Taken with a £40 or £1200 lens? Updated with the answer...

To me it looks like you should sale the expensive Nikon glass and spend the cash on something nice as it doesn't cut the mustard above the Vivitar Tomas. :D
Give Maddie a sweetie for helping you here. ;)
 
Rob 80386 said:
Cheers Thomas, :D :thumbs:

cool dog btw can i ask what the breed is? :)
Click to expand...

Husky and fruit bat mix we think mate :thinking:

She's the definition of mixed breed, Tuuli and I have spent hours talking about what kind of hunds are there in Mad.

She's a real one in a million.

smoothedit said:
The Flippin Cool Breed. That dog is the Fonz! :cool:
Click to expand...

:lol: Shush now, she'll start to get a bighead :lol:


Ajophotog said:
To me it looks like you should sale the expensive Nikon glass and spend the cash on something nice as it doesn't cut the mustard above the Vivitar Tomas. :D
Give Maddie a sweetie for helping you here. ;)
Click to expand...

Nice one mate!

It's a blummin good lens that Vivitar but it's a real hard one to use, the flare is atrocious :gag:

Still though, for my reverse macro and shallow DOF, it's not tre bad at all.
 
None of you are going to believe me now but I honestly didn't cheat and chose the second one as the Nikon, better colour, contrast and slightly sharper.. The first just looked "off", probably due to a slight colour cast.

:lol:
 
At f2.8 the anser is academic. Physics and optics will pretty much make them as bad as each other, with this subject, judging barrel type distortion is hard (but appears worse in the second image). So so wide open, the differences will only show up as TCA, which is more evident in the second image (albeit, off axis a low contrast subject matter)

To be fait, you need to shoot somehting a bit more high contrast, with more straight edges in to make a decent jusgment of the lenses performances at f2.8
 
Richard King said:
At f2.8 the anser is academic. Physics and optics will pretty much make them as bad as each other, with this subject, judging barrel type distortion is hard (but appears worse in the second image). So so wide open, the differences will only show up as TCA, which is more evident in the second image (albeit, off axis a low contrast subject matter)

To be fait, you need to shoot somehting a bit more high contrast, with more straight edges in to make a decent jusgment of the lenses performances at f2.8
Click to expand...

Looks like you missed the 'purely for fun' part. ;)
 
In this example you must admit that there is not a whole lot of significant difference between the two. Maybe we get too obsessed with getting the very finest and disregarding anything else as unusable.

Is the disappointment because the lesser lens was so good or the more expensive lens was not 'head and shoulders' better.

Perhaps this was an 'easy' test for both lenses and didn't allow the more expensive one to shine or the least expensive one to fail.

I think we definitely need to refocus on what is important - what you actually take pictures of and not how much absolute clarity the pictures may have.

Graham
 
Mickwreay said:
As a newbie, having just spent £1000 on a Canon 50D with 17-85 lens.

I would like to get a zoom lens of around 300mm, as this thread proves, am I wasting my money spending £...... on a Canon IS lens?
Click to expand...

It's not quite so black and white as that.

By 300mm zoom, do you mean zoom or do you mean telephoto prime?
 
Mickwreay said:
As a newbie, having just spent £1000 on a Canon 50D with 17-85 lens.

I would like to get a zoom lens of around 300mm, as this thread proves, am I wasting my money spending £...... on a Canon IS lens?
Click to expand...

2 things - in certain scenarios, the decent lenses are superb, and perform when you need them too. Secondly - there is the law of diminishing returns. If the lens is 1% better, is it worth 10 x more?

If your business model supports buying them, buy them. If money is no object, buy them. If you absoloutley need that lens to do a job - hire it or buy it. Else keep the money in the bank
 
cyclone said:
It's not quite so black and white as that.

By 300mm zoom, do you mean zoom or do you mean telephoto prime?
Click to expand...
Probably :shrug:

Something like this:- SIGMA 70-300mm F4-5.6 SON Macro?

I'm no expert, but it would seem many "experts" could not agree here :naughty:
 
blue max said:
In this example you must admit that there is not a whole lot of significant difference between the two. Maybe we get too obsessed with getting the very finest and disregarding anything else as unusable.

Is the disappointment because the lesser lens was so good or the more expensive lens was not 'head and shoulders' better.

Perhaps this was an 'easy' test for both lenses and didn't allow the more expensive one to shine or the least expensive one to fail.

