Invest In Quality Glass? Really?

specialman said:
There seems to be a lot of posturing lately about the quality of lenses from some of the more 'vocal' forum members but very little from those same 'posturers' to back it up – example shots to prove that quality glass helps you take a better shot wouldn't go amiss methinks...
Click to expand...

I think that's mainly cos if a shot's cr@p for whatever reason, why would you keep it.....??????

I delete mine straight away in camera if they're not up to my expectations. I don't have time to play around in PS 'after the event' to try and make good crummy shots.

The shots I sell and the ones on my site or in my TP gallery are the one's I'm happy with. I know in my own mind I've obtained those shots through a combination of my experience and then the quality of the equipment I've invested in.

I'm a bit of a perfectionist and as such it took me 1 race meeting to decide the lens wasn't up to the job and then another single race meeting to decide my decision was right and the investment had paid off.

Gc
 
specialman said:
There seems to be a lot of posturing lately about the quality of lenses from some of the more 'vocal' forum members but very little from those same 'posturers' to back it up – example shots to prove that quality glass helps you take a better shot wouldn't go amiss methinks...
Click to expand...

here we go then, im not claiming to be a guru or god in toggin' but these are the best examples of why i love my new equipment, there was about 6 weeks between the 2 pics so my standard of photography would have been roughly the same

1st shot D40X & 18-200mm VR in daylight Handheld/leaning against fence
200mm
1/200
f/5.6
ISO 200
Acoustic_Festival_2196.jpg


2nd shot D300 & 70-200mm VR in dark Handheld standing free
175mm
1/60
f/2.8
ISO 200
Download_Festival_4040.jpg


i may get slated but i think there is a visible difference between the two, and it can up your standard, all be it ultimately you can not beat experience and learning.
 
specialman said:
There seems to be a lot of posturing lately about the quality of lenses from some of the more 'vocal' forum members but very little from those same 'posturers' to back it up – example shots to prove that quality glass helps you take a better shot wouldn't go amiss methinks...
Click to expand...

This was shot with a Sigma 120-300mm F/2.8 I doubt you'd get a shot as clear as this from a cheap 70-300mm zoom, also the ability to shoot at F/2.8 completely throws the background out of focus, a zoom that is at F/5.6 at 300mm would be full of all sorts of distracting things in the background.

Other than a crop this is straight out of the camera, it hasn't been sharpened

DSC_8040-1.jpg
 
Nikon D50 and Sigma 70-300 apo ( £90) 1/50 f8.

520367566_5f69d530f2_b.jpg


Allan
 
allanm said:
Nikon D50 and Sigma 70-300 apo ( £90) 1/50 f8.



Allan
Click to expand...

That's very good, the difference must be a crap photographer can get good results from expensive glass where a good photographer can get as good results from cheap glass.

end of thread :D
 
Great shots Dave & Allan.

We seem to have gone off to the large zooms rather than short, although it goes to show that good glass helps, but it doesnt make the shot.
 
I feel that the confidence in good glass helps alot.

If I was still shooting with the canon 75-300 mk III with my shaky hands, then I would have given up. The results were terrible. I tried to improve by using a tripod but it took that long to set the shot up, the subject had got bored waiting. Now I've got the 70-200 f/4L IS, I still take carp shots but at least now I feel its down to me and with practise I can improve.

Gary
 
Allanm, bloody good shot with a 'budget' (no offence) lens.

I think the conclusion is that for most 'specialist' (read: long lens or low light) work, fast, quality optics really do allow you to get the image you want. However, i still stand by the fact that there is a lot of talk on here of, say, 50mm f/1.8 lenses – pretty fast compared to standard 'kit' zooms – yet many of the shots aren't actually taking advantage of what the lens is actually offering.

AliB, good call. Now that is good use of a wide aperture - awesome!! :)

Cannockwolf, good comparison. I bet that lens has 'paid' for itself in your eyes now? The difference is very noticeable
 
Just to add to my 2p worth, to make 4p worth :lol:, some L lenses are weatherproof, build quality is a lot better, AF is blisteringly fast and as CT (I think) pointed out, the flourite multi coating on the elements really does make for lovely bokeh and beautiful rich colours. These are facts.

