does glass really make that much difference

phildaintith

phildaintith

Suspended / Banned
Messages
325
Name
phil
Edit My Images
No
ok im a canon 40d user and stuck between switching to a 5d body or investing in some glass. in your opinion does for example the 17-85mm is usm kit lens (on the 40d) differ to the quality of say a 17-40 f/4 L lens

my camera is mainly used for night photography, sports and soon to be used for portrait shots...

any advice is much appreciated

cheers, phil
 
go for glass it makes a HUGE difference.
 
Put it this way Phil, if the lens is not resolving it- it does not matter which sensor/camera is on the back of it, it's not going to be well focussed/sharp.
 
A huge difference.

I also wouldn't of said you would see much gain from switching to a 5d. Better of spending the cash on a decent L lens. Bare in mind crop factors when choosing lenses if you do intend to switch to FF at some point.
 
I totally agree with the other guys.

I can an instant difference in IQ when I switch to my 24-105 from another non L lens!
 
Well if it doesn't then you better look out for my lenses on the For Sale section. I want my money back. :D
Get the glass first, body later. ;)


Kev.
 
:plusone::agree:
 
Depends on what your body is though - if you're after night shots and sports, then a pro body with high fps and high iso capabilities and an average ish zoom *may* do more than heavy glass could do on a budget body...
 
you can only get out what you put in, upgrade glass before Body every time:)
 
I recommend seeing for yourself by going into a shop and sticking something like the 24-70mm f/2.8L on your 40d, you'll probably even see a difference on the rear screen if you zoom in enough, and of course you can look at the 17-40L while you are there.
 
Kanine said:
Depends on what your body is though - if you're after night shots and sports, then a pro body with high fps and high iso capabilities and an average ish zoom *may* do more than heavy glass could do on a budget body...
Click to expand...

I doubt it! Even budget bodies cope better with fast glass L glass.
 
Although I hate the term "glass" (yeah I know... grumpy old man syndrome), the basic answer is yes. It makes an enormous difference having good quality lenses. Always give priority to better lenses until you're starting to become limited by what the camera body can give you.
 
EOS_JD said:
I doubt it! Even budget bodies cope better with fast glass L glass.
Click to expand...

Majority of time glass being better than bodies holds true, but you will have to reach a certain body level first! Let's just say D40 (2.5 or 3fps?) with 5 point AF vs a D300's stonking 8fps with ultra fast 51 point AF. Some camera's aren't just made for sport.

But if you've got a prosumer/semi pro body, then you're better off sticking to glass than going for fully pro bodies.
 
take you body and your lens to a shop, take photographs at the shop doorway with your lens and the lens you wish you had, take said shots home and evaluate, if the quality is worth the extra cash buy the new lens if not don't.
now you will have the best lens for you.
 
With a 40D it's a great body,so glass every time.

I had a similar discussion with someone on holiday, so I lent him my 24-105 L for 10 mins and he was blown away with the sharpness, colours.
 
The 17-40mm is a brilliant lens, but the 17-85 isn't shoddy either. Personally I'd be tempted by the glass but it depends if there's something in terms of camera technology that you want. Upgrading either way will not make your images better, only the quality of them.
 
Being a Nikon user I don't know those cameras and lenses in particular (though I do know the 5D), but as a general principle I would go for the better body rather than the better lens, assuming the better body is actually better in terms of sensor design/image quality in general, and that the cheaper lens isn't a complete dog.

But if you really want fantastic quality without blowing the bank, then something like the 5D combined with a 50mm lens would be a fantastic combination.
 
Having just uploaded the first pics I have taken with my new 70-200f4 L, I would have to agree with the above who suggest glass first. I am using it on a 40D too and the image quality blew me away. Just showing the wife the jpeg files unprocessed (shooting RAW + large jpeg) she describe it as looking at normal pictures but in HD!

I am more than pleased to say the least. Maybe she will see it as justification for when I get my 24-70L!?!
 
Phil, are you sure that it's the lens' fault that you're not happy and not, dare I say it, your technique?

Would be a shame to invest in L glass and still not be happy, improving technique costs nowt ;)
 
Kanine said:
Majority of time glass being better than bodies holds true, but you will have to reach a certain body level first! Let's just say D40 (2.5 or 3fps?) with 5 point AF vs a D300's stonking 8fps with ultra fast 51 point AF. Some camera's aren't just made for sport.

But if you've got a prosumer/semi pro body, then you're better off sticking to glass than going for fully pro bodies.
Click to expand...

I was talking purely about the quality of images rather than the speed of the camera and yes it can make a difference. The OP though has a 40D. Plenty fast enough for sports use althouigh I'd still prefer a 7D over it.
 
cheers guys, ill be going for the new lens' iv been after for a while, had the money for my fisheye saved up for a while but been 'umm' and 'arring' wether to switch to full frame or not ( to go for the 15 or 10mm one) and ill also be purchasing a wide angle lens as this is what i mainly use for my night shots...

garynlee, i also hope its not my technique ... i always use a tripod and cable shutter and use a lazer/ trusty mag lights to focus in the night, its just that when i zoom in on the raw file its not quite as sharp as i want. its probably just me being picky but there you go..

http://www.flickr.com/photos/phildaintithphotography/
 
Not knowing your lens, but I'd be surprised if it couldn't produce sharp pics in those circs. Possible things to look out for are stopping down too far which produces diffraction and a less sharp image, not stopping down far enough, vibration caused by mirror (use mirror lock), a tripod that is not sturdy enough, any wind that may shake the camera, vibration from walking around the tripod, weight of the lens causing the position of the tripod head to slip.

Inferior lenses tend to show their weaknesses above all when used at full aperture. Most modern lenses by the likes of Canon or Nikon should have pretty excellent performance anyway.
 
on a different tangent.You can have the best camera and the best glass, or the worse of either. If the person behind the camera is pants,then the result will be the same.

