Does it matter if you have the best lens?

Optical superiority does not always mean top notch photography.

Does it matter if you have the best lens?

Photographic magazines have always been keen to push the idea that you should buy the latest lens or camera, In fact that seems to be pretty much all they do now.

Do you fall for it? We all like a new bit of kit, but if good photographs were only possible with the best equipment, then the history of photography would clearly show a progression from terrible work to excellent work. That is clearly not the case, there have been countless examples of amazing imagery for 200 years.

Photographers of the past managed to make stunning work with a simple wooden box with a magnifying glass on the front and social media is full of terrible images made with the amazing technology of the modern age, so what is the relevance of good equipment?

A brand new lens will give you excellent sharpness, good contrast (very importand when shooting towards the light) and reliable exposures, but is this always necessary? Is every amazing shot bitingly sharp? well some are and some are not, so maybe sharpness is not the only criteria.

Pinhole cameras and cheap plastic cameras such as Holgas and Dianas can create wonderful images. Vintage brass lenses fetch high prices these days because they are not clinically sharp, they impart a mood and the optics bring something special to the result.

My point then is not to criticise new optics and new technology (I am amazed and impressed too), but to interrupt your frozen gaze, snap my fingers and say; Look around you, think more about making pictures than about impressing your friends with your latest purchase. If your current camera has a reliable shutter and aperture, then use it. If your current camera limits your picture making options then get a camera with a different film format, because there is no perfect camera for every type of photography. Spend you money on film, chemicals and paper instead.