pro lenses

[Tekagudun]

how much of a difference does a pro lens make to your images
I understand that there is a lot more to pro looking photos than a lens but
im currently using a nikkor 24-85 3.5-4.5g, and ive been reasonably happy with the outcome
would the difference be significant if I upgraded to say a 24-70 2.8
im thinking more of sharp, clear images
thanks

 

[Nawty]

It will get you a stop and a third at the long end, if that’s useful then knock yourself out.

If you think it will suddenly make your pictures look different or more ‘pro’ then you are mistaken.

 

[jamesev]

how much of a difference does a pro lens make to your images
I understand that there is a lot more to pro looking photos than a lens but
im currently using a nikkor 24-85 3.5-4.5g, and ive been reasonably happy with the outcome
would the difference be significant if I upgraded to say a 24-70 2.8
im thinking more of sharp, clear images
thanks

i think you have mentioned it there - "reasonably"

 

[GTG]

There is more to IQ of a lens than sharpness.

The pro lenses tend to but not always have better bokeh, better color saturation, less distortion,
more even sharpness across the frame, less chromatic aberration, handle the sun flare better,
and yes possibly more sharpness at various aperture, etc, etc.....

There is a lot involved and it is complicated and dependant on the models compared etc....

 

[Phil V]

Pro grade lenses are generally:
Fitted with better faster focus motors
Faster (wider aperture)
Better built (heavier and sometimes water resistant)
Of ‘better’ optical accuracy

All of the above isn’t true of all ‘pro’ lenses, but it’s a general guide.

Will any of the above improve whatever you feel is wrong with your images? Without specific questions, I’d have no idea, but quite possibly.

Are those qualities responsible for the fantastic quality of any pro work you’ve admired? I doubt it very much.

Should you buy one? It’s up to you, can you afford it, will owning it make you feel better?

I have to say, I’m no gear head, but shooting with a 35mm Art and a 135L makes me feel good. YMMV

 

[andya700]

How much better is a pro lens compared with a standard kit lens?
How much better would your photography be (and I am going to point the finger at myself now) if you cut out alcohol the night before an important shoot, became quite cardio vascular fit thus lowering your resting heart rate, made sure that you are always using the correct shutter speed and know what the "sweet spot" on all your lenses are, brace the camera correctly in hold, develop a good shutter finger and associated technique.
Having done that, you can carry out a field test of various lenses, confident in the knowledge that any differences in quality will be down to the lenses and not personal performance.

 

[simon ess]

Or just use a tripod and remote release with M-Up.



(Your point is well made though Andy)

 

[andrewc]

I was amazed by the improvement in quality when I switched from my entry level 'kit' lenses and £ 100 Sigma 70-300 to the 100-300 f/4 Sigma EX (their pro range). Colours, contrast, sharpness, focus speed and accuracy and so on. Naturally there was a cost - the lens was significantly bigger and heavier, as well as the financial one.

 

[Tekagudun]

I fully understand all the variables that go producing a quality image
I was just asking the question would it make an image look more professional
for arguments sake , if a competent photographer took the same image ,one with kit lens one ,with a better [not more expensive]
would you see the difference
I look at flicker with images of various lenses and its all there, colour ,sharpness, tones ect
I know its not all about the lens but there must be a percentage
I come from a trade background, so I know that if a use a certain piece of equipment, that it will produce a higher quality than something from aldi
im asking whether this translates to photography

 

[sk66]

im currently using a nikkor 24-85 3.5-4.5g, and ive been reasonably happy with the outcome
would the difference be significant if I upgraded to say a 24-70 2.8
im thinking more of sharp, clear images

Nope... your lens is perfectly capable. The only real benefit will be in situations where you need higher SS's or want less DOF.

 

[nick16]

As you know a PRO lens will not just instantly give you great photos. In most conditions the kit lenses perform very very well and its the ability of the photographer in question.
Unless you shoot in lower light, fast moving subjects, great distances or pixel peep for example, most people do not really need the 'Pro' lens.

