In praise of ‘cheap’ lenses for ‘pro’ works

By Andrea Monti

I have recently discovered Viltrox, a Chinese manufacturer of lenses for the Fujifilm X-system. I am using the AF 85/1,8 II XF and the AF 56/1,4 XF and I am very satisfied by their performance. They are very good for ‘professional’ sessions, however, there are many online reviews that snobbishly rate these lenses as ‘amateur’, ‘non-professional’ or ‘first time portrait photography enthusiasts’ grade. I think that these reviews are unfair and here is why:

What does ‘better’ mean?

It is a known fact that ‘better’ gear does not make a better photographer. It is also a known fact that, unless there are specific challenges such as high-speed moving subjects or inclement weather conditions, a good photographer can shoot good pictures also without ‘state-of-the-art’ pieces of equipment. And speaking of what ‘good pictures’ actually mean: are Tankman or The Legionnaire ‘good’ pictures? By all means, yes, also if their quality is poor. By contrast, many ‘razor-sharp’, ‘vibrant’ and ‘pixel-peeping-proof’ photos often highly praised by online magazines and ‘experts’ are just dull and boring. ‘Better’ is a meaningless word when it comes to professional photography.

What matters is whether the pictures’ quality matches the standard set in the agreement with the client. If the contractual obligation is fulfilled, then it is pointless that the pictures could habe been better shot with a brand new mid-format camera rather than with a less fancy albeit rock-solid modern DSLR and lenses made in the eighties. ‘Better’ matters, by contrasts, to amateurs who do not have the need to meet deadlines, produce consistent results and deliver fast and efficiently. They can afford the luxury to spend their time trading in and out cameras and lenses in search of the ‘better’ exposure rather than enjoying photography. ‘Better’ is the semantic drug that ‘independent’ reviewers push (on which authority, sometimes, it is not clear) to addict people into the ‘Gear Acquisition Syndrome’. They profit from commissions earned through affiliate programmes and from being directly sponsored by manufacturers. Of course, not all reviewers have a questionable deontology. It is important, though, to understand the motive behind an article or a video before taking opinions at their face value.

What does ‘professional grade’ mean?

Suppose you work in war zones, harsh climatic conditions, fashion and luxury or that you are the official photographer of artists, music, movies or theatre productions. In that case, you do not only need reliable pieces of equipment (Pentax is among the best if you need high-quality and tough gear). For all ‘normal’ professional uses, what makes the difference and justifies a premium price is service: onsite pick-up and delivering, fast repair and courtesy gear to continue working while the item comes back. Moreover: professionals often rent expensive pieces of equipment, they do not purchase them. Why, then, should somebody buy ‘professional grade’ gear to shoot in his backyard? Moreover, it is difficult to see the point in going around with cameras and lenses that cost thousands of Euros, being concerned about damages, accidental losses and thieves rather than shooting. I have experienced first-hand this condition when I used to work with a Leica kit. The moment I sold it and switched to Fujifilm I felt liberated.

What does ‘pro’ mean?

‘Pros’ are supposed to be those who work in exotic locations, dangerous places or exclusive events. They have the status all of us dream of achieving. Of course, such people do exist; however, they are but a few. The vast majority of ‘professionals’ earns their living shooting marriages, ceremonies, college games and family portraits, making Youtube videos. Nothing wrong with that. To succeed in this kind of business, one needs to be highly trained and properly equipped as well. However, in this case pictures must please the eye of the client (in other words, his aesthetic taste). Moreover, much too often the outcomes are predetermined and a little room lasts for creativity. The shooting lists available on the Internet are self-explanatory: you take pictures of the bride, the groom, the bride and the groom together, the bride and the groom with the parents, and then the kiss, the dance etcetera. During the job these professional might, of course, still practice the creative side of photography (or, more often, mimick mainstream visual languages). Still, they are actually free when they shoot as ‘amateurs’, i.e. when they are not working and are free to take pictures the way they like, provided that after a day of hard field work they still want to use a camera.

