Lens quality, good or bad?

tijuana taxi

tijuana taxi

Messages
15,780
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
Having seen numerous reports of poor quality lenses on here and elsewhere got me wondering if they are really that useless?
Do we expect too much in this time of the throwaway society, is it a case of you get what you pay for.

Had a couple of less than great ones myself, in fact one was downright rubbish. Most I suspect are the quality you should expect for the money, as in they produce a reproduction at snapshot size if functioning correctly

My experience seems to be if you want the quality you expect it costs and although there are some cheaper lenses that produce the goods, an awful lot don't and were never designed to.

Is it quality control at fault or are they just not that good to start with?

What you reckon people
 
You get what you pay for. As I said before, you cannot make a silk purse out of a sows ear. My last purchase was a duffer. NIKON 55-300. But its less than £300.
 
Cant polish a turd after all, the Sony kit lens i had was utter pants, which i was confused about considering it got good reviews from most, but then it was a kit lens so maybe i was expecting too much :/ Traded it in for a tamron 17-50mm 2.8 and havent looked back. Havent had much experience with other kak lenses but im more willing to spend the £££'s to get decent quality these days. For instance in march im treating myself to a total upgrade to a 5D Mk II along with the 70-200mm 2.8 L for the princely sum of over a grand, but i am willing to pay it for the best quality. Having seen from friends though, there are a lot of duffers out there, some brands more than others but imo you defo get what you pay for.

Si
 
My old manual-focus AI-S Nikkor 35mm f/2 is rated as sub-par by 'KR' and I have to admit it's not quite as good as my AF-D Nikkor 35mm f/2.
That doesn't stop me from using it though and to be honest, since it 'lives' on my old F3 which is generally loaded with 400iso B&W film - I can't really tell the difference.
I did some 'chimp-pixel-peep' tests with both lenses stacked against my Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G set to 35mm at all apertures (apart from f/2, obviously) and there's some resolution loss and CA with the older lenses in ultra-high-contrast situations to be sure, but not enough for me to lose sleep over.
 
We're quite lucky these days that with the amount of resource around on the internet and through reliable mags like AP, it can be easy to buy very good lenses for little money, if you follow the right advice.

I've ummed and aahed over all my lenses and thankfully, aside from my Sigma 70-200mm, which has focussing issues, every lens I've bought has been up to expectation. I could probably get better if I had the dosh, but for what i was prepared to pay, I feel I have a reliable set of glass that no one other than lens geeks would be able to criticise.

When I'm bored I might do some tests but they'll literally be for my own benefit and may even make me question their overall performance. While I have no money to spend i think it's best left so i don't know their shortfalls :)

I've been fortunate that for the money had to spend, there were some great offerings; the 80-200mm has been a gem for £600, as has my 50mm f/1.8. My 10.5mm has some serious fringing under certain light conditions but I work within the limitations.
 
I think expectations are created by the media that a £300 pound lens is nearly as good as a £1,200 lens. Then you spend time and effort getting frustrated as to why you can't get that pro-look with your £300 pound lens.

When you do finally get your hands on expensive lenses you realise that they are worlds apart and its the small improvements in sharpness, CA, contrast and colouration that when combined produce that far superior image you have been trying to achieve.
 
ah5168 said:
I think expectations are created by the media that a £300 pound lens is nearly as good as a £1,200 lens. Then you spend time and effort getting frustrated as to why you can't get that pro-look with your £300 pound lens.

When you do finally get your hands on expensive lenses you realise that they are worlds apart and its the small improvements in sharpness, CA, contrast and colouration that when combined produce that far superior image you have been trying to achieve.
Click to expand...

Sometimes, but not always.

