and the 12-100 is relegated to landscapes only (where it has had a grand total of three uses this past year).
They both create pressure to use them in ways that are more distraction than release of pressures I actually have.
I have been here before.
This would leave a smaller and cheaper kit of;
4 primes, all f1.8 covering 17 to 75mm,
3 zooms covering 12-40, 40-150 kit and 75-300. The 12mm end rarely gets used, but having one covers me.
2 EPM-1 bodies and an EM10 mk2 that have seen little or no use, for street and travel,
My Pen F that is my best IQ landscape and art camera,
4 EM5 mk1’s of varying utility for general purpose (the worst performing of which took the images below the other morning).
Any other bargains that pop up through work (like a mint Pen 5 with 2 lenses for $399).
It is good knowing that we are finally at the point where your work is not limited by gear as much as perceptions. Older sensors are evolving through processor upgrades rather than revolutionising the industry with massive jumps, letting us get back to a more film-era speed of change.
This is very settling and I think good for photography, not the manufacturers necessarily, but good for us.
There will always be improvement, but have we finally reached the realisation that enough has been reached for most uses and more is simply a luxury or point of difference?
So to sum up I feel I (maybe you) need;
Fast enough glass for low light and shallow depth images, but anything wider than f1.4 to 1.8 on M43 is not needed. The super shallow, maximum Bokeh look is covered by the 75mm which seems to be in balance for me.
A couple of wide range zooms for landscapes etc, which do not have to be big, heavy of fast in either focus or aperture as long as they are optically predictable and useful.
I do not need a true macro, but several lenses offer good close focus.
My cameras do not have to be pro calibre, because that will in no way effect the quality of my images (me that is YMMV). I need depth and consistency, not super tracking speed or heightened durability.
No high ISO monster camera as my fast glass, stabilisers and good tripod technique are enough.