Which is shot with the "expensive" lens....

[Chubster]

One of these was taken with my new £900 lens and the other a "cheap" £280 one...which is which, you decide

1.


1AB_3844 by ob1chubster, on Flickr

2.


1AB_3239 by ob1chubster, on Flickr

 

[D-pearce92]

Going to guess number 1 is the expensive one. I am probabley wrong though.

 

[M4FFU]

I think #1.

 

[zicklurky]

Yeah I'd say #1 as well

 

[Bend The Light]

#2 is the expensive one.

 

[deadalus3000]

I think #2 as well...

 

[Chubster]

One was the new Siggy f2.8 70-200 and No 2 Tamron VC USD 70-300......Amazing what the Tamron can do in the right light

 

[Nespresco]

#2 appears to have more detail, but its hard to tell with small samples.

 

[Dark Knight]

One was the new Siggy f2.8 70-200 and No 2 Tamron VC USD 70-300......Amazing what the Tamron can do in the right light

Exactly.... but as you say a real good image !!!

 

[weybourne]

#2 appears to have more detail, but its hard to tell with small samples.

I looked at the 2048 images in Flickr.

I thought that #1 was a lot crisper and better contrast overall but that in places the detail appeared better in #2 (e.g. hair in the tail and mane) but I put that down to more contrast due to the colour of the horse at those points.

 

[Arwensarah]

I prefer one, the contrast is sharper but honestly they are great shots

 

[Bikeman]

I went for No1, but both are very good .....considering the £600 difference .
I would guess if the shots were taken at wider apertures and less depth of field the quality of the bohke would give it away the more expensive lens would then maybe show better.

 

[Dave in Wales]

#2

 

[SoDoSoPa]

I went with 1# due to it having more contrast and colour but i also thought there was more detail on the riders clothes, But yeah very hard to tell apart.