Expensive Fast Lenses Really Better ?

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon Lenses

Expensive Fast Lenses Really Better ?

(75 posts) (21 voices)

Tags:

12 3 Next »

Paperman

preferred member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 297
offline

Hi Guys ,

New in the forum but not so new in photography . I've been looking into buying some expensive glass for my D300 lately - currently using a 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 & 50 mm f1.8 . The thing is whatever lens I look at - let's say the 17-35 mm f2.8 ( the $1500 oe so lens )or the 14-24mm f2.8G or any of the primes , I see in tests that they are no sharper or maybe in some cases very slightly sharper ( center or border ) than my 18-135mm kit lens which gives over 2ooo LW/PH . OK, vignetting & aberrations are better in expensive lenses but they are still there and nothing really justifies paying ( as an amateur ) 3-5 times more except for the 1-2 stop difference ( which matters less and less with today's ISO capabilities ) . And , of course , the build quality - some will say .

For me , sharpness comes ahead of everything and the tests say the $1000-2000 lenses will not give me more than what I'm getting with a kit lens. Any thoughts ?

Posted 2 years ago #
poster

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 779
offline

I love constant aperture lenses. ISO on my camera sucks so that's how I justify my purchases. Keep in mind that bumping up the iso decreases your dynamic range, and overall quality of the image.

But yes I do agree that it's hard for an amateur to justify buying these lenses. I treat photography as a way to relive my stress and just something that allows me to express myself creatively. maybe one day i will be able to do it for work, so I consider all of my purchases as simply investments.

Another thing to consider is this. If you have kids/family there are precious moments and events that we would like to preserve. Investing in better lenses/equipment or just simply learning to use your point and shoot or your DSLR can help you do that on your own. That just gives a sense of satisfaction.

Just keep in mind that sharpness isn't everything. there's more to a good image than corner-to-corner sharpness.

Posted 2 years ago #
ionphoenix

junior member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 8
offline

somehow it is. if you are shooting in low light... you know that iso messes up image quality.. but i dont think sharpness differ that much unless you will get a tamron.. it all sums up to the build and glass quality used by the manufacturer...nikon lenses does a very good job at this and so is tokina... my heirarchy is always nikon-tokina-sigma..that's it. ^^,

Posted 2 years ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

The 18-135 is considered a very sharp lens esp in the center. (Hurray for nikon kit lenses! ) but the CA at the edges is also one of the highest.

Although sharpness is a good thing. There are several other considerations that make a more expensive lens more valuable to a photographer.

1) Build quality.
1.a) the 18-135 has a plastic mount while the more expensive ones have metal mounts. For amateur use this probably doesn't make a difference at all but some pros are really rough with their gear or work in rough environments so they need the metal mounts.
1.b) weather sealing.
1.c) Robustness.

2) Image quality
2.a) Sharpness -
2.b) Chromatic Aberration
2.c) Vignetting
2.d) Distortions, Barrel or pincushion. astigmatism
2,e) Bokeh.
2.f) Bigger Aperture results in better separation from the background/foreground. This is the main thing that people buy the expensive lenses for in terms of IQ.

So for most of us the kit lenses are all we need. if you don't see the need for the differences. Just save your money for trips and holidays so you can use the gear for capturing memories and great images!

Posted 2 years ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

The 18-135mm is a great lens, not a very fast one, but a good all rounder.

And yes, you do get what you pay for.

Posted 2 years ago #
kanuck

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,405
offline

Hey,

I got into a big arguement with my brother about this topic. I feel that the expensive glass needs an expensive body behind it in order to maximize the benefits of purchasing it. For example, my Zeiss ZF prime lens produces better images on my D700 than my D300 and D80. The D700 sensor produces cleaner images with less noise and sharpness right acrossed the images thanks to the full frame sensor. The problem is people buy these pro lenses like the 24-70 for their D90, but it was really intended for a D3s or a high level body. Then complain when they don't see $1000 worth of difference between the 18-200mm DX lens and the 24-70mm. You need the high end body to go with these pro lenses to get full value.