I'm the first to admit I own lenses beyond my current ability, but nowt wrong with that; after all, do people have to have the skills of David Beckham before buying a top of the range football?

I very much know the genre of 'tography I want to do, so have invested in top quality glass. It make take 6 months or more to learn how to get the absolute best out of the lens, so I don't see the point of buying twice or more if you know the kind of photography you'll be doing long term..

PS. they are cracking shots above...
 
At web sizes there's just about ZERO difference between a $4,000 lens and the lens on a $400 point & shoot. I always think it's so funny when people post images at under 1000 pixels as some sort of indication of the quality of the lens that was used.

Unless it's a lens test chart, and the image is RAW, and it's a 100% crop (no scaling!), and the EXIF tags are in place, and the environment to described in detail, and if it's a crop then telling from what area it was cropped - then IMHO posting images to show lens quality is is almost completely meaningless.

I have a (now) $200 bridge camera and several (now) $50 P&S cameras than can match both of the images posted above at those image dimensions with just a little processing.

I keep proving and reproving this to myself all the time. :D

So it's back to the OP's original question... is it justifiable?

I think the answer lays in the intent:

Do you intend to shoot ≥200 shots in a session for pay where PP time eats profits?
Do you intend to mostly just scale and post to friends and family?
Do you intend to mostly shoot wide and crop small?
Do you intend to shoot in conditions that require a zoom or can you carry and use primes?
etc.​

Lens performance is yet another issue with a different set of questions like how good is the IS and do you even need it, how's the focus speed, noise levels, and etc.

Answer those questions for yourself and you'll know if it's worth it to you to buy expensive lenses or not.
 
The original poster asked about the relative value of spending on a camera body as compared to a lens (can't do the red L thing!)

However, what he missed is that when you press the button, all you have is a black box with a hole in the middle and a piece of glass stuck on the outside of it. On the other end of the hole, is a piece of film or digital film capture chippy thingymajig. The camera is nothing more than a light tight box with a hole right through the middle - and what makes the picture is the lens (or Lens with a red L)...not the camera.

The camera workings onlyhelp you right up to the moment the mirror flips up and the shutter opens to capture the image - at that point all the functions cease and you have a black hole - through which all your money disappears!
 
Interesting thread.

My take on it all, I think it depends where you see your photography going, if you don't want to go beyond taking reasonable quality shots, a modest lens will more than suffice.

If however, you want to develop in a particular direction, then I think it makes sense to get the most appropriate lens(es) for the job , which inevitably means more expensive glass, but don't be blinkered in your choice, I went down the L route at one time, before pulling back and realising other lenses were just as good , and often cheaper, so now have a bit of a mix of brands.

Do your homework, read reviews and make an informed choice.
 
My take on it is that if you think it's worth it, it's worth it and if you don't, it's not.
Simple as that really. All depends on what your personal standards are for your photos.
If you find yourself laying awake at night thinking of lenses then you're probably the type of person that would think it's worth it :lol:


68lbs said:
Everyone tells us to "invest in quality glass". But as a newbie, it's hard to justify spending say £1k on a Lens when your camera only cost a fraction of this and seems to do the job ok.

Let's say I am looking to buy a new lens. It's price is 3x and it's a very nice lens. Does the job well, but does get some criticism regarding softness towards the edges, etc etc. Then there's another Lens. This one costs 6x, but is the dog's wotsits with extra spunk! It's 2/3 stop faster and reviewer's are peeing themselves with excitement at the quality etc.

So... If the newbie has the money, should they buy the lens at a cost of 3x, or the Lens at a cost of 6x?