Sometimes too much emphasis is placed on kit ,rather than the person looking through the kit.
 
phildaintith said:
cheers guys, ill be going for the new lens' iv been after for a while, had the money for my fisheye saved up for a while but been 'umm' and 'arring' wether to switch to full frame or not ( to go for the 15 or 10mm one) and ill also be purchasing a wide angle lens as this is what i mainly use for my night shots...

garynlee, i also hope its not my technique ... i always use a tripod and cable shutter and use a lazer/ trusty mag lights to focus in the night, its just that when i zoom in on the raw file its not quite as sharp as i want. its probably just me being picky but there you go..

http://www.flickr.com/photos/phildaintithphotography/
Click to expand...

how stable is the tripod?
 
fracster said:
on a different tangent.You can have the best camera and the best glass, or the worse of either. If the person behind the camera is pants,then the result will be the same.

Sometimes too much emphasis is placed on kit ,rather than the person looking through the kit.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with that but having the right gear does help get the shot (if you can use it) :)
 
Glass first - always buy the very best lenses you can afford.
Then worry about the camera body.
 
phildaintith said:
garynlee, i also hope its not my technique ... i always use a tripod and cable shutter and use a lazer/ trusty mag lights to focus in the night, its just that when i zoom in on the raw file its not quite as sharp as i want. its probably just me being picky but there you go..
Click to expand...

Are you using DPP - if so check the sharpness level.

I always shoot RAW with sharpness set to 0 and sharpen up after in my editor.

But if I check the RAW files they look quite soft because DPP echoes the camera settings (I think).
 
Hi Phil.

This was a question I was asking myself not too long ago.

I opted for an upgrade to a Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 on a 40D and the difference is unbelievable - added sharpness, nicer colours - quality.

I'd suggest trying lenses before you buy. I also note you're in Cheshire (I'm in Alty), in which case you should do what I did and contact Marcel on these forums and 'borrow' his 24-70 L lens! I'm sure he won't mind ;)

Cheers

Anth
 
petersmart said:
Peter, the RAW file is just that, RAW. That means that there has been no sharpening applied yet. Shooting in RAW leaves you to process the image and part of that processing should always be sharpening. Different cameras require differing amounts of sharpening too. I set up a couple of actions in CS3 for mine when I was shooting with 2 different cameras because one method suited one camera better (simple unsharp mask) while the other worked better with a more complex treatment.

This is a simple method of sharpening

http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/techniques/darkroom/photoshop/341097/how-to-sharpen-in-raw.html

Your Canon software that came with your camera also has some very good sharpening tools.

:)
Click to expand...
 
BouncyMelons said:
Peter, the RAW file is just that, RAW. That means that there has been no sharpening applied yet. Shooting in RAW leaves you to process the image and part of that processing should always be sharpening. Different cameras require differing amounts of sharpening too. I set up a couple of actions in CS3 for mine when I was shooting with 2 different cameras because one method suited one camera better (simple unsharp mask) while the other worked better with a more complex treatment.

This is a simple method of sharpening

http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/techniques/darkroom/photoshop/341097/how-to-sharpen-in-raw.html

Your Canon software that came with your camera also has some very good sharpening tools.

:)
Click to expand...

Yes I know that Melons - I was replying to a question.

I always leave my camera settings on minimum because I don't use Jpegs (where the settings DO apply).

And I always use DPP rather than anything else for RAW conversion because I think it's the best - after all who knows better than the camera manufacturers about their own RAW files?

I then convert the RAW files into TIFFs then I usually batch apply NR.

The I make small jpegs for quick checking of the pics then load the ones I want into my editor.

Then I apply whatever PP is needed including sharpening.
 
The glass is defo advisable before upgrading the body..

At the end of the day, if you capture the same scene at the same ISO then the better glass will have it; the colour rendition will be better, contrast, sharpness, bokeh etc etc.

However, if shooting with a higher ISO, better glass will help but if the camera's sensor is not too good then good glass or not, digital noise will creep into the image..

But yes, my 2p worth, I'd definately upgrade glass first and only consider upgrading bodies if the ISO performance of a body is not what I want it to be in certain shooting conditions..
 
Take care when upgrading lenses though - You want better lens, not more expensive lens.

Sometimes with lenses you can end up paying for aperture rather than IQ, just do your research first.
 
goslayer said:
you can only get out what you put in, upgrade glass before Body every time:)
Click to expand...

Buuuuut....eventually you will have to stop upgrading lenses and get that sweet body with the higher ISO capabilities, faster FPS, better ergonomics, high 'cool factor', nicer handling,...:D

(someone had to argue for the body side of the "glass or lens argument" :lol:)
 
phildaintith said:
ok im a canon 40d user and stuck between switching to a 5d body or investing in some glass.
Click to expand...

Phil,

Most people find that they keep your glass for longer than you keep the body.

So it makes sense, in my book to invest in good glass since this will still be good glass when the Canon 0D comes out.... :naughty:

John.
 
Well it seems to go in phases for me. I started with a D40x and used it for motorsports. At that time the limiting factor was very definitely the standard lens, so I got a Nikon 70-300 VR and a Sigma 150-500 OS, and I had some very good results.

The D40x then became the limiting factor for sports, slow frame rate, low number of focus points, practical ISO limit at ~800.

The D700 changed that and it worked well with the zoom telephoto lenses. However, later on I rented the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 and the 300mm f2.8, and my existing lenses were now seen as the limiting factor by comparsion. The 70-300 was sold and a 70-200 VRII acquired.

And so it goes.

Whilst there are camera/lens phases, on balance the better 'glass' is the longer term investment.

Ed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top