Premium Lenses - Are they really worth it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gingerweasel
  • Start date Start date
G

gingerweasel

Guest
Hi Guys,
I'm currently researching my next group of purchases and looking to move up to a full SLR from my GF1. I've been looking at a mid to pro level crop body and associated lenses.

I have around £2600 in total and I really want to get the best bang for my buck as this is probably my last bit of spare cash for the foreseeable future.

I was wondering whether or not premium lenses are the way to go?

I know people say invest in the best glass but I don't want to be limited to one or two lenses and stuck waiting until my next bit of cash for another lens (which could be a while).

Initially I was thinking Canon and the lenses that sprung to mind are the 24-70 f2.8L, 70-200 f2.8L but that's pretty much my cash. Nothing for my landscapes or macro.... and I want to experiment with various types of photography.

Is the image quality really that noticeable???? Suggestions?
 
Defiantely if you are looking for optimal quality or if you want to have some large prints done.
If it's just for a past time and your not going to be massively into it or getting paid for it you can get some cracking lenses at lower prices than the L series, I think one of these is the 17-55 F2.8 (I think)

But have you considered buying second hand?
Canon 5d MKI = £650
28-70 F2.8 = £450
70-200 F2.8 = £640
17-40 F4 = £365

That's the prices I paid for all my gear recently since Christmas.

So gives you an idea.

Many THanks
Jamie
 
If your going crop body then as Jamie said an 17-55 might be a better choice as it would cover wide angle i think the 24-70 might not fit in so well with a crop selection of lenses. and if you need to save cash maybe go for the f4 70-200.

Personally, I'd get the best i can second-hand.

I cant offer any personal opinion on weather its worth it for IQ though, as I've not ventured beyond my Nifty and kit lens!
 
Dont discount the F4 L lineup, cheaper and lighter unless you definately need (not want )the 2.8 range.
 
Thmaga said:
If your going crop body then as Jamie said an 17-55 might be a better choice as it would cover wide angle i think the 24-70 might not fit in so well with a crop selection of lenses. and if you need to save cash maybe go for the f4 70-200.

Personally, I'd get the best i can second-hand.

I cant offer any personal opinion on weather its worth it for IQ though, as I've not ventured beyond my Nifty and kit lens!
Click to expand...

Good to know I got the 17-55 correct lol. But again many people say that this lens is the same image quality as an L series lens and that it should be classed as a crop sensor L lens. The build quality isnt the same but if you are not using it for professional use that woulnd't matter.

Again a 17-40 wouldn't be the best choice on a crop sensor. Maybe a Canon/Sigma/Tamrom 10-22, 10-20, 11-14 or whatever range they are.

Hope that helps :D
 
another vote for the 70-200 f4. If you don't need f2.8 then it's an absolute belter of a lens. :)
 
AliB said:
another vote for the 70-200 f4. If you don't need f2.8 then it's an absolute belter of a lens. :)
Click to expand...

In some arguments I would definately agree with this but many people who get the F4 look to upgrade to the F2.8 anyway (not saying everyone)

And I managed to do some searching and waiting and got my 70-200 F2.8 for not far off the price of a F4 anyway
 
As a nikon user I can't comment on above lenses but the tamron 28-75 2.8 is a good walkabout lens, and even though I have a crop body, prefer that to my old nikon 17-55 2.8.

Compared to kit lenses this is far better, and even better than that is the 70-200 2.8 and my 50mm 1.4. You probably need to be more specific aboutbthe type of togging you will mainly do to get best advice.
 
trencheel303 said:
Cor, I knew Canon does some great value f/4 70-200s but I didn't think the 2.8 jobbies could be had for less than four figures...
Click to expand...

Depends on where you look.
They have just launched a 70-200 F2.8 IS MKII

I have a 70-200mm F2.8 non-IS MKI.
But they still go for £850-950.
I managed to get one that have a big scratch on the tripod collar, but the lens is MINT and optically sharp as anything.
So I just bought a new tripod collar and jobs a good'un
 
I'm certainly not looking to go pro - photography is a stress relief for me. A way of getting away from the day job and trying to produce something people like to look at.

Sure I wouldn't say it wouldn't be nice to see a picture published for the sense of achievement but other than that I'm a hobbyist.

I am pretty sure I'm going with crop, it seems more versatile for switching between the various types of photography so I can try a bit of everything. Canon or Nikon I'm undecided. Having previously owned both a 7D and a D300 I liked both - although Nikon seem to do some really nice cheaper lenses such as the 70-300 VR.