"I was just asking the question would it make an image look more professional"

Yes is the answer your looking for. Of course a higher spec lens will take a 'better' picture. Thats why it is priced at a much higher price. Its internal workings and optics are designed to be better than a kit lens. Thats why the price difference can be hundreds of pounds in some cases. Are you able to reap the benefits? if you are not sure. then no.


I was using a 55-300mm f4.5-5.6 and switched to a 70-200 f2.8. The difference was very noticable. As above, i pay the price in weight, size and £££.

 

[Deleted member 49428]

Back in the late -90 ies when i bought my Nikon F90X the first two extra lenses i bought as sigma, a 24mm F2,8 and a 105 macro. Both inferior to the nikon offerings but I made some of my best images ever with them. My passion for the hobby, my curiosity, the work and creativity i put into the my images meant a lot more to the outcome than the slightly lacking technical quality, sharpnes and clarity provided by my gear. Later I feel for the magic bullit chase and the lure of medium format etc which kind of killed my creativity and photography.

 

[Faldrax]

I fully understand all the variables that go producing a quality image
I was just asking the question would it make an image look more professional
for arguments sake , if a competent photographer took the same image ,one with kit lens one ,with a better [not more expensive]
would you see the difference
I look at flicker with images of various lenses and its all there, colour ,sharpness, tones ect
I know its not all about the lens but there must be a percentage
I come from a trade background, so I know that if a use a certain piece of equipment, that it will produce a higher quality than something from aldi
im asking whether this translates to photography

It depends on the specific shot and conditions - for some cases, you will see very little, if any difference, for others, the difference in lens will make a visible difference.

The simplest example is down to aperture - with an f/2.8 lens you have the option to shoot at f/2.8, rather than f/4 (to take the average max aperture of your current lens).
This means more light captures in the same time - so you can shoot in lower light without having to raise the ISO - which can give an improvement in the image.
You will also have less DOF with a wider aperture, which will change the appearance of the image - good if that's what you want for a given shot.

Other improvements that affect the image are better lens coatings, etc, to reduce flare when shooting with bright light sources (such as the sun) in frame (or just out of frame).

As Phil mentioned, you might get faster, more precise AF - and an in focus shot is usually considered better than one where the subject is out of focus.

BUT - buying 'better' lenses is very much a law of diminishing returns.

The kit lenses today are, in the main, capable of taking decent quality images in a wide range of conditions.
As you look at progressively 'better' lenses the cost to get the extra capabilities, IQ, etc, cost more and more - depending on what you want to photograph, you might find investing an a different lens to compliment what you have (EG a 70-300, or a 50 f/1.8) will give you wider range of options than opting to switch your existing lens to a more expensive equivalent.

 

[Ed Sutton]

I look at flicker with images of various lenses and its all there, colour ,sharpness, tones ect

But are the pictures interesting to look at as pictures?

I have both the 24-85 and the 24-70 and apart from when using the wider apertures of the 'pro' lens I'm blowed if I can spot a difference in the results the two produce.

That's the great thing about making prints. There's no exif data to read, just the pictures to look at.

 

[Phil V]

... if a competent photographer took the same image ,one with kit lens one ,with a better [not more expensive]
would you see the difference
...

It depends on the image, and how you define ‘difference’. There’s loads of great images shot at F8 where a kit lens performs adequately, but I simply couldn’t shoot 90% of my work with kit zooms, I almost never shoot at F8

Talent makes an image look more professional, using quality gear can make a difference to an image, but it won’t turn a crap subject into a great image, if you’re thinking better lenses will improve your photography but you don’t know specifically why, you’re almost certainly wrong.

Just like any other ‘trade’ the tools don’t make a better job, unless they’re in the hands of someone who understands why they needed the better tools.

 

[StevenS]

The only "kit" lens I've owned in the last 7 or 8 years was a Sony 24-70 that I briefly owned for an A7R. It seemed perfectly good optically, but ultimately too bulky. Since then I've used Leica M and R, Zeiss M and Voightlander M. I've also seen the results from the Zeiss lenses for Sony, which are pretty superb. The only issue is price. People using Zeiss and Leica are buying quality optics, whether amateur or professional. Leica have just released the CL with an 18mm "kit" lens as it offers a saving of about £200, but it is still a superb lens. I share lenses with my son and he has gone off for a few days with a Leica 90mm Tele-Elmarit (£300 off eBay + £250 refurb), a Zeiss 50/f2 (£600 new) and a Voightlander 15/f4.5 Mk3 (£550 new). These are all professional quality lenses.