What do you need to take pictures, actually?

Photography gear is a tool, and as such, it should be fit for the job. If you have nothing else available, you may use a screwdriver to hammer a nail in the wood (so, out of the metaphor, if you have nothing else at hand, you may, of course, use a smartphone to take a photo). However, suppose you are not working in extreme conditions or under tight professional constraints. In that case, you do not need to put big money after expensive gear and services that add nothing to the final result.

‘Cheap’ lenses are also suitable for ‘pro’ work.

If the lens quality and performance fit the client’s contractual requirements, ‘cheap’ gear such as those made by Viltrox allows to purchase them in pairs to have a backup ready with no need to wait for the repair or the replacement. Moreover, there is always the possibility of an accident that makes the lens unusable. In theory, a professional should have a redundant ‘pro-grade’ kit; however, this is an unbearable option for many ‘pro’ photographers. By contrast, going for ‘cheap’ alternatives allows having spare lenses immediately available. That could save the day (and the assignment). Definitely, this is a plus.

Wrapping-up:

Viltrox lenses – as many classic and (now) inexpensive Pentax, Nikon and Canon lenses from the past – can deliver very good results in absolute terms also in professional domains. There is no need to put money on the next brand-new glass just because it has that ‘tad’ that most humans will never ever notice or use. It is more convenient save money and being able to build a redundant kit rather than purchasing a single lens and risk to lose an assignment because of the unavailability of a prompt replacement in case of accident.

An honest, brutal and ego-bashing self-assessment helps decide which kind of gear is ‘necessary’ to each individual photographic journey, either for ‘professional’ or recreational purposes. Of course, everyone is free to spend their money as they wish and purchase expensive cameras and lenses; but, please, do no say that it is necessary to take ‘better photo’.

Full disclosure: I have no relationship with Viltrox. I purchased the lenses with my own money and did not receive any request to write this post.

Share this post:

Find more similar content on 35mmc

Use the tags below to search for more posts on related topics:

Contribute to 35mmc for an ad-free experience.

There are two ways to contribute to 35mmc and experience it without the adverts:

Paid Subscription – £2.99 per month and you’ll never see an advert again! (Free 3-day trial).

Subscribe here.

Content contributor – become a part of the world’s biggest film and alternative photography community blog. All our Contributors have an ad-free experience for life.

Sign up here.

About The Author

By Andrea Monti
My name is Andrea Monti. I’m an Italian free-lance journalist, photographer and – in my spare time – an hi-tech lawyer. The works I am more proud of are covering live jazz, pop and rock concerts for an Italian online music magazine and Opera and prose for a 200 years-old theatre. I also do sport photography mainly in athletics and fighting disciplines. You may find out more about me on https://andrea.monti.photography
View Profile

Comments

Geoff Chaplin on In praise of ‘cheap’ lenses for ‘pro’ works

Comment posted: 22/06/2024

As Ken Rockwell implies if you're shooting at f8 pretty much any post-1970 lens (and many earlier ones) is just as good as any other.
Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Ken Hindle-May on In praise of ‘cheap’ lenses for ‘pro’ works

Comment posted: 22/06/2024

Photography has long had a problem with gatekeeping and gear is easily the biggest weapon in the gatekeepers' arsenal. We've all seen and heard it in countless blog posts, forums, Facebook comments and below the line like this: "Oh, you're still shooting APS-C? You should get an EOS-5D if you're serious about this" and countless variations thereof. It allows the gatekeepers to place themselves above those who haven't spent as much on the hobby (and here's the key) *without having to demonstrate their actual ability as photographers*. It's always the same formula: I have bought this expensive body/lens/emulsion because it's pro-level, therefore I am a Serious Photographer and that means my opinions and beliefs carry more weight than those who cannot afford Serious Photographer gear. Nevermind that their actual photography may not be anything special - I find that people who display that attitude tend to be technically capable, but unimaginative photographers. They can't conceive that the end product is not intrinsically linked to the quality of the equipment used to create it. And so they are openly dismissive of those who might have a better eye for a scene, a more creative approach to a subject, more effective composition. Because those are things you can't buy.

