consumer v pro lens???

realspeed

realspeed

Suspended / Banned
Messages
8,827
Name
Bazza
Edit My Images
No
Being a bit bored I though I would test the difference between the two. Very unscientific but for my own satisfaction really and have to say the difference is remarkable.

Ok

Apart from cropping and altering the colour as the pictures were rather orange nothing else altered, just to make that point.

So what I did was use the Nikon D810 camera with a wired remote Yongnuo MC-36b on a moman tabletop tripod and pano head. THis was to avoid any possible camera shake by me.

The consumer lens was a Nikon afs 24-120mm f3.5-5.6 G lens at 70mm in Aperture mode wide open


The Pro lens was the Nikon afs- 24-70mm f2.8G wide open in Aperture mode again set at 70mm to make sure the lenses were equal

The target was the SpyderLenCal at a distance of 78 inches away on the same level as the camera. Camera set at sxame point on target

Ok that was the setup so how did the lenses differ?

The first was the consumer lens and below the professional lens

consumer lens

DKenAs7.jpg



professional lens

wtvZVeK.jpg




Did I fine tune either first ? no I did this test again on the Nikon D800 without any fine camera tuning done and got the same result.

So to me paying that bit more for a professional quality lens is worth it. However that consumer lens still produces a good picture in the real world. Depends on what one considers acceptable
 
Last edited:
Is it my eyes, or is that 'consumer lens' front focusing? Look at the numbers, the bottom 6 is sharper, plus the chrome rail seems sharper than it is in the 'pro lens' version. If others think the same, then perhaps try focusing on the object to the rear left, then compare the results?

PS You may have done so, but I generally take at least 3 shots with a lens at any given setting, to reduce the risk of a 'one-off' focussing error or extreme variation. Also, I'd want a good, solid tripod as a base on a solid floor, rather than a table top job (could the table have moved at all, or did a train or HGV go past?) to eliminate any camera shake from the results.
 
Last edited:
Gerry yes, shows how bad a consumer lens actually is. that was the whole point of the exercise. As i said I tried to avoid things like camera shake by usinging a remote shutter release.


Mr badger
The focus point was spot on the middle of the large square in both shots. That consumer lens, having read up on it ,does not have a very good writeup from what I have read hence one of fhe reasons for this test. As I said I tried this on my Nikon D800 as well as the D810 with the same results
 
Last edited:
The variable aperture 24-120 was never a great lens, even 10+ years ago when it was available new. Be interesting to see the same test done with the much better constant f/4 version.
 
I wouldn't write of all consumer lenses on the basis of this test. The 24-120mm f3.5-5.6 G is reputed to be crap.

Try the test again with a consumer lens with a better reputation (such as the 24-85 G or the 24-120/f4) and you might the difference to be less marked.
 
Even the old one beats the f/2.8 lens at >70mm... ;)
 
realspeed said:
The focus point was spot on the middle of the large square in both shots.
Click to expand...
Your chosen focus point was the large square, but did the lens actually focus on that... or a point somewhere in front of it?

If after reshooting to ensure it wasn't a 'one off', perhaps try putting an object a little behind and to the right of the lens cal and focus on that, and see if the numbered ruler shows any signs of a front focussing issue?
 
focus can drift on any lens but first of all I would check for front or back focusing on the first lens. It just seems too far out to be true. Very rarely is the difference between pro and consumer very much to do with either being out of focus but faster focus speed, wider aperture, weather proofing, smoother handling, more rugged construction etc.... both will be expected to be in focus. I feel some calibration is in order.
 
Thank you all for responding. Of course it may just have been at that mm range or something else that threw it so far out of focus I don't know.
Just done a retest with the nikon D800 at 12 ft better lighting and came out a lot worse.

yes ok the D800 is not as good as the D810 but wanted to see if the camera change would make a differfence

HNP7lxq.jpg



LhTANqg.jpg



Gerry
The point of the test was to see the difference between the two. Of course could I coiuld recalibrate and fine tune but that was not the point of the exercise
 
Last edited:
The Nikon afs 24-120mm f3.5-5.6 G lens was an acknowledged rubbish lens and not representative of the average consumer lens available today - its successor the f4 is a very good consumer lens indeed.
 
