Assuming that someone in their 20's has no experience with high end photo equipment is a bad one to make, especially on tech centric sites. Some of them have more money than they know what to do with, although I'm not among them.
Expensive Fast Lenses Really Better ?
(75 posts) (21 voices)-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
Paperman said:
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 ?? :-)
No, I know the importance of fast glass. Not a doubt you're going to want to use fast glass on a D3 series camera to justify the cost of the body. It's just that I can't afford any of it, so I'm not too bothered by lens specifications. I do read a lot of camera and lens reviews though. There's a difference. :D
I have fun with the 35mm 1.8. My one piece of fast glass is also one of the most fun and cheap ones out there.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Believe me NSXTypeR my words were not for you other than the first sentence ...
Posted 2 years ago # -
I think everyone can make their own decisions. You're right, Paperman, that it will leave a lot of consumers with gear that is overengineered for what they're doing, but it's their money and if it helps Nikon's bottom line it doesn't hurt other Nikon users much.
You haven't been around the forum for long, but I think you'll be surprised about the people here if you think they're (we're) anything but pragmatic. These aren't knee-jerk, brand-loyal defenses of expensive lenses but just people saying that the pro-quality lenses do make sense for some people. As you said above, MTF isn't the only metric that counts when deciding on a lens. Some people know they are going to abuse...er...use their gear in situations where a cheap build just won't cut it or where the wider aperture is going to give them creative options that aren't available with a kit lens. Everyone is entitled to and responsible for doing their own homework and weighing the costs and benefits of their gear-buying choices.
I don't agree with you, though, that the only options are the kit lenses and the expensive lenses. Some of the older lenses are beautiful. I loved a 50 1.2 AI-S that I had but sold it to get the 35 1.8 and I'm glad I did (I already had a 50 1.8, too). My dad has a 70-210 f/4D that is no slouch in sharpness—I'm pretty sure it beats my Tamron 70-200 2.8 at 200mm and f/4. Some of the third party lenses are great. I've been absolutely satisfied with my Tamron 17-50 2.8 and 70-200 2.8. Combined, they cost me $1050. (And, incidentally, it's not just for monitor viewing—I print with both of them to 20"x30" ;-)
Posted 2 years ago # -
Hey! Hey, man! Fine I will come clean. The only reason why I buy/prefer pro-lenses is because they are built tough,and are huge. It compensates for my penis size. I also painted my 80-200 in white creamy colour to make it certain to people that I am the REAL deal.
There I said it already! Now leave me alone! I have girls to impress with my big lenses.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Okay, so poster isn't so pragmatic... ;-)
Posted 2 years ago # -
Wow, poster, so the truth comes out. :-p
Jonny hit the nail on the head. There are times I think I might have spent too much on some of my gear, but once I go out and start shooting those thoughts are gone. Frankly when I'm out shooting I forget all about the gear and focus on getting the photos I want to take, whether I'm using my camera phone, film camera, or D300, it doesn't matter. I guess I just don't need to compensate for anything...
Posted 2 years ago # -
Poster's words actually conclude the subject but let me have a last go and answer jonnyapple.
I know what it is like to be new in a forum ; we do the same to wise asses that have just joined our forums we've been writing in for years, and that's really the fun part of it. Forums wouldn't last long if you don't have those who jump in occasionally thinking they know everything :-). In this case , I guess it is me ...
Coming to the subject,if you read the very first paragraph that I wrote , I said I can't find any expensive glass which is " SHARPER " than my kit 18-135mm lens . After that ,I have indicated several times that that I'm not saying pro lenses are overall not better than some kit zooms but just indicating that they were not SHARPER . I said I was the scenery guy just looking for SHARPNESS and didn't care about speed,shallow depth of field,bokeh,build etc .
When KyoshiNikon said he thought his 17-35mm f2.8 was sharper , I just laid out the MTF resolution lab tests which proved otherwise . These are not figures open to discussion , they are facts .
The foofie guy and someone else couldn't understand the subject was "sharpness" and went on with his sarcasm & wise comments and so we ended up arguing about subjects which I never disagreed anyway.
I'm open to discuss everything as long as it is backed with numbers/figures/lab results . That is how one judges or rates machines,electronics,optics. Your or someone else's opinion is not enough to convince me if I don't see it in numbers .
Coming to your last paragraph regarding other good lenses - some misunderstanding there ...When I say kit lens , I'm not only talking about the "kit lens" that comes with a camera but all lenses in the $100-600 or maybe $700 range , old / new or any cheapish lens like your dad's 70-210 f4. So there is nothing I don't agree there . I'm also not saying there are no bad crap Nikon cheap lenses there ; tons of them . I did have my share of real crappy ones like 70-300mm G or 35-80mm in the past . And I also do use 28 & 50mm Nikon primes ( even though they proved not to be "sharper" :-) ) so don't think I am addicted to kit zooms.