The industry loves gatekeepers though, because they spend a lot of money on new cameras and lenses that they probably don't truly need. Not only that, but they spend a lot of time online, doing free marketing for their chosen brands and driving even more sales. It's no coincidence that the gatekeepers hate people like Ken Rockwell, who are entirely honest about when 'good enough is good enough'.

But through all of this I'm reminded of something I read in a Kevin Meredith (fka lomokev) book a long time ago: If you're ever worried about the quality of your gear, remember that every iconic photograph from the 20th century was taken on cameras and lenses inferior to it.
Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Thomas Wolstenholme on In praise of ‘cheap’ lenses for ‘pro’ works

Comment posted: 22/06/2024

In 2008 I did a series of about 20 photographs in San Francisco and along California Route 1 along the coast which was well received. Nothing was presented at a size past about 450 x 300 mm. All were made using a Motorola Droid mobile phone with a 5.0 MP sensor, but all of them were made with great care regarding lighting and composition. Why the Droid? Because when I was packing to fly there for my work for several weeks, I intended to pack my Nikon FE and 3 lenses and managed somehow not to do so. The experience tends to prove the adage that equipment does not make good photographs, people do. Good equipment makes it easier, faster, often more successful or even possible, or even able to be presented at a larger scale, but the essence of what makes a good photograph starts with the eye behind the viewfinder.
Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Tim Bradshaw on In praise of ‘cheap’ lenses for ‘pro’ works

Comment posted: 22/06/2024

This is an interesting article. There probably are cases where you need the very latest super-sharp lens (say) to do good work. But they're probably rather rare, in particular you're using film it's hard to think of them.

I think the 'pro-grade equipment' thing is more dangerous. We all secretly want to be Don McCullin or Cailee Spaeny's character in 'Civil War'. But I am pretty sure the reason Vietnam-era war photographers used the kit they did had more to do with service networks and being able to buy them anywhere than anything else.

And even then, the right answer is the same answer a different group of people worked out a long time ago: RAID. I'm not a pro photographer or anywhere near one but I do work on projects where I really could not wait for a repair. So I take two identical cameras & lenses (and I only ever plan to work with one lens). I'd do the same if I was a wedding photographer, who probably have some of the toughest requirements in terms of 'it must work, now' of anyone.

All of this is just repeating what you've said really: but you're right, and perhaps it bears repeating.
Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Leonel LeyCar on In praise of ‘cheap’ lenses for ‘pro’ works

Comment posted: 22/06/2024

Hola!
Lo que yo hago es comprar equipo de segunda mano y así no pago los altos precios del equipo nuevo...
Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Tony Warren on In praise of ‘cheap’ lenses for ‘pro’ works

Comment posted: 22/06/2024

It has all been said regarding lens quality and age of same. I have used two close up lenses back to back on a home made 8x10 and the results are pin sharp. Equally, a Tessar from 1930 or so on 9x12 was excellent. But not because of the lens but because of the format. If you are getting good results on APS-C your lenses aren't at all bad. After all, the lens is an intermediary between the subject and the resultant image. If the second renders the first as you visualised it then what he heck. Those seagulls look very sharp to me.
Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Gary Smith on In praise of ‘cheap’ lenses for ‘pro’ works

Comment posted: 23/06/2024

Over the last couple of months I've added a Leica iiic and an M3 to my collection of bodies. With the iiic, I purchased a 50/2 Summicron - afterall why bother having a Leica box without the Leitz glass? When I picked up the M3, I didn't get Leitz m-mount glass, instead I opted for the TTArtisan 50/1.4 in m-mount. I also (subsequently) added an m-to-e adapter so I could use the new lens on my Sony a7R3. I have a review of my experience with the M3 and the TTArtisan scheduled to run on 4 July.

