I keep hearing \u201cphotographers\u201d talking about \u201choly trinity\u201d of lenses \u2013 16-35mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm zooms at f\/2.8 aperture, as if they are something every \u201creal photographer\u201d needs to have in order to be recognised by his \u201cpeers\u201d, as, apparently, having more money than brains. Honestly, people are such fucking sheep it makes me sick, and it seems that having money provides absolutely no immunity, considering how I heard the same \u201choly trinity\u201d phase on watch forums, where Patek Philippe, Vacheron Constantin and Ademars Piguet differentiated between \u201cthose in the know\u201d, and the unwashed plebs. In fact, since those things tend to create their own reality, people who want to be seen as \u201cinsiders\u201d and \u201chaving knowledge and taste\u201d all seem to be buying the same five watches and the same three lenses, thinking they\u2019ll be recognised and approved of by others in some kind of a ritual asshole sniffing process.<\/p>\n
I am pretty sure there\u2019s an equivalent thing in everything, from handbags and shoes for women to cars and suits for men, musical instruments, HiFi sets, and so on. Everybody wants to \u201cwin\u201d by picking the right side, right equipment, right ideology, in order to avoid being mocked, ridiculed, scoffed at and marginalised by people they don\u2019t give two shits about. It\u2019s incredibly stupid, not to mention wasteful.<\/p>\n
So, let me address the photographic aspect of this nonsense.<\/p>\n
Yes, the \u201choly trinity\u201d of lenses is basically what wedding photographers and photojournalists should have in order to cover the requirements of their work without having to change lenses too often. Also, since those lenses are \u201cbread and butter\u201d equipment for lots of professional photographers, the camera brands try to do them really well, because that might be the difference between people deciding to go with your brand, or not. Since marginally informed amateurs try to \u201cbe professionals\u201d, they parrot the equipment choices of professionals, and that\u2019s how this stupid nonsense starts.<\/p>\n
I\u2019m calling it stupid nonsense because there\u2019s no such thing as a \u201choly trinity of lenses\u201d. There\u2019s no formula for being a \u201cprofessional\u201d, or being competent at photography. If anything, as photographers mature in their skills, as they find their niche and particular style, their equipment choices will widely diverge. Sure, some will opt for the f\/2.8 zooms. However, others will go for the f\/4 zooms because they want to go light and save money, but they will get fast primes for portraiture or other specific needs. Some will get very specialised macro equipment. Some will have only a very long telephoto. Some will get only a 50mm f\/1.4 lens and use only that for all of their work. Some will shoot with a view camera with digital back and super fancy lighting equipment. Retired Americans with more money than brains will go online to find a formula for looking competent, and they will find the \u201choly trinity\u201d nonsense to parrot.<\/p>\n
What I\u2019m saying is, stop trying to \u201cwin\u201d by looking up the best equipment to have if you\u2019re a \u201cpro\u201d. Nobody gives a fuck. You\u2019re just going to waste money buying stuff that tries to be universal, so that you don\u2019t have to change lenses, at the cost of constantly having the heaviest possible option on your camera. God, the entire thing is so stupid I feel like screaming at my laptop in frustration. Nine times out of ten, when I see someone carrying one of those things around, they are some idiot tourist who has no idea what he\u2019s doing, but he\u2019s always doing it with an attitude of \u201che he, look at what I have, you all want to be me, I know\u201d.<\/p>\n
And then there\u2019s that other kind of annoying, the hipster who thinks he\u2019s being unique, individual and creative by having weird equipment choices \u2013 toy cameras, weird film stuff, outdated digital stuff \u201cbecause old CCD sensors have better colours\u201d, and so on. No, you\u2019re not being unique, creative or individual with that stuff, you\u2019re just another brand of insecure and probably incompetent. You know how I can tell whether someone is a good photographer? I look at their pictures. They don\u2019t have to hide behind \u201csharpness\u201d, or \u201cresolution\u201d, or intentional lo-fi look of shitty equipment. They will have enough technical knowledge to get what they want, and they will use the equipment that\u2019s good for what they want to do. Also, when you try to talk to them about \u201choly trinity\u201d, they probably won\u2019t know what the hell you\u2019re talking about, because it\u2019s a made up thing from some forums for retired yuppies. Or they will think you\u2019re talking about M6, 50mm f\/2 Summicron and Tri-X. Or about 35mm, 50mm and 85mm at f\/1.4. Or about camera, lens and tripod. Or about Leica, Zeiss and Schneider. If you try to explain the concept of striving to have a trio of f\/2.8 zooms covering \u201cthe entire range\u201d because that will make you a pro, to an actual photographer, they\u2019ll look at you and think you\u2019re an idiot, because that\u2019s what people inventing such concepts are. Insecure idiots looking for both safety of groupthink and admiration for having money, at the same time. And, since nobody really gives a shit, they keep running around trying to find something that will get them respect and admiration, something other than themselves.<\/p>\n
What I\u2019m saying is, learn skill and theory, learn how to technically do photography, and then use that and whatever equipment suits your needs to take the kind of pictures you want to take. The actual \u201choly trinity\u201d of photography are the idea, the technical means and the end result. I just made this up, but it’s still less stupid than those f\/2.8 zooms.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
I keep hearing \u201cphotographers\u201d talking about \u201choly trinity\u201d of lenses \u2013 16-35mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm zooms at f\/2.8 aperture, as if they are something every \u201creal photographer\u201d needs to have in order to be recognised by his \u201cpeers\u201d, as, apparently, … Continue reading