I think we definitely need to refocus on what is important - what you actually take pictures of and not how much absolute clarity the pictures may have.

Graham
Click to expand...

Interesting points Graham, cheers for posting :thumbs:

Realistically speaking there is no contest in terms of performance, consistency, reliability or flexibility but despite the extra effort involved, the Vivitar was capable of producing an image with similar results.

The comparisons (not tests) were purely for fun and not to suggest that a 40 nicker lens from ebay can replace the more proprietary pro grade Nikon lens.

I originally bought it for reverse macro and for this purpose it has the capability to contend with any dedicated Nikon equivalent although the technique is far, far more difficult:

3722727433_0292f33cb2_o.jpg


More here
 
Mickwreay said:
As a newbie, having just spent £1000 on a Canon 50D with 17-85 lens.

I would like to get a zoom lens of around 300mm, as this thread proves, am I wasting my money spending £...... on a Canon IS lens?
Click to expand...

This is what I was just about to suggest actually. With standard focal length lenses (say between around 18-100 ish mm focal lengths) it is fairly easy to make something half decent for relatively cheap. Just look at the 50 f/1.8 as an example. When you get a bit more specialist that is where I'd suggest things really change.

If you did the same test with the Sigma 70-300 compared to say the Canon 300 f/2.8 IS (or perhaps a closer lens, the 300 f/4 IS) you will almost certainly see a massive difference in sharpness especially (disregarding the IS part for the moment).

When you move from a static object to something moving (forcing the AF to come in to play) then the differences will be even bigger (keepers especially will probably be an order of magnitude larger with the L's).

Finally reduce the light a bit and again the difference leaps up again, with an extra stop or two at the long end and better AF in lower light.

I think a lot of the difference in price isn't down to the glass and how sharp it is, or even contrast and colour but the AF and added extras like extra stops of speed (larger apertures) and then finally build quality (I'm guessing a lot of photojurnos and extreme photogs would end up going through a lot of 18-55 kit lenses i they didn't have the choice of a 24-70).

So yeah a standard test of a static target in reasonable light at the same aperture will usually show not a lot of difference, however as soon as you make things harder that is where the extra money really shines.
 
Tomas Whitehouse said:
Interesting points Graham, cheers for posting :thumbs:

Realistically speaking there is no contest in terms of performance, consistency, reliability or flexibility but despite the extra effort involved, the Vivitar was capable of producing an image with similar results.

The comparisons (not tests) were purely for fun and not to suggest that a 40 nicker lens from ebay can replace the more proprietary pro grade Nikon lens.

I originally bought it for reverse macro and for this purpose it has the capability to contend with any dedicated Nikon equivalent although the technique is far, far more difficult:

3722727433_0292f33cb2_o.jpg


More here
Click to expand...

No problem Tomas. In fact the very reason I wrote my relatively lengthy post was because it clearly was not obvious which was which and I had to ask myself why.

I'm slightly relieved that you feel you had to help the young pretender but to some extent it does make you review why we pay so much for so many lenses. I guess if you had enough raw talent, the lenses would be no real handicap.

But loved the challenge and hopefully there will be many more to challenge our preconceptions.

Appreciate the post.
Graham
 
cyclone said:
It's not quite so black and white as that.

By 300mm zoom, do you mean zoom or do you mean telephoto prime?
Click to expand...

Well, as I wrote Zoom as opposed to Prime (fixed focal length) that is what I meant!

Just looking for advice, not sarcasm. :shrug:
 
I wasn't being sarcastic, I was trying to clarify what you wanted.
Sorry or trying to help.
 
King_Boru said:
1st one looks like it could be a vivitar. Why,.. I think its the bokeh, it isn't as smooth as 2 around the carpeted area. although tough to tell. Then again neihter of them could and your just tricking us ;)
Click to expand...

Spot on :)
 
:suspect:

...:lol:

Quote fail or an imposter???
 
I kept out of this cos I saw at least one of these on your Flickr, I think. It is amazing the difference though.

The real acid test is in sunlight as the older lenses tend to flare and have reduced contrast.

The best MF lens I've ever used for colour and contrast is the Tamron SP 35-80 f/2.8-3.5 I stupidly sold to Ste Manns. D'oh!
 
The23rdman said:
I kept out of this cos I saw at least one of these on your Flickr, I think. It is amazing the difference though.