All Nikkors are wonderful anyways right? Seriously how many bad lenses has Nikon made in their entire line? Maybe 3-5 in 50 years?

Posted 2 years ago #
kanuck

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,405
offline

As a sidenote my brother has a 5D Mark II with cheaper 17-40 lens. This lens was great on his 5D but not on his higher MP 5D Mark II. He is using Zeiss lenses with it mostly or the awsome 100mm Macro. Again the pro glass needs a pro higher MP/iso performance body.

Posted 2 years ago #
Paperman

preferred member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 297
offline

It looks like everyone agrees that sharpness - which is the key reason I prefer a lens over another since I mainly shoot scenery - does not change much between the $300 kit and $1800 pro lens . All the resolution tests indicate the same . The expensive glass lenses hit 2000-2200 lw/ph in middle and 1800-2000 lw/ph in borders but so does my 18-135 mm kit zoom.

I agree with sharpness being not the only issue but let's go over the rest .

- Vignetting & distortions : Exist also in pro lenses but maybe half of what it is in kit lenses . They are both easy to get rid of in PC if you need to or just crop the corners for vignetting.

- (Shallow ) Depth of field , bokeh : Useful but I don't need that when shooting scenery trying to get everywhere crisp sharp.

- Chr. Aberrations : for 24-70 mm f2.8 at 5.6 24mm/40mm/70mm : 0,81/0,60/0.56
for 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 at 5.6 18mm/35mm/70mm : 1.04/0.74/0.87

It's not like it is non-existent in the $1800 lens ! Just a bit less ...

- Build Quality/plastic vs metal/weather sealing/robustness : So what ? I've never had a kit lens that broke down and even if it does I can replace it 3-4 times with what I saved in the first place

And if you drop them on concrete , they both break - the difference being the pro glass makes a $1800 sound when it does :-)

So I guess the main difference comes to speed - to the 1 or 2 stops advantage . Well , for me it doesn't matter as I shoot scenery and use a monopod most of the time. For someone shooting sports , I'm sure it will make a huge difference.

I still say sharpness is the most important factor in lens quality and when it comes to that , there is no difference between the $300 and $2000 lens ....And can you believe the $100 valued 18-55mm that came with my wife's D5000 is actually even sharper ! !

I think we should consider ourselves lucky that Nikon builds such high quality cheap zooms . It's not the case with Canon - what I hear .

After months of looking at lens tests, I convinced myself it is not worth giving an extra $1000 for each lens for 5% more in image quality and the 1-1.5 stop difference . Especially when you are using the best/center part of the glass in DX anyway . I won't be fooled into paying 4-5 times as much for a lens that is only 5-10% better than the one that comes in a cheaper looking packaging .

I also have a lot to say about the so called "wonderful" prime lenses - the $150 to $350 range - ( which are also supposed to be better in image quality than the kit zooms but actually aren't ) but I will leave it to some other time . Unfortunately , this time I was tricked into buying 2 of them :-(

Posted 2 years ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

If you haven't yet, you ought to try VR sometime, too, Paperman. the 18-105 VR is an great lens for what it costs and is extremely sharp wide open.

Posted 2 years ago #
Paperman

preferred member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 297
offline

The 18-105 VR is the only one I'm thinking about, to be honest . The image quality is not better than the 18-135 according to tests ,but just the VR is enought to justify the change .

Posted 2 years ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

I have to admit that I haven't tried the 18-135, but I've tried the other kit lenses (18-55 and VR, 18-70) and the 18-105 is the best so far in my opinion.

Posted 2 years ago #
kyoshinikon

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 1,200
offline

I own both the 18-70mm and the 17-35 f2.8 and will say that the difference between the 2 is phenomenal. On the 17-35mm f2.8 edges are much sharper and don't vignette, the bokeh is creamier than a fresh brie, it doesn't ghost or get chromatic aberrations nearly as much, and the build is fantastic. Another pet peeve of the 18-70mm (which served me well) was the non fixed range which would cause me to hit the lens on something while I am carrying it on my shoulder, because I forgot to close the lens. The AF also seemed to be more responsive and accurate too.

