Relatively expensive glass

SsSsSsSsSnake

SsSsSsSsSnake

Suspended / Banned
Messages
9,886
Edit My Images
Yes
Understand this is coming from a relative beginner hobbyist photographer as that is all I aspire to as an enjoyable hobby so my experience is quite limited so with that in mind here is my question.
For example a lens that costs say £600 on the used market versus say one that costs £200 ,I can get the better bokeh say and perhaps a more natural colour and a bit sharper plus speed but is there really a big difference or is it also build quality waterproofing etc because one can pay an awful lot for a lens
What do you say?
 
Depends really, normally the difference is in speed, i.e the dearer lens being an f1.4 or f2.8 v a cheaper f1.8 or f4.
There tends to be a difference in build quality between the cheaper and dearer lenses too, to be fair currently due to the currency fluctuation every things relatively expensive!!!
 
I usually look at the basic specification first (focal length, aperture, bulk) and then factor in other stuff but weather sealing isn't something that I'd personally place a high priority on. If you can decide on a spec the choice is usually down to a small number of lenses anyway. For example if you want a Canon fit 50mm f1.4 you might be choosing between a Canon and a Sigma although these days there might be a Tamron too. Anyway, deciding on a spec will possibly get the choice down to two or three and then you can add other factors into the equation.
 
For fast zoom lens I would prefer better build quality and weather seal as well. I tend to shoot a few outdoor sports every year, can't predict weather too so best to have that in my opinion. Primes lens I'm more focus on optic rather then build quality. Having said that, better optic lens tend to have decent build quality. My 85mm f1.4 AFD looks like it can last another decade without too much problem.
 
I have 2 lenses that are the same focal length, the Canon 70-300mm IS USM and the Canon 70-300mm L IS USM lens and the L lens IS better than the "ordinary" one.

But whether someone else would consider the £500 difference between the 2 lenses good value is a matter for them.

On the other hand the Canon 50mm f1.8 is a cracker of a lens even though it is the cheapest one Canon makes!
.
 
Thanks guys, i dont think i made my question very clear,my main question is regarding the optical quality of say a £1000 lens versus say a £300 lens,is it really that noticeable for example viewed online?
 
I know you're not talking about the big primes, but I can say that my 500 f4 which was over £3k second hand is definitely sharper than for example my 300mm f4 which costs half that new. You definitely get what you pay for optical quality wise.
 
Im my experience, yes in a lot of cases the dearer lenses are better optically, certainly for Nikon the 24-70 f2.8 (and the Tamron) is better than the 24-85.
Thats not to say that the cheaper lenses aren't good they just aren't as good, as to whether they're really worth 2-3x more, thats up to you.
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
Thanks guys, i dont think i made my question very clear,my main question is regarding the optical quality of say a £1000 lens versus say a £300 lens,is it really that noticeable for example viewed online?
Click to expand...

I'd say mostly not :D although some may be a pretty good guide for pixel level performance and I do take note of things such as the shape of the out of focus highlights and the general character of the bokeh (swirly or not so swirly :D) Assuming there are no obvious and glaring causes for concern I wouldn't judge a lens based on pictures posted in a forum or in an on line review but I would take note of what the reviewer says assuming they express an opinion. I remember a comment on one blog I read, the guy said that when he reads about a lens that divides opinion he takes an interest as it's probably going to be characterful in some way and I think I agree with this :D

And one problem with on line pictures is that they weren't taken by me and I'm much more interested in how my pictures will look when taken with my camera and that lens than how pictures taken by some bloke on line look :D
 
A good example of this is the Canon 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5 vs Canon 70-200mm f/4L.

If you compare them side by side the results is shockingly close. The focus speed, sharpness and bokeh is very much the same, but one costs £50 used versus the other £350.

The higher price tag probably does account for build quality, development and stuff like chromatic aberration and distortion.

I always find it hard to justify spending massive amounts on lenses ... or anything!
 
Only a few lenses are so bad they look soft at forum resolutions but of course sharpness is only half the story - you can't get insanely thin DoF with a kit lens, sharp or otherwise. So as Alan says above, look at the basic specs to judge if it will be appropriate for the type of shot you want to take and go from there.