Suppose they don't use the lens much and want to sell it on after 6 months. From what I can see, the lens will now be worth 2x. Would the Lens be worth 5x, or would it have depreciated at the same rate and now be worth 4x? Do you see what I am getting at? If the Lens is worth 5x, then it's cost no extra and you know that you've at least been 'testing' the best and that if you don't get on with it, then it's not a fault of the Lens. Whereas, if you buy the lens and don't get on with it, you might always be thinking "well, maybe it's the lens. I should have got the Lens".

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
 
Very interesting read, with some very good points.

I'm wanting to invest in my first L lens at some point early next year, and was looking at the 24-105mm f/4 L. It's around £500 ish, as most will know.

However, until that point came, i was going to buy the Sigma 17-70 to 'upgrade-for-the-time-being'. But after having a think, and reading this thread, i've decided it'd be better to just upgrade to the 24-105 , rather than buying the sigma, selling it - loosing money on it - and then spending £500 anyway.
 
Tessy said:
At web sizes there's just about ZERO difference between a $4,000 lens and the lens on a $400 point & shoot. I always think it's so funny when people post images at under 1000 pixels as some sort of indication of the quality of the lens that was used.
Click to expand...

If by quality you mean lens resolution or sharpness, then maybe yes, but lenses have many other attributes which vary with price - colour, contrast, CA, ability to handle flare, bokeh, distortion, etc.

These vary greatly from the lens on a $400 point and shoot ...
 
When I bought my 70-200 vr, I was trying to justify it over my 18-200vr. Its very difficult to tell the difference between many shots i took with both on my D300, except at 200mm where the more expensive lens wins hands down.....until i took a picture of a leaf on a branch in the sun.
With the 18-200, it was a really nice shot. The leaf was nice and sharp with a lovely bokeh around it.
I did the same thing with the new lens and it was astounding how different they were. The leaf popped out, almost in 3D and was super sharp and contrasty.
Just that one shot told me I had made the right choice and it would have been obvious in either A2 or as a thumbnail.
But, I have to say, since buying my D300, all my old lenses have improved. Using the 70-200VR on my D70 just means i have one good lens, which ( and bearing in mind the 6mp drop) doesnt produce images as good as the D300 does with that lens.

By all means, get good glass first if you need to, but you wont really see the full potential of that glass until you match it up with a better body.
 
allanm said:
By all means, get good glass first if you need to, but you wont really see the full potential of that glass until you match it up with a better body.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I can't agree with you on that one.

When I bought my 40D I was still using the old 18-55 off of my 350D and the results were awful. Back on the 350 and it didn't notice as much. I then had use of a 24-105L and tried it on both bodies.

The difference between the two with the L lens was hardly noticeable, but the 40D was a bit richer in colour. With the kit lens there was no difference.

Now, put the 24-105 on the 350D and I realised that I could have kept the body and invested in glass - FACT !

Obviously the 40D has a number of attributes over the 350D, but decent glass on my 350 made a real improvement, the 40D just makes taking some of the shots easier. You don't need a high class body to match high class glass, the results factor goes up a great deal more than by just upgrading the body.

Steve
 
Jelster said:
Sorry, I can't agree with you on that one.

When I bought my 40D I was still using the old 18-55 off of my 350D and the results were awful. Back on the 350 and it didn't notice as much. I then had use of a 24-105L and tried it on both bodies.

The difference between the two with the L lens was hardly noticeable, but the 40D was a bit richer in colour. With the kit lens there was no difference.

Now, put the 24-105 on the 350D and I realised that I could have kept the body and invested in glass - FACT !

Obviously the 40D has a number of attributes over the 350D, but decent glass on my 350 made a real improvement, the 40D just makes taking some of the shots easier. You don't need a high class body to match high class glass, the results factor goes up a great deal more than by just upgrading the body.

Steve
Click to expand...

The opposite happened with me, I put my glass on the D3 for the first time after 6 months with the D200. Its like I hit a switch, all my shots were instantly better - blown skies no longer a worry, those nasty bright reds, gone. It just felt right. I hate using my D200 now as a result, the difference, in raw mode at least, is astonishing.