High quality optics tend to hold value and can last a lifetime or longer. Even better, I share mine. My advice would be,unless you are just taking pictures of your kid's sports day, invest as much as you can in the best quality optics and keep hold of them. Ignore the marketing of pro or consumer.

 

[Cagey75]

Better coatings on the optics, weather sealing, generally sharper across the frame and faster aperture are the main benefits I'd say.

This is why I love primes, the much cheaper alternatives to high end pro prime lenses are usually still excellent.

 

[Tekagudun]

Could a argument be made that if it's not about the gear
And competent photographers can produce excellent images from basic lenses
Why do they not stay with the standard lenses they started with
I'm talking in generic terms as different lens for different uses
Take away the financial implications and would you not want the best for the best results
I don't know if I'm honest as I don't have the experience of using different lenses that's why the question was asked
With limited knowledge to boot

 

[ah5168]

To me the most significant difference with pro lenses is constant aperture. The ability to zoom in and out without constant messing around with ISO and shutter speed makes life so much easier.

 

[SsSsSsSsSnake]

I like to look at flikr photos not knowing what camera or what lens but picking out photos that appeal to me/ then look at the info and many times am surprised at the basic kit used for what I see as a fantastic looking photo.
it never fails to suprise me.
also PP can make a big difference

 

[Cagey75]

I like to look at flikr photos not knowing what camera or what lens but picking out photos that appeal to me/ then look at the info and many times am surprised at the basic kit used for what I see as a fantastic looking photo.
it never fails to suprise me.
also PP can make a big difference

Same here, and turns out some of the images I favourited over the past year alone were shot with cheap old bridge cameras.

 

[tom24]

Could a argument be made that if it's not about the gear
And competent photographers can produce excellent images from basic lenses
Why do they not stay with the standard lenses they started with
I'm talking in generic terms as different lens for different uses
Take away the financial implications and would you not want the best for the best results
I don't know if I'm honest as I don't have the experience of using different lenses that's why the question was asked
With limited knowledge to boot

Ian, the optical quality of more expensive lenses IS easily seen, esp' with good technique ..but that isn't obvious to a casual 'glancer' perhaps.
I'm still learning about it all but i def' have noticed that as in everything, you get what you pay for.
It's all about practise and technique to get yourself up to a standard that you can see that the more expensive lenses ( and they are the biggest factor i'd say ) would get you better images.

 

[Deleted member 49428]

Could a argument be made that if it's not about the gear
And competent photographers can produce excellent images from basic lenses
Why do they not stay with the standard lenses they started with
I'm talking in generic terms as different lens for different uses
Take away the financial implications and would you not want the best for the best results
I don't know if I'm honest as I don't have the experience of using different lenses that's why the question was asked
With limited knowledge to boot

A professional photographer need rugged gear that will take a beating without disintegrating, withstand hours of hard use every day in any situation and climate without failing, withstand knocks and wear still being accurate delivering first class quality.

 

[Phil V]

Could a argument be made that if it's not about the gear
And competent photographers can produce excellent images from basic lenses
Why do they not stay with the standard lenses they started with
I'm talking in generic terms as different lens for different uses
Take away the financial implications and would you not want the best for the best results
I don't know if I'm honest as I don't have the experience of using different lenses that's why the question was asked
With limited knowledge to boot

I think you’re struggling because your questions (based on lack of knowledge) are hypothetical, ‘generic’ differences aren’t tangible, but there are plenty of ‘specific’ reasons.

No standard kit zoom can produce the images I get with my fast ‘primes’, but they’re not even necessarily ‘pro’ lenses. Now if I shot at f8 would the difference be as noticeable? I doubt it would, but that’s not the reason I bought them. I bought them for the unique ‘look’ they give images, which

What ‘trade’ are you in? I’ll see if I can add something you can grasp easier.