My only concern is the quality of images they might produce. I'm not looking to get billboard pictures but like I said it wouldn't hurt to aim for magazine quality images every time I shoot :-)

Sadly £3000 is the absolute max I could stretch to.... without selling my body ... in which case I could go to £3000.08
 
gingerweasel said:
I'm certainly not looking to go pro - photography is a stress relief for me. A way of getting away from the day job and trying to produce something people like to look at.

Sure I wouldn't say it wouldn't be nice to see a picture published for the sense of achievement but other than that I'm a hobbyist.

I am pretty sure I'm going with crop, it seems more versatile for switching between the various types of photography so I can try a bit of everything. Canon or Nikon I'm undecided. Having previously owned both a 7D and a D300 I liked both - although Nikon seem to do some really nice cheaper lenses such as the 70-300 VR.
My only concern is the quality of images they might produce. I'm not looking to get billboard pictures but like I said it wouldn't hurt to aim for magazine quality images every time I shoot :-)

Sadly £3000 is the absolute max I could stretch to.... without selling my body ... in which case I could go to £3000.08
Click to expand...

I dont necessarily agree with that comment, going on current Jessops prices
Nikon 70-300 VR - £449
Canon 70-300 IS - £439

They are pretty much identical
 
On a cropper, it doesn't get any better than:

10-22
17-55 2.8
70-200L 4 IS, plus 1.4x extender, plus set of tubes for macro.
50 1.8
Don't forget a decent flash
 
I can't speak for Canon glass, but on my side of the camp it's definitely worth it.

I'd be perfectly happy to shoot with nothing but the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 & 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses and Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 for the rest of my days. :)
 
It most certainly is worth getting hold of the best glass you can afford. But unless you really NEED something then you'd be a fool to go over your budget to buy one.

On a crop sensor then the 17-55mm is a fantastic lens that covers a very useful range, if you opt for a FF then the 24-70mm covers roughly the same area, although you can use the 24-70mm on a crop but you can't use the 17-55mm on a FF so that might be something to consider if you buy a crop now but plan on purchasing FF sometime in the future.

As for wide angle the choices are 10-22mm for crop and the 17-40mm which can be used on both crop and FF.

In terms mid-range zooms then the 70-200mm F4 (non IS) will give you the best quality at an amazing price, infact I believe it's the cheapest L glass available. Stunningly sharp and fast to autofocus even when compared to the consumer version which is the 55-250mm despite that itself being a very good lens for the money.

Alternatively there is the Sigma EX (Sigma's version of L) 18-50mm 2.8 macro lens (I believe it's 1:3) which I have read some very good reviews about. That there could solve your macro and landscape in one go!
 
Anyone who gets a crop sensor camera would be doing themselves a huge disservice to ignore the 17-55/2.8 IS just because they might upgrade to a full frame later. It's THE lens for crop and very very easily sellable either as a kit with the crop body or on it's own.

I think the rest has been already repeated to death - yes quality glass is worth it :)
 
gingerweasel said:
Hi Guys,
I'm currently researching my next group of purchases and looking to move up to a full SLR from my GF1. I've been looking at a mid to pro level crop body and associated lenses.

I have around £2600 in total and I really want to get the best bang for my buck as this is probably my last bit of spare cash for the foreseeable future.

I was wondering whether or not premium lenses are the way to go?

I know people say invest in the best glass but I don't want to be limited to one or two lenses and stuck waiting until my next bit of cash for another lens (which could be a while).

Initially I was thinking Canon and the lenses that sprung to mind are the 24-70 f2.8L, 70-200 f2.8L but that's pretty much my cash. Nothing for my landscapes or macro.... and I want to experiment with various types of photography.

Is the image quality really that noticeable???? Suggestions?
Click to expand...

You're thinking of buying those two lenses and then say that you wouldn't have a lens for landscapes?

:thinking:
 
He said a "full" DSLR, not "first", but I didn't notice that before either.

However, I'm wondering how a 7D or D300 are not "full DSLR", unless by "full" you mean "full frame". If so, £2600-3000 probably isn't going to buy a lot if you're also including the body in that cost.

I don't see why you weren't getting the "magazine quality" you were after with the D300 or 7D; unless it's down to user error. I don't think switching to a full frame is going to make much difference in that respect.

Why did you get rid of the D300 and 7D? What lenses did you use with those bodies?
 