And poster ,you're forgetting about the battery pack and how great it will look on you . But take my word , girls don't care much about the photo gear . But do watch out - there will be some big boys impressed by your equipment :-) ..
Posted 2 years ago # -
So you are a landscape photographer. Cool, but not everybody is. Some people may need to have faster aperture or better built. That's where the premium cost comes in. Oh and of course marketing, lol. You sell it for whatever the market is willing to pay for it.
I don't like battery packs. that's for geeks. I am a cool guy afterall.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Paperman said:
The foofie guy and someone else couldn't understand the subject was "sharpness" and went on with his sarcasm & wise comments and so we ended up arguing about subjects which I never disagreed anyway.
But you weren't talking strictly about sharpness, even before anyone (myself) made any wisecracks. You'd already brought in every single other variable. Which i'm fine with, don't get me wrong, I fully believe in educating yourself and being a smart consumer. But I was a bit confused as to the point of your rant (I suppose I could have articulated this better, hah), You seemed to have no real interest in hearing what anyone had(/s) to say as you've already done your research. The question you asked is "are expensive fast lenses really better", and for someone who seems to want to look at it so meticulously and numerically, I'm confused by your conclusion. They are factually better. Just because they are not in your price range (or much more importantly) do not suit your needs doesn't mean they are worse.
let me put it another way. I have car A and car B. Car A is a good car, fast, good handling, brakes, etc. Car B is quite a bit more expensive, but guess what, it's still a car and it still does all those things cars like to do, despite being technically better (because even if it's just a little better, it IS "better"). However, I don't have the money nor do I have the need for car B, and thats that. If either of those factors change then the situation changes, but until then why bother worrying about it?
OH YEAH, because its fun. :)
Paperman said:
Coming to your last paragraph regarding other good lenses - some misunderstanding there ...When I say kit lens , I'm not only talking about the "kit lens" that comes with a camera but all lenses in the $100-600 or maybe $700 range , old / new or any cheapish lens like your dad's 70-210 f4. So there is nothing I don't agree there .This seems a bit like flawed logic though. Although lenses don't depreciate in value too drastically. Many top of the line older lenses can now be had for quite a bit less. Taking into account that these were in fact the "expensive" lenses of the day, it seems a bit strange that only because of time they no longer fit into that category. Or maybe not, to be honest i've been up since 6:15 (I don't know about you guys, but thats early for me) doing manual labor (I don't know about you guys, but that's not an average day for me, hah) in 106 degree temperature (I don't know about you guys, but this IS unfortunately an average day for me), so my logic in everything I just posted might be completely ridiculous. haha, woops.
anyway, welcome to the forum! (not that i've been here long either. [>0.0]>
Posted 2 years ago # -
I wasn't trying to be condescending or hostile, Paperman. You're welcome here just like anyone else and we're all looking to learn.
I'm a scientist so arguments are something I love and never (or rarely) take personally. Sorry I mistook your meaning about non-expensive lenses. I think most arguments happen because of misunderstandings, and I see now that we're actually on the same side of the argument. ;-)
Not to provoke, but I think you actually can argue in some cases that the methods behind getting the numbers could be flawed. If the measured numbers represent reality, that's when you can't argue with them.
Posted 2 years ago # -
foofiebeast said:
Or maybe not, to be honest i've been up since 6:15 (I don't know about you guys, but thats early for me) doing manual labor (I don't know about you guys, but that's not an average day for me, hah) in 106 degree temperature (I don't know about you guys, but this IS unfortunately an average day for me), so my logic in everything I just posted might be completely ridiculous.Sounds awful, foofie! Get some sleep.
Posted 2 years ago # -
"But you weren't talking strictly about sharpness, even before anyone (myself) made any wisecracks ...."
Yes I was , read my first paragraph please .I admit the title was misleading though - should have been "Expensive Glass really Sharper ?? ". Thought about changing it as soon as I did my first post but wasn't sure if it would allow me.
And I did have interest in hearing if anyone had any suggestions or information on a sharper lens. Someone did mention the the 17-35mm which I immediately checked and found out to be no different . No one else came with the sharpness issue , but just tried to explain how other things mattered - to which I had no objection anyway.
And the rest - you lost me foofie,sorry ...Maybe it's you,maybe me ...
Jonnyapple , I was at no stage offended by your language . Wish Nikonrumors featured some emoticons to prevent misunderstandings & gave an idea about the mood the person writing was in. :-)
Posted 2 years ago # -
foofie
I did roofing construction two years ago. Work started from 6am to 3pm. Commute to the work site was about 2.5 hours each way.
Suck it up, lol!
The whole question of OP is ridiculous. He cares about sharpness. So all other factors are out the window when comparing lenses.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Paperman said:
"But you weren't talking strictly about sharpness, even before anyone (myself) made any wisecracks ...."Yes I was , read my first paragraph please .I admit the title was misleading though - should have been "Expensive Glass really Sharper ?? ". Thought about changing it as soon as I did my first post but wasn't sure if it would allow me.