The real acid test is in sunlight as the older lenses tend to flare and have reduced contrast.

The best MF lens I've ever used for colour and contrast is the Tamron SP 35-80 f/2.8-3.5 I stupidly sold to Ste Manns. D'oh!
Click to expand...

Which you still can't have back :D

Dean you should try my two favourites - Helios 44M-4 58mm f2 and the Carl Zeiss 135mm f3.5. They're gorgeous! The Carl Zeiss does suffer a little from lack of contrast in strong sunlight but the Helios is fine. It's still the best bargain ever, costing £3 on Leeds market. Chuffed is not an adequate word :D
 
ste manns - when and where is the leeds market ? :D


for the OP - I thought that the 24-70mm was the second pic because of the shadow colour and stuff like that (I may be wrong). but - fair point :)
 
Thomas, I am quite surprised by your lack of empathy for your subjects.

Just look at that poor grasshopper. You hit it with so much flash that it looks like it has been hit by lightning. You CRUEL man. How would you like to be fried by photographic light? :p
 
The23rdman said:
I kept out of this cos I saw at least one of these on your Flickr, I think. It is amazing the difference though.

The real acid test is in sunlight as the older lenses tend to flare and have reduced contrast.

The best MF lens I've ever used for colour and contrast is the Tamron SP 35-80 f/2.8-3.5 I stupidly sold to Ste Manns. D'oh!
Click to expand...

Hell yeah, the flare off the Vivitar is hilarious, still though I'm getting some superb use out of it at the mo, I'm on holiday in Estonia and so far it's doing a great job, the only weaknesses are the flare and my erratic success at MF :naughty:

Lensflare said:
Thomas, I am quite surprised by your lack of empathy for your subjects.

Just look at that poor grasshopper. You hit it with so much flash that it looks like it has been hit by lightning. You CRUEL man. How would you like to be fried by photographic light? :p
Click to expand...

:lol: To quote The Bloodhound Gang 'We don't need no water...'
 
Starastin said:
ste manns - when and where is the leeds market ? :D

for the OP - I thought that the 24-70mm was the second pic because of the shadow colour and stuff like that (I may be wrong). but - fair point :)
Click to expand...

Sorry, the guy was selling three lenses for £3 each, I tore his arm off nearly :D Turned out to be two Helios M44's and a Jupiter 135mm f4 (which is also rather lovely) I've been back many times since and not seen him again :'(

The Tamron SP 35-80 has some wicked flare, but it's reasonably predictable and actually quite nice, I see it as a feature not a handicap.

Tomas - top tip for you re focussing. Put your camera on a slow multi shot (my 50D has two settings, low speed and high speed, I use the slow speed) and as you fire off 3 - 5 shots turn the focus ring in tiny increments, both ways. Out of 5 shots say, you're bound to have a couple in focus. Since I started doing this my hit rate has shot up. Of course this means pre selecting the aperture, rather than focusing wide open and then closing down which I still need to do if I'm shooting with flash.
 
Leeds market - its in Leeds city centre. Saturdays. You'll be disappointed though, its mostly produce. I think they occasionally have s/h goods stalls but I've not seen any since I bought these lenses, it was just a one off.

Apart from Ebay, I think you're best bet for old manual lenses might well be charity shops, where they occasionally show up.
 
Interesting how much lighter the wall looks on that Nikon lens! Same exposure but just looks about 1/2 stop lighter.
 
Ste Manns said:
Leeds market - its in Leeds city centre. Saturdays. You'll be disappointed though, its mostly produce. I think they occasionally have s/h goods stalls but I've not seen any since I bought these lenses, it was just a one off.

Apart from Ebay, I think you're best bet for old manual lenses might well be charity shops, where they occasionally show up.
Click to expand...

oh ! so that's the one ! apart from being beautiful I haven't seen bargains there.
thanks.
 
Ste Manns said:
Which you still can't have back :D

Dean you should try my two favourites - Helios 44M-4 58mm f2 and the Carl Zeiss 135mm f3.5. They're gorgeous! The Carl Zeiss does suffer a little from lack of contrast in strong sunlight but the Helios is fine. It's still the best bargain ever, costing £3 on Leeds market. Chuffed is not an adequate word :D
Click to expand...

I'd love a go. My results with MF lenses have only ever been decent using liveview.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top