There's an old saying about a fool changes his camera to improve his pictures whereas a good photographer changes his lenses and I'd say that's certainly true. I use a D300 but have hankered after a D700 since they were released. Recently I had the chance to buy a D700 but decided to spend the money on glass instead and I'm so glad I did! I now use a Nikon 24-70mm and a Nikon 70-200mm VR II and the difference in quality is astounding! The biggest difference comes when using large apertures - whereas I found my old Sigma 70-200 f2.8 next to useless at f2.8, the Nikon 70-200mm at f2.8 is razor sharp! I would always step down the Sigma to get a sharp image but would loose at that gorgeous bokeh - with the Nikon, though, I get it all :)
 
About a year ago I started getting more involved in my photography and went through a series of cameras in just two months - I was trying to find what suited me. I had the d300 for a few weeks (which I sold on TP) and the 7D for about two weeks (again sold on TP). I eventually went with the GF1 and 20mm prime based on a number of factors:

1) I was a beginner and it was easier to handle
2) I felt less self concious standing in public with a smaller camera
3) Portability, so I could take pictures as part of my daily routine

I now want to move to an SLR camera again to develop further. I'm not looking to buy a camera that will make me take better pictures, only I can do that. What I am looking for is the best bang for my buck.. no point spending 2k on lenses and realising they aren't sharp or have issues that more expensive lenses wouldn't.

@ Jerry - I'm still wet behind the ears but I was under the impression landscape togs went for wide and ultra wide angle. Which neither of those are on a crop?
 
The Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 is specifically for crop sensor bodies. On Nikon it's the equivalent that 15-30mm would be on a full frame sensor. On Canon it's the equivalent of 16-32mm. All of my "equivalent" numbers from this point on are related to Nikon, as that's what I shoot. Nikon is a 1.5x crop, and Canon is 1.6x.

Most of the time I'm using mine at around the 14-25mm mark (21-22.5mm equivalent). So, you can get wide on a crop body.

Plus, with digital photography, creating several images on a tripod and stitching them together in post is an easy way to do wide panoramic landscapes. I know a fella in Canada who regular makes landscapes with a 70mm f/2.8. He takes about 300 shots, then stitches them together in ptgui for large format printing. You don't need to go to that kind of a scale, but shooting 2 or 3 shots and stitching them together in Photoshop (it even has tools built in specifically for this purpose) is not a problem.

But, I've shot landscapes with a range of lenses. This one was shot with the D300s and 70-200mm f/2.8VR set at 200mm (equivalent to a 300mm lens on a full frame body - I actually wish I'd taken my 300mm lens with me for a 450mm equivalent).

4710451860_8e174d3b85.jpg


So, there isn't really a "landscape lens". As with pretty much any other type of photography, it's situational, and you need a good range. Sometimes it's better to get closer and shoot wide, sometimes it's better to get back and shoot long.
 
Go 2nd hand and you save about 1/3rd right away.

Also, go old and you can get the same quality (with fewer features) for a fraction of the price, for example, do you really need VR on the 70-200? Consider an 80-200 which can be had for as little as £350 and still offer sharpness at f/2.8.

Same applies to many other lenses, get the old generation pro lenses second hand, and you'll do well...
 
loplyg said:
Also, go old and you can get the same quality (with fewer features) for a fraction of the price, for example, do you really need VR on the 70-200? Consider an 80-200 which can be had for as little as £350 and still offer sharpness at f/2.8.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't necessarily agree that older iterations of pro lenses are necessarily as good as their modern counterparts. I certainly wouldn't agree that the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 is as sharp as the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR, and I wouldn't agree that the VR is as sharp across the whole frame as the VR2 on a full frame body. The coatings also get much better over time, decreasing the risks of flare and CA.

But, I do believe an 80-200mm f/2.8 will be sharper than a current consumer level (slower) equivalent.

On consumer level lenses, I find the opposite though.

The original Nikon 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6D (the one with the wider focus ring) was better (sharper, less CA) than the version of the 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6D (the one with the narrow focus ring) that replaced it, and both were better than the 28-80mm f/3-5.6G that came next.
 
gingerweasel said:
@ Jerry - I'm still wet behind the ears but I was under the impression landscape togs went for wide and ultra wide angle. Which neither of those are on a crop?
Click to expand...

If you only read the posts on here you will get the impression that you need an ultra-wide lens to do landscapes.

What is happening here is that people are re-defining a landscape as a picture taken outdoors with an ultra-wideangle lens!

I've been taking landscapes for too many years to mention and I have rarely needed an ultra-wide. When I got my first DSLR, it was a crop body, so a 17-40 zoom equated to the 28-70 range I had been using previously on film.

I still have the 17-40, and I have been using it instead of the wider end of my 24-105 to avoid barrel distortion. I sometimes use it in the 17-24 range, but not very often.