Please read this post you made (really just the first two sections) that comes about 4-5 posts before my "wisecrack"
Paperman said:
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 : 1.04/0.74/0.87It'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 :-(
while you initially were talking about sharpness, I was responding to this post (which was your response to someone else bringing up these factors). Regardless of who brought them up initially though, your claim that you were "strictly talking about sharpness" (to quote myself apparently, lol) isn't true. In your post you devalue the need of any of the features outside of sharpness (sometimes justified I think, sometimes not).
but this too is probably a misunderstanding. the internet is tough business! NR emoticons would be nice to denote that we are still chatting lightly, but in place of that I think you can pretty safely assume that 99% of the people on here seem very nice and any joking I've seen (not much, pretty solemn lot overall ;0 ) seems pretty lighthearted. And that goes for arguments as well. as Jonny said we're really all here to learn and share.
Posted 2 years ago # -
poster said:
foofieI did roofing construction two years ago. Work started from 6am to 3pm. Commute to the work site was about 2.5 hours each way.
Suck it up, lol!
The whole question of OP is ridiculous. He cares about sharpness. So all other factors are out the window when comparing lenses.
Right, but how often were you literally waist deep and barefoot in a concrete pond fountain in the worst part of town, that passing by homeless people inform you that they shit and piss in there, while you have your arm fully submersed as well trying to pry off the damn plug to drain the bit...canon, to drain the canon dslr.
Posted 2 years ago # -
LOL! thats sounds like something you will remember for a long time ! ahh.. thats what life is made of.. memories ... a memory to savour for sure ! LOL Did you take a photo ?
Posted 2 years ago # -
guys, but please don't forget that fast glass is not only about sharpness. in my case it's about speed, AF speed. there's no way a kit lens will be as fast as any of the fixed 2.8 aperture zooms nikon has to offer. and properly working AF = either I get the snap or I don't get it at all.
as for using high quality glass on lower bodies, well.... glass is glass and I would never trade the best glass = lower body set for top of the chart body + shitty lens.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Don't worry Adams, I seem to be the only one caring about sharpness - everyone else seems to be after other things in lenses - speed,build quality,bokeh,AF performance, etc, - anything but sharpness . I must admit it surprised me to be the only one after sharpness which I always thought had to be the key property of expensive glass .
It all leads me to think that maybe the mountain is already conquered in lens sharpness and this is as good as it gets ...Must be, if Nikon is allowing kit lenses hit same lw/bh figures as their top of the line glass.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Yay, my first post. Your ignorance about other aspects beside sharpness makes me register. :D'
You are an amateur and a landscaper so expensive and fast lenses don't matter. That I cannot disagree. What about other amateurs that like to shoot portrait? Fast lenses do matter. What about other amateurs that like to shoot their sons' football match? Fast lenses do matter. You sound like you are the only Nikon amateur that Nikon should base their marketing decision on.
Anyhow, Sharpness is NOT the ONLY thing that will define a picture. Color rendition is also an important characteristic as well. How the lens is designed. How the lens is coated. N coating contributes to the cost too. It is true that you can post process a picture, but can you mimic the look of other lens? I doubt that. Check this video out (about 3:20 mark)
This might not be the most scientific way to test a lens but it conveys my message. If you don't agree. Can anyone help me out?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Welcome to the forum and well said sselemit!
Posted 2 years ago # -
As a new dslr user of about 6000 shots, I can comment on a specific pair of lenses with a big price difference that may be an obvious observation..
Under huge sunlight I have shots from a $600 70-300mm that are as sharp as the $1400 300mm F4, one might wonder the difference in price if that's all they saw.
But add a few clouds, or tree shadow, or setting sun, and the 70-300mm can't come close, no matter the shutter speed/aperture adjustments I make to help it out.
Just saying, the difference can be more than 1 or 2 stops.. although an image comparison test could be nearly identical.-Mike
Posted 2 years ago # -
Sselemit , please read everything all over again - SLOOOWWLY this time to understand the real discussion. The discussion is not about expensive lenses being better ; it is about if they are sharper .
Unfortunately, I realized I opened the topic with a wrong sentence but it was too late to change. But reading the first paragraph I ever wrote in the topic clearly explains what I was after.
And if anyone says " don't judge a lens by sharpness " again and start talking about speed,CA,durability,DOF etc ., I will try writing in some German,Italian,Spanish maybe ...
Posted 2 years ago # -
Welcome to the forum Mike.
OK so lets take this a bit further. Why even get a DSLR since some point & shoots offer the "same" image quality under "ideal" lighting as a DSLR with kit lens. As long as the "sharpness numbers" all add up. Same theory isn't it? Why get "pro" glass if a kit lens gives better sharpness? Why get a DSLR if a point & shoot gives you better sharpness, color, and portability?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Point & shoot offering same quality as a DSLR ! You must be joking ...
Posted 2 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