Never seen a lens as soft as your first shot, not even the cheapest 50 quid 18-55 apsc lens.
 
another go at 12 ft with D810 and that lens

V6t1EGR.jpg


focus is still bad (cropped to enlarge only)

Just to say this lens I never use it, bought it way back in Dec 2006 and cost HK $479 (£49 ) from HKSupplies, so didn't expect it to b e fantastic at that price
 
Last edited:
This is the most flawed test ever to pro the point you’re trying to prove. That 24-120 is an awful lens. Try it with any modern consumer lens and there will be barely any difference
 
I don't disagree with any of you It is a crap lens which is why it has been in my peli case all these years and never taken out apart from today as a reminder of what it was like as I was bored
 
Last edited:
TGphoto said:
Try it with any modern consumer lens and there will be barely any difference
Click to expand...
In those ancient days when most photographers developed muscles like Mr Schwarzenegger from carrying their kit around I used several top of the range primes from the likes of Leitz, Nikon and Zeiss. These days I find that relatively cheap lenses from Olympus and Panasonic produce more than adequate images.
 
Of course no tele lens is perfect throughout its range and it may well be better/worse at another mm setting.

However it is still interesting to read your thoughts and ideas about it,

Thank you
 
Last edited:
I think this is very little to do with pro lens vs. consumer. It's just a demonstration of a very poor lens. They have a bad enough reputation anyway but your photos don't look in focus which I suspect is a calibration issue. I cannot believe it should be as bad as that! All companies market things differently but in many cases there is actually very little optical difference between pro lenses and consumer lenses. Sometimes it's just details, like materials, AF motors, weather sealing or lens coatings (flare handling etc). It's quite hard to find a poor lens these days. Expectations seem to have gone so high that everything seems to be basically sharp wide open nowadays with just the edges improving a bit as you stop down. Quite remarkable how quickly that has happened.
 
Graham for what I paid for it at the time the cost of having it recalibrated just is not worth it. I have far better lens now such as the nikon afs 24-70 / 70-200/ 80-400 and the 50mm f1.4 .prime
Also the NIkon DX12-24 f1.4 for my D300 or the other cameras

I hate throwing anything out "Just in case"
Thinking about it even fine tuning won't help as that deals with front/back focus not out of focus overall
 
Last edited:
realspeed said:
Graham for what I paid for it at the time the cost of having it recalibrated just is not worth it. I have far better lens now such as the nikon afs 24-70 / 70-200/ 80-400 and the 50mm f1.4 .prime
Click to expand...

No I can see that. But you must have been curious about it to have done the test so it might just have been interesting to see what it can deliver by either manually focussing or using the contract detect of live view. The trouble with phase detect through the view finder is that it relies on so much to be aligned and most of the time it works but when you're trying to be analytical about it, it's just too vague and unrepeatable. But yeah, maybe best leave that lens in the drawer for now!!
 
As has been said above, often there isn't a massively obvious difference in sharpness between a consumer and a pro lens, particularly when stopped down a couple or three stops. For instance, I have a Canon EF 28-135 IS lens that, at a quick zoom squint, doesn't look much different from my EF 24-104 L IS lens in terms of sharpness. However, when you really look, the L lens gives much nicer contrast and colour and produces a nicer looking all round image.

When it comes to build quality, there's no comparison, the L lens is weatherproof, silky smooth, and feels solid and great to use. In comparison, the old EF 28-135 feels like a plastic toy, it sometimes has a nasty little click when zooming (this old, discontinued, lens seems prone to this fault) and there's some play in the front element housing. The EF lens in question seems to be a particularly sharp copy though (despite me swapping the damaged front element [it was like that when I bought it] over from a donor lens!), as the other one I have (a spare and totally unadulterated!) isn't as sharp.