 

[Tekagudun]

I'm time served joiner of 30 years with a vast amount of knowledge in that trade
The analogy was made because when I started the equipment I had was basic
If I had the tools I have now I'm sure I would have been far better at that age
I know what it takes to learn a trade and a lot on this forum have probly forgot more than I know at this stage
I sit on the fence as I said my experience is limited
But the different replies show a range of opinion

 

[sk66]

Could a argument be made that if it's not about the gear
And competent photographers can produce excellent images from basic lenses
Why do they not stay with the standard lenses they started with
I'm talking in generic terms as different lens for different uses

A professional photographer need rugged gear that will take a beating without disintegrating, withstand hours of hard use every day in any situation and climate without failing, withstand knocks and wear still being accurate delivering first class quality.

This mostly... and for the few specific situations where certain differences will make a big difference. i.e. a fast focusing lens for high speed action photography.

 

[tom24]

I'm time served joiner of 30 years with a vast amount of knowledge in that trade
The analogy was made because when I started the equipment I had was basic
If I had the tools I have now I'm sure I would have been far better at that age
I know what it takes to learn a trade and a lot on this forum have probly forgot more than I know at this stage
I sit on the fence as I said my experience is limited
But the different replies show a range of opinion

Nice one Ian, i had a conversation about such the other week.i.e..an experienced photographer can basically pick up a system and produce great images..the same can be said of a joiner, pick up a system (hammer, saw and nails e.g ) and a , say frame, can be ready in minutes. Something a learner would take hours to do. I'm trying to say that the more experience then the easier to produce without thinking of the machinations..hope that makes sense..

 

[Deleted member 49428]

You could also ask, why would people want zooms over primes in the first decades they had the choice? Even some professionals opted for a zoom even though they for long periods produced inferior results. Because they made a difference, making it possible to get pictures otherwise missed.

 

[Phil V]

I'm time served joiner of 30 years with a vast amount of knowledge in that trade
The analogy was made because when I started the equipment I had was basic
If I had the tools I have now I'm sure I would have been far better at that age
...

I’m fairly sure you wouldn’t.

I’m hopeless at woodwork, have hundreds of £s of power tools. My uncle is an old school joiner, I watched him repair a hardwood door jamb with a handsaw, axe and hammer, his toolbox contained not a lot more than that. But the tools he had were honed, well used and used well.

(Broke my analogy chance)

Think of a fast Prime like a router bit, it does a very specific job that there’s no real alternative for, a ‘pro’ zoom is more like your pro battery driver, it does the same job as a cheap battery driver but does it slightly better and is much nicer to use.

 

[spudhead]

ok so I have to say this is a good question, and its had some great replies and points made many of them agree with, I can definitely say that the quality of glass does make a difference in my opinion but I also agree with the statements made by many of you that learning the camera and settings are just as important

 

[Mr Badger]

Perhaps, as a timber-related analogy, a comparison with chainsaw might be more appropriate? Yes, you can buy a reasonable quality one for amateur use, but a professional grade chainsaw will be probably be more powerful for its size and more durable in the long term (but heavier!). However, if you've not been trained how to use a chainsaw properly, or to maintain and sharpen one correctly, then it won't really matter if you've bought a cheap one or an expensive one, as it won't produce the desired result! Mind you, in untrained hands at least a camera lens might only cost you an arm and a leg and/or kill you financially!

As for the joinery analogy, if you'd had all the modern day tools and labour saving gadgets when you were an apprentice, would you be as skilled and versatile as you are now? Give you a power planer or give you an old fashioned hand plane and a whetstone and I'll bet you can work with either set-up? You might have been 'better' at that age, but would you have gone on to become as good as you are now?

 

[HoppyUK]

how much of a difference does a pro lens make to your images
I understand that there is a lot more to pro looking photos than a lens but
im currently using a nikkor 24-85 3.5-4.5g, and ive been reasonably happy with the outcome
would the difference be significant if I upgraded to say a 24-70 2.8
im thinking more of sharp, clear images
thanks

I fully understand all the variables that go producing a quality image
I was just asking the question would it make an image look more professional
for arguments sake , if a competent photographer took the same image ,one with kit lens one ,with a better [not more expensive]
would you see the difference
I look at flicker with images of various lenses and its all there, colour ,sharpness, tones ect
I know its not all about the lens but there must be a percentage
I come from a trade background, so I know that if a use a certain piece of equipment, that it will produce a higher quality than something from aldi
im asking whether this translates to photography

No, is the simple answer to that question.