I like having a solid and durable lens and almost shoot 2.8 exclusively so it was well worth it for me. Also the sharpness shows up when you print it at 20x30 inches and could be why my entire bag is f2.8's...

Posted 2 years ago #
poster

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 779
offline

Like I said good lenses are an investment. You get what you pay for.

Posted 2 years ago #
Paperman

preferred member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 297
offline

Kyoshinikon , "the sharpness shows up when you print it at 20x30 inches"

Not according to lens resolution / MTF tests . They show similar results. Here are some figures for you :

17-35 mm f2.8

17mm f2.8....f4...f5.6....f8
Center 2215 2244 2189 2053
Border 1541 1920 2020 1928

35mm f2.8....f4....f5.6....f8
Center 1944 2049 2127 2054
Border 1726 1737 1751 1786

and now my $300 18-135 F3.5-5.6 kit lens

18mm f3.5....f5.6...f8
Center 2223 2244 2174
Border 1881 2025 1943

35mm f4.2....f5.6...f8
Center 2248 2262 2195
Border 1803 1871 1914

I'm sorry but the cheap kit lens seems to beat the $2000 glass in sharpness . Let's not forget , the kit zoom has another 100 mm to go after 35 mm unlike the 17-35 mm . The 17-35 also has considerable distortions - (2.3% vs 3.3% in the 18-135 mm ) and believe it or not , the chromatical aberration at 18 mm is not much different from the 18-135's ( 0.94 vs 1.04 )

I believe in figures ; the eye sees what it wants to see ...

----------

Poster ,

" Like I said good lenses are an investment " - TRUE , you will always sell it at a good price

" You get what you pay for. " - NOT REALLY

Posted 2 years ago #
foofiebeast

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 427
offline

lol paperman, you've figured it out, all expensive lenses are an elaborate plot by the camera and lens companies to steal your money, and in actuality they off no advantages whatsoever. good work.

cheers.

Posted 2 years ago #
pcraigs

member
Joined: Nov '09
Posts: 44
offline

I say it depends if you need them. Like you said your mainly shoot scenery and does not require the faster aperture and the weight. By F8 they are very similar. Might as well spend the money on a ultrawide and/or fisheye. For me prime lens is just *light weight* alternatives, Like on travel I rather carry the 20mm F2.8, 50mm F1.4 and 85mm F1.4 over a single 24-70mm.

And the reason why expensive lens are so expensive because they are target for professional who make money with their equipment. And who need the extra speed in both aperture and focus speed.

Posted 2 years ago #
Paperman

preferred member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 297
offline

How else would 8 pieces of glass in a plastic casing be worth more than a complete D300s with sensor,shutter,processor,screen,electronics,pentaprism,etc ..?

foofiebeast - trying to sound smart is usually the easiest thing to do .Let us know if you have anything to say about the actual test figures above.

I would buy an expensive glass for speed,yes - if speed were important for me.Or if I were using a D3x/s or so. But just for more image quality on a DX / D300,it is just a waste.

pcraigs , agree totally ..

Posted 2 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

All I "see" from your argument paperman are numbers so I won't believe anything you say until you show me actual image samples to prove your point. Preferably of brick walls, flowers, or dogs & cats.

Posted 2 years ago #
Paperman

preferred member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 297
offline

You don't believe in numbers but you think you will see the difference in your 1280 pixel PC screen :-)??

Come'on Nikobody - that's what tests are for ...so that your wishful thinking does not effect your judgement and you don't see what you want to see.
No one can argue what figures show; they are not open to discussion and they reflect the facts.

I would gladly give you links to my photos but you won't see any dogs/cats ( I passed that stage 20 years ago ). The flowers are not my interest and please note I have said nothing about macro lenses . The walls ... not interesting for me either ; funny we don't see any "wall image tests" of lenses as they must really be very important.