Take something like a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 for example; £300 and in the same vein as the Canon or Nikon 17-55mm. Okay, not a quarter of the price (more like roughly half the price of the Canon and a third of the Nikon). Performance is exceptional in terms of IQ, which is pretty much the main reason for buying this type of lens. Build and AF isn't as good, but it's not far off. I haven't used the Canon but I've used the Nikon extensively and there is so little between the two that it could be argued that unless you either really want the Nikon, or can afford it, the Tamron is the better buy. But this is not a common scenario - Tamron just happen to have made a corker :)

What you've said does apply though to say, a superzoom like the NAF 80-400mm when you compare against a prime like a 400mm f/2.8, if it's only the long end you're interested in. But that's not really comparing like-for-like, there just happens to be a common ground in that both can cover 400mm.

Agreed as well that when you do buy into the high-end glass, the difference is noticeable in many respects (build, AF, IQ, bokeh), but that's why you upgraded fro your cheap it lens to a pro-spec one.

I am however continuously amazed looking at galley sections in magazines and on image sites like Flickr, that people ca use relatively modest kit to produce stunning images. Likewise, I'm amazed at how some people can 'waste' the attributes of high-end kit, but that can often be down to the photographer's level of skill, not how much they have to spend.
 
Although I have always believed in good glass a little common scents is needed just as you would not choose a howitzer to shot a pidgin what you are aiming for is an important consideration.
What is the end product, if the images are only going to be seen on a monitor or a high st printed A4 I think you are unlikely you will see the difference also CA and contrast can be fix by many camera bodies or PP.
 
Normally you do get what you pay for but there are exceptions that break the rules,I know of a semi pro phoyographer who uses the kit Pentax lens and gets superb quality results.In addition lenses of simple construction like 50mm ones can deliver stunning quality for a very small outlay
 
I think the article that was posted on here about manufacturing tolerances and the outbreak of pixel peeping was very informative and how sometimes a 'bad lens' just means the body attached is set to a different tolerance level which exaggerates the lens flaws. Same lens on another body can be fine.

In camera lens correction seems to be the best answer.

I still don't expect much from a kit lens. Don't generally even bother using them. Silly really as it would be quite dumb for a manufacturer to release a kit lens that was really awful as everyone would slag the camera itself as a lot of the reviews tend to just compare the standard body using whatever standard lens that comes with it.
 
Touchy ground, this.

Does it take a better photographer to take good photos with a basic lens?
 
rizla01 said:
Touchy ground, this.

Does it take a better photographer to take good photos with a basic lens?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. I think a good photographer would just select a lens best suited to the desired objective, and every lens has it's particular qualities that will go for or against it for any given situation.
 
classcams said:
You get what you pay for. As I said before, you cannot make a silk purse out of a sows ear. My last purchase was a duffer. NIKON 55-300. But its less than £300.
Click to expand...

Although there are a few exceptions, this rule has always served me well.

rizla01 said:
Touchy ground, this.

Does it take a better photographer to take good photos with a basic lens?
Click to expand...

Generally I have found that good equipment is no substitute for talent.
 
Interesting comments on this thread. I particularly agree with those about the 17-50mm Tamron, which I've owned two of (the first one got smashed when my tripod toppled in the wind).

I looked around at alternatives after smashing the first but still went for another. This was a quality decision as much as a price decision. With the exception of the noisy AF it leaves little to be desired.

I could also spend a while banging on about the merits of the Tamron 90mm macro.

I often see people with nothing but Canon or Nikon lenses in their kits. Often these people won't even consider a third-party lens, which in my view is silly to say the least. Yes, Sigma have suffered in terms of QC issues, but so do Nikon and Canon at times. When it comes to built quality Tokina probably take the crown over all other brands.

Brand loyality is one thing, but it's important to consider lenses on a model-by-model basis, giving cafeful consideration to your requirements, the image and build quality of each lens before making a decision.

I have 4 lenses in my kit...Sigma 70-300, Tamron 17-50, Tamron 90mm and a Tokina 11-16mm which should be arriving tomorrow. If money was no object the only one which I would swap for a more expensive alternative would be the Sigma.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top