There are differences of course, not just in terms of image quality, but reading between the lines of what you're looking for, simply bolting on a more expensive lens is not the way forward.

 

[Racecar81]

I think there is a psychological factor related to this. From my (very, very, limited experience), when I moved from my 18-105mm Kit Lens to a Tokina 11-16mm (ok, so not really a Pro lens, but...) for some landscape photography, I was immediately blown away by the quality of the images (sharpness, contrast, colours, etc.) of the better lens. This in turn made me want to get out and about more and *want* to take better compositions.

There is a certain feel good factor for having the better glass, plus the fact that, in my opinion, better glass = better quality pictures (but not necessarily better compositions!). I have now got the 24-85mm (f3.5-4.5) lens for my D7100, so will see how I get on with that as a step up from my original kit lens. Just need the weather to improve now.....

 

[Brazo]

I’ve always found the really good lenses need no to very little pp. soc images are fantastic whereas the cheaper lenses need a bit more pp to give a similar look.

 

[mike weeks]

I'm time served joiner of 30 years with a vast amount of knowledge in that trade
The analogy was made because when I started the equipment I had was basic
If I had the tools I have now I'm sure I would have been far better at that age
I know what it takes to learn a trade and a lot on this forum have probly forgot more than I know at this stage
I sit on the fence as I said my experience is limited
But the different replies show a range of opinion

As a joiner you will know that a better chisel will sharpen to a finer edge, hold that edge longer and therefore make the job of the joiner easier but 99% of the customers will never know the difference or see it in the end results, a bit like that with photo gear in my estimation i.e. it may allow you to get the shot you could not or make it easier to get (at the same time you have to deal with greater weight/size and the issues that comes with) you generally have the potential to get a shallower depth of field but for the pro that is often about being able to work in lower light, so yes the user will have a different experience but the end viewer will not know/care/understand why you needed that gear to get that image

Mike

 

[johnf3f]

Unfortunately, for most of my uses, it is a "Pro" lens or no lens!

 

[jezza8]

You can also throw your (Canon) Pro 70-200 f2.8 lens and body onto a concrete floor, pick it up and continue shooting. Been there done that......... Quite handy on occasions even if you have spare body/lens with you.

 

[GTG]

I like to look at flikr photos not knowing what camera or what lens but picking out photos that appeal to me/ then look at the info and many times am surprised at the basic kit used for what I see as a fantastic looking photo.
it never fails to suprise me.
also PP can make a big difference

In China some of the kids with a Samyang lens put pro`s over here to shame

 

[Kodiak Qc]

how much of a difference does a pro lens make to your images

In extreme light situation… ginormous

I understand that there is a lot more to pro looking photos than a lens

It is well known that it is not the tool but the way it is used

would the difference be significant if I upgraded to say a 24-70 2.8

Yes.

im thinking more of sharp, clear images

In that sense… NO, except in difficult — read extreme — light situations.

A pro lens is

• made of the top glass a maker can produce
• having multiple coatings that are imperative to
  cope with some of the extreme light situations
• the barrel is made of metal instead of plastics
• the over all construction is way better in terms
  of smoothness of operation and longevity
• better dust and weather sealings
• In my book, a pro lenses are most of the time "IF"
  (internal focusing) type and that includes zooms

Make no mistake here, that comes at a cost… and I don't
mean only money. If you want to use a pro lens on a body
that is not bringing the AF Fine Tune along in the menu, you
cannot expect the sharpness — even with a pro lens.

As for the clarity — that is only one of the many characteris-
tics, there may be — depending on the light conditions you're
shooting in — some difference but that is not where most of
the greater benefits are.

 

[Raymond Lin]

The Canon 35L mk2 barrel is made of plastic though.