>>4214894exactly. a good lens wont help you make better images but it will make your images look nicer regardless of how good/bad you are at photography. pic related is a very good example of this. all 4 images are terrible snapshits from two just as terrible photographers. notice how the top two are much nicer to look at, even though they are just as shitty images as the bottom ones and are as shit as a snapshit can be, and yet they look nicer. the shadows look nicer. the highlights look smoother. the colors blend in to each other less aggressively and fall off way nicer, the tonality is smoother and so on, which gives off that so called '''''leica look''''' or ''''zeiss look'''' in short, its just way nicer to look at those nikon images than it is to look at those samyang images, even though all 4 are absolutely terrible images in every way, shape and form.
as for lenses, its samyangs best 50mm ($1,000) versus nikons best 50mm ($250), which by the way, i put prices there to point out that a lens can be both expensive and cheap or cheap and expensive at the same time. its just a matter of good lens design vs bad lens design, nothing to do with price and nothing to do with manufacturer. it just so happens that some manufacturers like samyang or 7artisans or sigma, etc...) rarely, if at all, make good lenses because they prioritize profit over quality. again, nothing to do with manufacturer or price of the lens, especially not the price. look at what mitakon has been doing with their recent $200-300 lenses for full frame systems or their recent $600 65mm lens for hasselblad X and fuji GFX medium frame systems. that 65mm makes very, very close in quality, almost identical images to hasselblads own 65mm 2.8 which costs $3,000 and easily beats out anything that samyang, sigma, tamron, 7artisans, canon, fuji and many others have ever manufactured for full frame systems... and its a $600 chinese lens made by passionate, non-greedy chinese company.