I have always used a telephoto zoom for landscapes as well, even on a crop body. Kaouthia mentions some of the reasons above. If you dismiss longer lenses for landscapes you're missing out on an awful lot of opportunities and subject matter.

I would suggest that the two lenses you mention above have a very good range to start doing with landscapes with!

j
 
Driving myself absolutely nuts over this.. it's so much cash to spend that I'm questioning decisions three or four times lol

Basically I can stick with the GF1 and expand my lens range or I can pickup a crop body with a range of budget lenses).

So here is a rough calculation:

GF1 Body (already own)
20mm f1.7 (already own)
7-14mm £914
45mm f2.8 £580
45-200 £260
Viewfinder £160

Total: 1914

(using nikon as an example but also looking at Canon)

Nikon D300s £1100
Nikkor 55-200 £150
Nikkor 10-24mm £598
Nikkor 35mm f1.8 £165

Total: £2016

How anyone ever chooses a system or lens set without going mad amazes me :-)
 
Most of us stumble into it accidentally:

Thirty years ago I bought a Nikon and a 50mm f/1.8 lens and built up my system gradually once I identified what other equipment I actually needed based not only on the photos that I took, but more importantly, based on the photos I couldn't take with what I had...

Your list reflects your desire to be able to cover every eventuality immediately.
 
Arkady said:
Most of us stumble into it accidentally:

Thirty years ago I bought a Nikon and a 50mm f/1.8 lens and built up my system gradually once I identified what other equipment I actually needed based not only on the photos that I took, but more importantly, based on the photos I couldn't take with what I had...

Your list reflects your desire to be able to cover every eventuality immediately.
Click to expand...

No one would ever accuse me of being a patient man :)

At the moment I am missing reach with just the 20mm and I would like to try macro. My real concern at the moment is whether as an amateur I stick with GF1 start moving into a full SLR system. This

I think the one think holding me back is the easy of which I can carry the GF1 around with me to snap away...
 
Arkady said:
Most of us stumble into it accidentally:

Thirty years ago I bought a Nikon and a 50mm f/1.8 lens and built up my system gradually once I identified what other equipment I actually needed based not only on the photos that I took, but more importantly, based on the photos I couldn't take with what I had...

Your list reflects your desire to be able to cover every eventuality immediately.
Click to expand...

Good point Rob - repent at leisure and all that.

I made the mistake of buying too much at once, and ended up with some stuff that either wasn't right, or that I hardly ever used. In particular, I've had four bites at the longer tele end, and it wasn't a question of cost.

I would say, get the lens that you'll use most first - that would be a standard range zoom in my case - and maybe even leave it at that for a while. Then make further selections one at a time.
 
Good thing about buying second hand, assuming you pay the right price, is that you can always sell it on for the same amount.

I've bought tons of Nikon lenses on a whim, used em a few times, then eBay'ed them for the same or more than I bought them for.

I would say that if you buy lenses for a GF1, they are going to depreciate really quick. A second hand Nikon 35 1.8 however will still be worth what you pay for it in a year or two's time. It's almost like photography for free!
 
loplyg said:
Good thing about buying second hand, assuming you pay the right price, is that you can always sell it on for the same amount.

I've bought tons of Nikon lenses on a whim, used em a few times, then eBay'ed them for the same or more than I bought them for.

I would say that if you buy lenses for a GF1, they are going to depreciate really quick. A second hand Nikon 35 1.8 however will still be worth what you pay for it in a year or two's time. It's almost like photography for free!
Click to expand...

That is a small part of the reason I feel drawn to the full DSLR system. That way when it comes time to upgrade or I feel like a lens change I should be able to pay for it from the sale of existing equipment (for the most part).

I've posted my GF1 for sale on here today and I'm finalising my 'to buy list'. Once I've decided on the complete list I'll be posting in the wanted section and seeing what I can muster 2nd hand. Assuming the prices are right I'm happy to pickup 2nd hand equipment.

My thoughts are Canon 50D, Canon 10-22mm, Canon 17-55mm f2.8, 70-200mm f4 L IS.

With an optional flash and 50mm prime at some point. Either the Canon f1.8 or the f1.4.

That should leave me quite a bit of learning to do over the next few months.

I was tempted by the Nikon kit too but I didn't want to spend D300s prices at the moment and I don't like the D90 having played with it in the shops.
 
That sounds like a great setup to me my friend.

Maybe if you're thinking about going down the flashgun route eventually, pick up a Jessops 360AFD, only £69 new and keep their value relatively well. But means you can practice well without the high speedlite prices
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top