Gary.
 
Jelster said:
Sorry, I can't agree with you on that one.
Click to expand...

I just speak as I find, it was my opinion based on my experience. Maybe Nikon kit lenses are better than Canons, maybe the D300 processes images better than the 40D, I dont have a 40D so cant compare.
As an example, I used my Nikkor 18-200VR on a D50, D70s D80 D200 and D300.
There was no difference till I put it on the D200 and it was noticeable at how much nicer the images were. ( Raw and Jpeg) With the D300 they were even better. Cleaner, sharper more contrasty images with no CA at all. The D300 processess images better on all lenses that I have used, hence my comment about how its like having new lenses.
Another difference is in ISO performance. My D300 will produce a nice clean image at 500 ISO ( and above), the same image at 500 ISO on the D70 is very noisy and almost unusable even at f2.8. A better lens wont change that

I dont subscribe to the "get glass first" argument, although I can see its merits in some circumstances.
My own results proved to me that a good camera is a better base to start from.

Allan
 
Maybe it's a Nikon thing..... :shrug:

Image quality will always go up as the technology within the body moves forwards, but changing from average glass to decent glass gives you more of an improvement and one which is transferable to that new body that we're all craving for.

Steve
 
Jelster said:
Maybe it's a Nikon thing..... :shrug:

Image quality will always go up as the technology within the body moves forwards, but changing from average glass to decent glass gives you more of an improvement and one which is transferable to that new body that we're all craving for.

Steve
Click to expand...

Probably right with regards to the D200 to D3 leap, as it was also a sensor size jump too. Then I guess the playback screen difference made thngs appear "instantly better"...

Maybe its all in our heads :D

Gary.
 
my few pence:

I have quite a small kit, that covers most of my usage, for this i went for the best i could afford, and i am happy with it. The core of my kit is a fishey, a 50mm, the cheap 18-55 that came with the camera (for playing around) and a 70-300mm, I have a few other bits and pieces, but prefer to hire anything that I can only see my self using a few times. Generally this will go on the expense sheet i pass on to my client, but even if I'm shooting for myself, if i need a lens i don't have, i hire one of high quality, rather then buy a cheaper one.
 
This topic really has opened a huge can of worms - so many subplots it could almost be a Chekov novel!

One of the main issues here is cost vs value. The former is largely objective (forgive the pun) and the latter subjective.

How can one assess the value of something like a lens? If you take photographs for a living it is easier as you make a cold-blooded commercial decision as to if it will earn its keep and buy the kit to do the job.

Many years ago I was asked to photograph a polo match for a calender for a business who make and repair polo gear. I realised that I would have to capture ponies travelling at over 20 MPH a long way away and that I had nothing in my bag that was up to the task. I was faced with the choice of a very long fast prime or a cat lens. As it was a one-off and the cost of the long prime was higher that the payment for the job I went with the mirror lens and prayed for a sunny day. My prayers were answered and the client was happy with the result and as a bonus I got more work out of it which meant that I had to buy the fast long prime anyway.

As you probably know polo is a sport of the obscenely wealthy and at that match I chatted to a chap who was weighed down with more expensive glass than you could shake a polo stick at. Turns out that he was not another pro but an amateur whose father owned half of Surrey (or somewhere similar). At todays prices his glass would be cost several thousand pounds but he could afford it and had a passion for photography which he was happy to indulge.

Who made the right choice? I would like to think that we both did.

As I said, it comes down to cost vs value - for each of us these will differ depending on the depth of our pockets and the reason we take photographs.

Does expensive glass allow one to take "better" photographs? Sometimes.

Does expensive glass allow one to take photographs in conditions and circumstances where cheaper glass will not give a good result? Often.

Does expensive glass have snob value? Of course.

Is pro-spec OEM glass superior to the third party amateur equivalent? Hell yes! It's more durable, more reliable, holds its value better and has better image quality (not just talking about resolution here).

Is it worth the extra? That's for you to decide having weighed up the cost against the value.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top