All that said, my favourite ever Nikon combo was my D700 with 70-300VR so not a mega lens by any means but suited my means perfectly.
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
Thanks guys, i dont think i made my question very clear,my main question is regarding the optical quality of say a £1000 lens versus say a £300 lens,is it really that noticeable for example viewed online?
Click to expand...
By the time you have sized a shot from what? 12 to 30 MPix down to under 1Mpix for most 'upload' hosts; it's been reduced from a high colour bit depth, and more compressed into jpg for most hosts, and THEN compressed more by upload host...... THEN viewed image distorted by whatever the viewing media permits, and then by the viewers monitor or display.... the viewed image quality is a mere hint of what the camera may have caught!!!

We also tend to give equipment far too much credit in its contribution to final image quality, anyway; there is FAR more scope for human error to reduce potential IQ in any situation than there is for better kit to offer improvement.... So, even at a large scale, full capture resolution 'display', likelihood that the difference between a £300 lens and a £1000 one, a photographer has got the 'best' from in the first place, will be proportional to the price difference.

But, if you start to chop up the specs and split the differences between different lenses, then ultimately the price tends to be indicative of overall 'grade' rather than specific 'qualities'; all commercial lenses are made to a price, and have to be a compromise between performance, functionality, durability, reliability, usability and anything else. There is a big leap in grade from plastic body, amateur 'grade' lenses for the mass market, where most are not going to see heavy daily use, and professional grade lenses that may; as expectations will likely be higher in all areas of the lenses qualities; how much of any one or other you get in the mix for your money, though is perhaps more mutable, but a lot of more expensive lenses will likely warrant that extra cost simply on more robust construction for more heavy and demanding enthusiast or professional use, rather than significantly higher pixel peeping sharpness or distortion control.

Certainly twenty odd years ago, when I did some back to back tests with different camera/lens combinations, I was struggling to find much discernible difference in image quality between them until I was making big prints of small crops and looking at them under a lupe... some lenses were easier or nicer to use, or better in some situations, and some I would be worried about wear in the bayonet mount letting the lens wobble, whilst other's I'd happily lend to a Brummie builder asking for a screwdriver!!!! But either which way round.. still more to be lost in my observation and technique, than found in the lens.
 
Unless you're a full time pro, you don't 'need' to buy ultra fancy glass. It's nice to have, but with a little research, which is part of the fun of it, you can nab a bargain, that will produce just as good end results. Built quality really only matters if you kick your gear about :D And WR only really matters if you like to shoot in the p***es of rain a lot.
 
Sometimes I find the image quality of using one of my poorer lenses in difficult conditions is just not good enough. Sometimes it's my fault as well, for not getting focus or exposure right. A good trick that can sometimes work surprisingly well is to reduce image size. If I know for example that the image is only going to be viewed online on Facebook, say, then I can reduce image size a lot to conceal a lot of defects.
 
I never resize image on cam, I just throw ones I want to share socially into irfanview and do a quick resize, this way I have a copy in a larger resoloution too. I prefer to edit as large an image as possible.

On lenses, a lot of what you're paying for is all that metal, extra chunks of coated glass and of course the constant wide aperture. But there is almost always a cheaper alternative, you just need to read a few more reviews than on the bigger brands.
 
Teflon-Mike said:
Certainly twenty odd years ago, when I did some back to back tests with different camera/lens combinations, I was struggling to find much discernible difference in image quality between them until I was making big prints of small crops and looking at them under a lupe... some lenses were easier or nicer to use, or better in some situations, and some I would be worried about wear in the bayonet mount letting the lens wobble, whilst other's I'd happily lend to a Brummie builder asking for a screwdriver!!!! But either which way round.. still more to be lost in my observation and technique, than found in the lens.
Click to expand...

Yup. This is why I tend towards looking at the spec first. Got to also keep in mind the final picture and how it will be viewed as it's more likely that you'll see the advantages of the better and more expensive lenses if you're pushing the limits of what the kit can do. Look at whole images on screen or look at even relatively large prints normally and many people wouldn't see a difference.
 
Differences reveal themselves more with longer focal lengths when shooting wildlife as you're often going to need to crop. A cheap 70-300mm lens isn't going to cut it for small birds but a 300mm F4 can take a teleconverter and still be able to be cropped while retaining good detail. With longer lenses at least, once you go better you'll never go back.
But I've shot some pretty decent landscapes with my 18-105mm kit lens, and since I'm unlikely to crop them substantially or print larger than A4 I have no desire or need to get better glass in that focal length range.
 