At my age, I've not shot enough diversity of glass on different bodies to be able to speak intelligently about subtle differences. I do know that I preferred the use of the new TTArtisan on the M3 with Tri-X over the Summicron on the iiic with Tri-X. I suspect it has to do with the differences between a new, coated lens and an old, un-coated one.

IMHO, although the TTArisan is certainly "less expensive" than an equivalent new 50 from Leitz, I wouldn't call it a "cheap" lens. It feels well made. Of course, I won't be around 70 years from now to be able to tell anyone how it performs in 2094.
Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Dave on In praise of ‘cheap’ lenses for ‘pro’ works

Comment posted: 23/06/2024

Thank you for the article; I've been the blunt target for gatekeepers and their missives... I still do all the things that I shouldn't do: I shoot jpg only, I shoot APS-C cameras almost exclusively, I use old lenses that have no right in taking beautiful images like they do....

I've done these things from the beginning, mainly because the images are taken to please me, but also because I can afford the gear I have but not the latest/greatest...

Gatekeeping is an evil thing and it is alive and well in photography...
Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Gary Smith replied:

Comment posted: 23/06/2024

At age 70, I guess I don't understand the term "gatekeeper" in the context of social media.

Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Dave replied:

Comment posted: 23/06/2024

not just in social media, but gatekeepers appeal in real life, too... I've had photographers see my gear and speak to me, belittling my choice in gear compared to what was in their hands at the time... needless to say, I do not seek out other photographers at events...

Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Julian Tanase on In praise of ‘cheap’ lenses for ‘pro’ works

Comment posted: 23/06/2024

What can I say, Andrea? Your arguments are valid, and of course, it all boils down to personal choices and expectations, I guess. Most of what you say resonates with my own thoughts on the zillions of YT and other social media vectors.

Being an amateur photographer, I do not have the background nor the education to professionally judge differences between various lenses or/and cameras. I do accept that these exist, but no more than that.

What I appreciate in your article is the honest, unvarnished bluntness and deep conviction of your beliefs. I like people who say it as they see it.
Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Andrea Monti replied:

Comment posted: 23/06/2024

Thanks Julian. I would like to add a note about how I express my beliefs: when I speak - or write, which is the same thing for me - I try to stick to very few and simple rules: talk only about the things you know, don't pretend to be right by default, make your point factually and rationally, don't make it personal. I have found that this approach encourages a positive exchange with people, and does not ignite flames on the net.

Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Bob Janes on In praise of ‘cheap’ lenses for ‘pro’ works

Comment posted: 23/06/2024

I'm a firm believer that there are no 'bad' lenses, just ones that are 'interesting'.

A story from my youth related here: https://www.35mmc.com/14/09/2020/pentax-spotmatic-f-review/ seems relevant.

I might be pushed to admit that some lenses are 'challenging' - and I'll admit that I found the old Industar 50/3.5 that went with the Zenith 3M to be quite 'unlovely'...
Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sean on In praise of ‘cheap’ lenses for ‘pro’ works

Comment posted: 23/06/2024

You need to lay of putting everything in quotes. It makes it very hard to read and when they're overused, they add no context.
Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

blanko_photo on In praise of ‘cheap’ lenses for ‘pro’ works

Comment posted: 29/06/2024

People often seem to forget that lenses capable of good resolution (certainly good enough to fill any regular computer screen which is the majority of use nowadays) have been made for over 100 years. A Tessar really is all you need even on the "small" formats like full frame and smaller, unless you want a stronger background separation, where the Sonnar and double Gauss types can play their strengths. Then again I feel like bokeh is often used for its own sake, to obsess over how much of the image is not in focus, and less to actually improve it or support its message.

For the regular consumer, I only see the benefit of the continuous chase for resolution in one aspect: You can crop more until the image quality becomes too bad. Sometimes there's no way around this (wildlife, sports) but otherwise simply getting closer, using a longer focal length, or planning the composition better beforehand would remedy that.
Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *