Better glass. How much difference is there?

S

Shippo

Messages
11
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi guys.

I have been using the kit lens and a Sigma 70-300 with my D5100 for almost a year now. I have had some pleasing results but i'm thinking of improving the quality of my glass.

I would be interested to know how much of a difference buying better lenses would make?

If anybody could post a couple of images using the same body and then a kit lens and a better quality lens image, preferably a similar shot in each i would be very grateful.

Or any comments or advice regarding upgrading lenses would be much appreciated.

Thanks
Dave
 
can improve the colours too, and the general "look" of the photo too. faster focus and non rotating front element too normaly

downside is cost weight and size
 
not trying to be clever here.. but surely common sense tells you better glass = better pictures... or was there some other reason you envisaged people bought better glass ?

sorry but it really is that simple :)
 
If you're going to spend your whole life shooting at f8, you have no need for fast focus motors, and you are happy to spend a little more time in post fixing lens distortion, then kit lenses will do just fine.

If that's not good enough for you, money spent on lenses is a great idea.
 
Last edited:
& to follow on from that - good glass keeps its residual value very well. Your camera body however loses value faster than water down a plughole.
 
I do agree with all of the above, but I would add that I would't go out and spend a huge amount on better glass, until you can honestly say that its the equipment that is anchoring your photos. There's no point spending loads on a new lens if you don't know how to use your current one to its full potential.

A nice faster, sharper lens will get better photos, but if you take a badly composed image, its still going to be badly composed. Just a sharper one. :)

That being said, New lenses are great!
 
Shippo said:
I have been using the kit lens and a Sigma 70-300 with my D5100 for almost a year now.
Click to expand...

The Sigma 70-300 APO is OK in very good light, but you'll notice a very significant difference with a better lens under all conditions and a worlds-apart difference with a better lens when the light starts to fall off from perfect. If the forecast mentioned any hint of cloud, I'd leave my 70-300 at home. But it did give me some very decent shots at the time - all but one in very good light.
 
yes ..to something someone said........ I have seen some really poor pictures taken with a 5 thousand pound camera and 6 thousand pound lens...... ability and good equipment produces good pictures :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
Shippo said:
I would be interested to know how much of a difference buying better lenses would make?

If anybody could post a couple of images using the same body and then a kit lens and a better quality lens image, preferably a similar shot in each i would be very grateful.

Or any comments or advice regarding upgrading lenses would be much appreciated.
Click to expand...

Will you see the differences in images posted here?

A wide aperture may help, faster focus may help... but when looking at two similar spec lenses from competent manufacturers I'd expect to have to pixel peep to see any difference, if there is any. IMVHO unless you have a lens which is truly horrible or you're looking at very wide aperture shots or looking for across the frame sharpness you'll probably be hard pressed to see any significant real world differences between lenses unless you look very closely. I buy mostly on spec and after that on the look of the oof areas, bokeh etc.

A while ago I took the same shot with two cameras, my 5D and a nice 50mm f1.4 and my Panasonic G1 with a much humbler lens. When I tried to show someone the two printed images to see which they prefered they looked at the first and said excitedly "I want that picture." They didn't even get to the second (5D) shot :D My point is that it's probably only us geeks who obsess. Real people will look at a picture... and probably not say anything like "This would look so much better if you'd shot with a Nikon 70-300mm at 100mm and f8 rather than with a Sigma 70-300mm at 100mm and f8."
 
There's a million reviews of cheaper and expensive lenses. Do a quick google search to see.

Faster focus, better bokeh, better colour and contrast, less distortion, less chromatic aberation......

The main differentiator though is the photographer.....
 
Stevie- said:
Long and the short of it is:

Hunners!

Decent and fast glass will improve image quality, sharpness, contrast and creativity.
Click to expand...

Sorry.... but it will do sod all for creativity.
 
I suppose fast glass could be said to add creativity in that it allows shallow DoF to be achieved.

How does one define better though? Is a 50mm f/1.4 necessarily better than the f/1.8 version? If so, why have I been told (by 2 different sales advisors) to keep my old f/1.8 AF rather than "upgrade" to the current f/1.4 AF-S one? I'm fully aware that the DoF from the f/1.4 version can be shallower but I'm not a huge fan of shallow DoF so TO ME that's not a selling point - if it was, I'd go for an old f/1.2 MF lens instead.

Better lenses if one defines better as more expensive will empty your wallet faster than you can refill it, especially the longer ones. They give fantastic results but what a price they command! They're not light either so add a decent tripod and head to the cost too. (And a porter's wages!)
 
Shippo said:
I have had some pleasing results but i'm thinking of improving the quality of my glass.
Click to expand...

If you're happy with it, why change it?

Most upgrades are peer pressure and advertising pressure making you think you need the next greatest thing with all the bells and whistles. If you have a genuine need to improve your lenses then do it, but I wouldn't do it just because I thought it might be a good idea, or worse, because someone else told me I should.

KIPAX said:
but surely common sense tells you better glass = better pictures...
Click to expand...

Is that all there is to it?!!!


Steve.
 
Last edited:
I reckon it depends how you define cheap lenses. An older, used Nikon might perform better than a brand new Sigma. If you like the 70-30 range of your Sigma get a used 70-300VR Nikon - or at least try the Nikon out - for example.
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again...

What my 70-200mm f2.8 gives me that the kit lens 55-200mm doesn't, is a faster shutter speed and reduced DOF. This can look easier on the eye but in terms of sharpness, colour, contrast etc...I couldn't call it.

Possibly a bad comparison as the 55-200mm is shockingly good but goes to show, there are good quality optics out there that don't cost the earth.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Sorry.... but it will do sod all for creativity.
Click to expand...

I dunno - it might not be quantifiable in the same way but there must be something in it surely.

Improved gear encourages you to be more creative. Gives you more confidence in what your doing and improves your enjoyment of a thing.

The placebo effect is a real one.

A badly composed shoot with an 80 quid lens is still going to be a badly composed shot with a 800 quid version - that much is true.
 
Wow!

Thanks for the responses. Much appreciated.

I totally understand what you guys are saying and i'm trying not to be one of those people that get obsessed with kit. I understand that composition and the photographer are the driving elements behind creating pleasing images.

That said i would like to get into landscapes and wildlife / sport photography a lot more and at times i feel the results especially from the Sigma are probably not the best especially in poor light.

I may just carry on using what i have and try to perfect composition and technique. I have a long way to go in those.

Thanks

Dave





If anyone would like to comment on any of my images so far then please feel free to look at http://www.flickr.com/photos/97292637@N04/with/13092638833/
 
Stevie- said:
I dunno - it might not be quantifiable in the same way but there must be something in it surely.
Click to expand...

Why surely? I fail to see how having a more expensive lens on your camera makes you more creative. After all, creativity comes from you, not the camera.

Stevie- said:
Improved gear encourages you to be more creative. Gives you more confidence in what your doing and improves your enjoyment of a thing.
Click to expand...

I can't say I agree. What gear I'm using doesn't motivate me more or less. The scene before me, and the reasons I am shooting it motivate me. If you're getting motivated by the gear in your hands rather than the subject you're shooting I would suggest you're not really getting what photography is about. However.. if it works for you, and gets you shooting then sure... it's a great thing. I'm not convinced it helps you creatively though. It may make you shoot more... and that in the long run may help, but buying better lenses will not really help you creatively in itself.





Stevie- said:
A badly composed shoot with an 80 quid lens is still going to be a badly composed shot with a 800 quid version - that much is true.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And the inverse is true as well. A great shot is a great shot. No one cares what lens it was shot with.
 
Last edited:
Not much picture posting in here, which the OP wanted. I'll see what I can do later. Problem is, I have no third party lenses here right now, except a Samyang ultra wide... and I don't have a suitable Nikkor equivalent here as the 12-24 is at work. However... I've just bought a Nikkor DC 105 f2D portrait lens, which is a stupidly sharp lens, so it would be interesting to see how that fares against a £300 Nikkor 70-300 f.4-5.6 VR set to 105. One lens is a £900 prime... the other a £300 wide range zoom. Is that the kind of comparison that would help?
 
Pookeyhead said:
I can't say I agree. What gear I'm using doesn't motivate me more or less. The scene before me, and the reasons I am shooting it motivate me. If you're getting motivated by the gear in your hands rather than the subject you're shooting I would suggest you're not really getting what photography is about. However.. if it works for you, and gets you shooting then sure... it's a great thing. I'm not convinced it helps you creatively though. It may make you shoot more... and that in the long run may help, but buying better lenses will not really help you creatively in itself.
Click to expand...

All fair points - I think I might be approaching it from a different angle than what the OP was looking for.

Will the more expensive 70-200 2.8make you take more creative photos than the 70-200 4. Course not. But from my point of view a (more expensive potentially) fixed prime with a fast aperture might very well help you to. So I think I might have went of topic slightly.

Still - confidence in the capabilities of your equipment translates to confidence in what your doing. At least for me.
 
Stevie- said:
I dunno - it might not be quantifiable in the same way but there must be something in it surely.

Improved gear encourages you to be more creative. Gives you more confidence in what your doing and improves your enjoyment of a thing.

The placebo effect is a real one.

A badly composed shoot with an 80 quid lens is still going to be a badly composed shot with a 800 quid version - that much is true.
Click to expand...

I have to admit, when I upgraded my sigma 50-200 to a canon 70-200 2.8. I found that people surprisingly paid less attention to me on the street. And after a chat with a few members of the public, they told me that as my lens looked more professional, they didnt really feel the need to question what I was doing. So I suppose you could say it gives you more freedom. And as you say Steve, once I had more expensive gear, I was more determined to get out and learn to use it more effectively.
 
Pic quality also depends on quality/set up of your printer, ink , paper or monitor
 
If you get chance, it's really worth trying a few different lenses and getting some shots to see if you can tell the difference.

When I was looking for a longer zoom lens - up to 300-400mm I went along to my local London Camera Exchange Shop. They were very helpful and allowed me to try several different lenses on my camera body and shoot from the shop doorway - some were second hand and some were new. I made a decision and bought a lens. When I got home and checked my photos on my computer, I realised that the second hand lens I'd bought did not give me such good quality images as a more expensive new one they had. The zoom was also not very smooth. They allowed me to return it and I shelled out for the heavier, bulkier more expensive one which I've been really happy with.
 
Well...

£300 70-300 Nikkor set to 105 @ f8
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23953768/70-300.jpg

£900 105mm prime @f8
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23953768/105.jpg

Personally I think the 70-300 is sharper :).. although the 105 has beautiful bokeh.. but that's its whole reason for existing.

Both images quality 12 JPEGs made from un-edited RAWs. Straight from cam.. nothing done... not even lens profiles or CA correction.. literally straight from camera.


The 105 has lovely back focus behaviour wide open though, and performs at f2 almost as good as it does at f8.... but for general photography, do you need that? It's a specialist tool, as most expensive lenses are.


My £300 70-300, here demonstrated on a D800E... a camera known for being utterly brutal in showing lens defects, has shown it to be nothing but an excellent lens.


There's no need to pay a fortune. Just look at some real world test shoots of the lenses, and decide yourself. Unless you need stupidly fast apertures, or specialist features such as the ones on my 105DC Nikkor, then save the cash until you DO realise you need a better lens. After all, YOU take the photograph, not your equipment.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Forgot to add:

Tripod used
Mirror lock up used
remote release used
Al focusing manual, with magnified live view.
 
Pookeyhead said:
...And the inverse is true as well. A great shot is a great shot. No one cares what lens it was shot with.
Click to expand...

Unless using a lower quality lens means you failed to get the shot - which is obviously highly dependant on exactly what lens / body combinations you are using, and the types of shot you are taking.