So there you have it, if you are a connoisseur who can afford and appreciate the finer things in life, or a pro photographer who needs to produce the right results and wants kit to last, then a pro lens is usually the way to go. However, if you only view photos on a screen and/or never print larger than A4, then why spend the extra dosh as you're probably unlikely to notice the difference, especially these days with modern, computer designed and machined consumer lenses? Well, that's my thinking, anyway. :)
 
Last edited:
realspeed said:
May well try manual focus later when the boss has gone beddie byes and i don't get nagged at. Then the kitchen will be mine to use
Click to expand...
Do bear in mind my comments about possible front focussing issues. It's a bit frustrating as can't zoom into your photos (like I could if they were hosted on Flickr) to check. However, to my eyes, in that kitchen photo the Vimto(?) bottle looks more in focus than the lens cal target. I can't zoom in to check though! :banghead:

I've recently had a front focus issue with a used (but mint) Sigma 100 400 zoom lens, which I sorted out by calibrating it with the Sigma dock. So my eyes are somewhat attuned to the issue (possibly overly so?!) I hope it is something that can be calibrated out in camera - but as you say, if it's a lens you don't use then why bother? For the price you paid, it's probably not worth your time and all that squinting! (y)
 
Last edited:
realspeed said:
another go at 12 ft with D810 and that lens

V6t1EGR.jpg


focus is still bad (cropped to enlarge only)

Just to say this lens I never use it, bought it way back in Dec 2006 and cost HK $479 (£49 ) from HKSupplies, so didn't expect it to b e fantastic at that price
Click to expand...
you have the same kitchen tiles as me :)
 
Now try the Pro lens vs one of the cheapest consumer primes, the 50mm 1.8g at 2.8. My experience when I owned both was the nifty was sharper and was over 10 times cheaper

It looks like you have a right dud of a lens in this case, I've never seen even the cheapest of kit lenses perform that badly
 
Last edited:
For those who suggested the lens can't be that bad - yes it can. Nikon also sold a 28-200 that was possibly worse - not really usable at any aperture or focal length.

Several camera makers went through a phase of "it's only a consumer lens so it doesn't matter". Minolta also did this with a range that weren't fit even for that purpose. The irony is that some of Nikon's other consumer zooms were much better than this.
 
realspeed said:
bought it way back in Dec 2006 and cost HK $479 (£49 ) from HKSupplies,
Click to expand...


Can't help wondering if the sticker on the shelf read "Bad/faulty lens for spares or repair only" in the local language...
 
The focus point was spot on the middle of the large square in both shots.
Click to expand...

You say that, but it's clearly not, in the first shot. Cos the metal rail/bar thing in the foreground is quite sharp.

Can't speak for the old one, but as for the new 24-120 being a 'consumer' lens; I've used mine professionally, therefore it is a 'professional lens'. :banana:

'Professional' and 'consumer' are marketing terms; cheaper, less sophisticated lenses are aimed at the 'consumer' end of the market, while the better, more expensive ones are aimed at 'professionals'. It's all just testicles anyway, as any lens can be used professionally or otherwise. Even the manufacturers tend not to differentiate. So ignore the marketing testicles. Get the lens that suits YOU, your needs and budget, enjoy using it, and don't worry about the hype.
 
AZ6 said:
You say that, but it's clearly not, in the first shot. Cos the metal rail/bar thing in the foreground is quite sharp.

Can't speak for the old one, but as for the new 24-120 being a 'consumer' lens; I've used mine professionally, therefore it is a 'professional lens'. :banana:

'Professional' and 'consumer' are marketing terms; cheaper, less sophisticated lenses are aimed at the 'consumer' end of the market, while the better, more expensive ones are aimed at 'professionals'. It's all just testicles anyway, as any lens can be used professionally or otherwise. Even the manufacturers tend not to differentiate. So ignore the marketing testicles. Get the lens that suits YOU, your needs and budget, enjoy using it, and don't worry about the hype.
Click to expand...

It's more referring to how the lenses are graded than what they end up used for. Even a vintage MF prime that costs about £30 can be used professionally in the right hands. 'Consumer' grade lenses are not built as good, mostly plastic [inc the mount in some very cheap cases], they're usually slower variable aperture and they won't have the same coatings on the elements, rarely weather sealed also. But you can of course use them for professional work if you're happy with the output quality. I've shot a few paid gigs with the old Nikon 18-55 'kit lens' only
 
Well, the current 24-120 has a GOLD RING round the lens barrel! That means it's 'Pro'!!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top