Last edited:
Other differences you may see as you move away from the 'budget' end into the mid/high end prices lenses are

Better coatings on the front element to reduce glare, etc
Better internal build to avoid unnecessary reflections.
Faster, smoother AF motors
Addition of 'special' internal elements to reduce CA, etc.
Lower distortion
Better edge-edge sharpness

However, even the cheap 'kit' lenses that come with modern cameras are actually quite good, and it's certainly the case that for most users that as you move upwards in price, the gain for doing so decreases (IE you may well see more benefit upgrading from a £200 to £500 lens, than from the £500 to £1500 lens!)
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
Thanks guys, i dont think i made my question very clear,my main question is regarding the optical quality of say a £1000 lens versus say a £300 lens,is it really that noticeable for example viewed online?
Click to expand...

It's not just about the viewed quality in my case - but my L glass 70-300mm lens can also be used with extension tubes and gives excellent pictures with a total absence of CA so I get that advantage as well.
And using it like that means that it is, in effect, a very variable macro lens with excellent definition.
.
 
Not read all the posts so sorry if I'm repeating stuff.

The answer is it depends. It depends on which lenses you're comparing. For example if you compare the cheaper Nikon 18-35mm G to the more expensive 16-35mm f4 the cheaper lens is actually sharper. However, with the 16-35mm you're getting a constant aperture (although only 1/3 stop faster at the long end), weather sealing and better build. Whilst on the subject of build I don't think the build quality matches the price in many situations, but that's a different topic ;)

Similarly in terms of sharpness I found no discernible difference between my 24-70mm f2.8 and much cheaper 24-120mm f4. Of course, the 24-70mm renders slightly nicer and the AF speed blows the 24-120 away (and most other lenses for that matter) and of course is weather sealed. Oh and the build quality is much better.

So from these two examples the extra money really goes towards the faster glass (meaning bigger more expensive glass), build quality, AF and and weather sealing.

However the 18-35mm and 24-120mm aren't exactly budget lenses to start with. When you start comparing budget lenses (such as 18-55 kit lenses) the difference in IQ is much more apparent.

So I would say yes IQ improves with more expensive glass (on the whole) but as you go higher up the ladder you get very little gain for a lot more money.
 
snerkler said:
Not read all the posts so sorry if I'm repeating stuff.

The answer is it depends. It depends on which lenses you're comparing. For example if you compare the cheaper Nikon 18-35mm G to the more expensive 16-35mm f4 the cheaper lens is actually sharper. However, with the 16-35mm you're getting a constant aperture (although only 1/3 stop faster at the long end), weather sealing and better build. Whilst on the subject of build I don't think the build quality matches the price in many situations, but that's a different topic ;)

Similarly in terms of sharpness I found no discernible difference between my 24-70mm f2.8 and much cheaper 24-120mm f4. Of course, the 24-70mm renders slightly nicer and the AF speed blows the 24-120 away (and most other lenses for that matter) and of course is weather sealed. Oh and the build quality is much better.

So from these two examples the extra money really goes towards the faster glass (meaning bigger more expensive glass), build quality, AF and and weather sealing.

However the 18-35mm and 24-120mm aren't exactly budget lenses to start with. When you start comparing budget lenses (such as 18-55 kit lenses) the difference in IQ is much more apparent.

So I would say yes IQ improves with more expensive glass (on the whole) but as you go higher up the ladder you get very little gain for a lot more money.
Click to expand...

Yes Toby same in guitars ,as you pay more the distinction becomes less between the upper ones
 
You could always go the really cheap but top quality glass method too. You can buy really cheap old good quality lenses, slap on an af confirm adapter mount and hey presto, top quality prime for under £50 or less.
Just shot in aperture priority or manual mode.

I'm currently playing with an Olympus Zuiko 28mm f2.8 OM Lens on my Canon 750R, which cost me around £20.
 
Last edited:
I think the real question here is how are the images going to be used or delivered, ie If you expect to deliver small jpegs onto facebook, or onto the web taken in good light, or if you are delivering large images for use in posters etc. Every tool have advantages and disadvantages and if you work within the limitations you can produce good images.

But the better equipment expands the capabilities of capturing the image. Faster, quicker to focus, easier to use, more capable in changing or low light conditions etc. Thats why there is such a range, to suit peoples requirements and budgets.

What I would say is look at your photography and make an informed decision. Don't just buy the cheapest because it's cheap, we've all done that and regretted it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top