EG:
A lower quality lens may have more CA or flare
A lower quality lens might have slower AF so you fail to get the subject properly in focus.
A lower quality lens might be limited to f/5.6 so you have to push the ISO too high.

With the exception of missing the focus, you can 'fix' the problems in post, but that requires the skill and tools to do so, and might be enough to mean you get a 'good' shot rather than a 'great' shot.

On the other hand, for a lot of shots, as has already been stated, and particularly when just used for viewing on the web, there may be little to enable anyone to discern between a top end DSLR / lens combination, and a reasonable compact or even phone camera.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
The 105 has lovely back focus behaviour
Click to expand...

Can you explain what you mean by this (I'm not being funny, I genuinely don't know).


Pookeyhead said:
I've just bought a Nikkor DC 105 f2D portrait lens, which is a stupidly sharp lens
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if it bears any resemblence to the modern lens but I have a pre - AI Nikkor 105mm f2.5 and it's one of my favourite lenses.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
Can you explain what you mean by this (I'm not being funny, I genuinely don't know).




I'm not sure if it bears any resemblence to the modern lens but I have a pre - AI Nikkor 105mm f2.5 and it's one of my favourite lenses.


Steve.
Click to expand...


Bokeh quality in other words. Look at the out of focus bits of the 2 images I posted. The 70-300 looks gritty, sharp.. the 105 is buttery smooth, especially the small round out of focus highlights. They have a bright, sharp ring around them with the 70-300, yet are smooth round shapes with the 105DC

70-300
SNKRRFj.jpg


105DC
blHLuBM.jpg
 
Last edited:
I've always found buying new gear (both photographical and musical) a very humbling experience. Clearly better gear has the potential for better results, but often requires better technique to realise it (I'm putting creativity to one side for a mo if I may).

Popping my 24-105L on a full frame camera is very similar in basic operation to the kit lens on a cropped sensor camera. stick the 70-200L f 2.8 on the full frame and playing with such shallow depths of focus needs a much more refined technique. Clearly the 70-200l f2.8 is a superb lens but that doesn't make it easy to use.

By the way, when I upgraded from the kit lens to a 17-55 f2.8 (which I still use on my 60D and love to bits) I was shocked at how good the little kit lens was. I have, at my wife's insistence, a couple of 8 by 12s hanging on the wall taken with a kit lens on an old 400D. They stand up very well to the recent stuff with my 5D3.

Print, don't peep!
 
at f8 you could be diffraction limited, and the prime is likely best stopped down only 1 or 2 steps.

better lenses are normaly better in low light, or let you use lower iso, focus faster , and in general just look abit better, so they give you more options or extend your window.

so if you want a better technical quality, then its likely a good way to go, you might also really enjoy some aspect of a expensive or unique lens
 
pingu666 said:
at f8 you could be diffraction limited, and the prime is likely best stopped down only 1 or 2 steps.

better lenses are normaly better in low light, or let you use lower iso, focus faster , and in general just look abit better, so they give you more options or extend your window.

so if you want a better technical quality, then its likely a good way to go, you might also really enjoy some aspect of a expensive or unique lens
Click to expand...

f8 seemed the best average for both. It's only one stop down from max for the 70-300.. so a little less than ideal... and 4 stops from max for the 105.. again, a little less than ideal. I didn't want either lens to have any advantage.
 
Many thanks to all the responses. Especially Pookeyhead. Thanks for the comments and taking the time posting the images. I must agree with you that the 70-300 image appears sharper. :)

There is a lot of good advice in here which i will take on board before i commit to buying any new lenses.

Thanks
 
Ed Sutton said:
I reckon it depends how you define cheap lenses. An older, used Nikon might perform better than a brand new Sigma. If you like the 70-30 range of your Sigma get a used 70-300VR Nikon - or at least try the Nikon out - for example.
Click to expand...

My first telephoto zoom was the canon 70-300, cost about £130 new at the time. Matched to a 300D I'd was ok, but a 40D really showed it up. Replaced it with the70-200f4 which was a revelation in colour, clarity and the numbers of keepers rose exponentially.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top