Posted 2 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

It's not a true lens test unless there's a photo of a brick wall.

Anyway I'm looking forward to hearing about your conspiracy theories on Apple products so send me the link to that essay too.

Posted 2 years ago #
PB PM

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 2,217
offline

When it comes to lenses it depends on your needs. I doubt the average consumer will notice the difference between high end lenses and low end ones. On the other hand, I can tell you right now that I noticed a huge difference between my 300mm F4 AF-S and the telephoto lenses that I used before that were consumer grade.

Posted 2 years ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

foofiebeast said:
lol paperman, you've figured it out, all expensive lenses are an elaborate plot by the camera and lens companies to steal your money, and in actuality they off no advantages whatsoever. good work.

cheers.

LOL

@ paperman : All my points you addressed nicely. and its in total agreement with what I said. so +1 for me again !! :-) Ooohh I like being Plussed!

But seriously, People do see and feel and need the differences. Thats why they are made and thats why people pay good money for the lenses.
One point I didn't bring up is af speed, accuracy and subject tracking.

@kanuck : Re: the lens being sharper and better on the D700 vs the D300. That one of the weird things about a DX vs FX. if a lens is not very good the larger pixes of the FX sensor makes the images from the lens look sharper than on a DX sensor. Ie the DX sensor needs lenses that are sharper than for FX. So the logic is actually reversed.. a not so good lens works better on FX rather than on DX (thats for sharpness ).

Posted 2 years ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

heartyfisher said:
@kanuck : Re: the lens being sharper and better on the D700 vs the D300. That one of the weird things about a DX vs FX. if a lens is not very good the larger pixes of the FX sensor makes the images from the lens look sharper than on a DX sensor. Ie the DX sensor needs lenses that are sharper than for FX. So the logic is actually reversed.. a not so good lens works better on FX rather than on DX (thats for sharpness ).

+1 assuming larger pixel pitch in FX (better to be plussed than nonplussed, right hearty?)

Posted 2 years ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

My head hurts.

Let's just stick to taking photos and not argue about optics.

Crap, I'm taking physics next semester...

Posted 2 years ago #
Paperman

preferred member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 297
offline

If you own a D3x/s , you should go for expensive glass . Having a $5000-$8000 camera justifies heading for that 5-10% difference in performance . If you paid that much on a DSLR and if you'll be paying it every 2-3 years, nothing should stop you from spending just a few grands more on optics. After all, the money you spend in lenses will only be a percentage of what you will be spending for cameras over 10-20 years.

On the other hand , if you are the amateur with a $1000-$1500 D90 or D300 , you must just decide what you need the lens for .

If you need the speed in a zoom lens, go for the f2.8 expensive glass - you just have no other options - Nikon doesn't make fastbut cheap kit zooms .

If you are shooting birds,wildlife etc ,again go for it for both quality and speed as again there are no cheap versions of 300/400/600 mm Nikon primes .

I'm none of the above and so are most amateur photographers. Nikon does not have the the average serious hobbyist in mind using APS-C cameras when developing the $2000 lens. ( but surely is thankful many of them think it is made for themselves ) There are tons of options for the general photographer shooting the 18-100 mm range - it is up to him to spend $120 or $ 2000 on just one lens .

If you are too lazy to spend 10 minutes and look at lens lab tests before you go for a lens , you can as well listen to the crowd (or the salesman) and assume only the $1500-$2000 lens will give you the desired quality or sharpness on your APS-C sensor camera.

And you probably will only be looking at the 12Mp photos taken with the $2000 lens on a 1280 x800 (1Mp)screen for years - checking how beautiful and how high quality they are , hoping one day you will have your own 12x16 prints.

------------

NSXTypeR..., Gee - you made me realize I'm in the middle of some 20s' guys. Surely some of you are all too young to have the first hand experience in lenses and you don't seem to read much about them either . So where does all this knowledge ( of the wise guys only ) come from ?? :-)

Posted 2 years ago #