More expensive lens means a better image.

willowdogger

Senior Member
Took this image with my D7000 and a basic 18-55mm lens. If I spend money on a more expensive lens, what improvements would I see in the image?
Edale Skyline-601.jpg
 

ShootRaw

Senior Member
In general a better piece of glass like a 2.8 or faster will help out in low-light situations...And having a constant aperture will allow better DOF..
Thus letting you shoot at a lower ISO for better image quality..
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
I have to agree with Sparky...That's a pretty cooked image you've posted so your question is difficult to answer but, in general (and I do mean "in general"), better glass buys you "speed" via a faster, and/or constant, aperture. It can also buy you better overall image sharpness (or significantly better sharpness in the corners/edges where many less expensive lenses typically go soft), less distortion (barrel/pincushion), less chromatic aberration and better contrast.

That being said, if you're happy with what your current 18-55mm is giving you, then you don't need to buy better glass.

....
 

stmv

Senior Member
The old lens make a photographer myth,, and bait,, my first 8 years with a Nikon was with two lens,, 1 50mm and the hated,, 43-86 zoom,, granted it was the later 43-86 improved version,, but once a lens is dammed always dammed.

lens are part of the tool kit, and actually the 18-55 is a very sharp lens, that does its job fine within the context of its design.. Let see
bright light, close subject, sure,, a nice lens.

I have collected lens over time,, because I wanted some type of extension to my photography, such as more reach, or low light, or macro, or ultra wide angle, or flexible zoom, or etc etc etc,

its a matter of matching the lens to the subject at hand,, why we have an interchangeable lens system,, otherwise, buy a nice high
end 3/4 sensor all in one camera.

My biggest complaints on lens is the distortion,, and second is the aberration, sharpness is actually low on my complaints.

but in the end,, its the subject, lighting, and my abilities to frame the shot that makes the shot work or not,,
 

willowdogger

Senior Member
Heavily edited? The reason it has so "much" editing is to give the subject matter a grittiness that fell runners have in bucket loads. It's not something I do on a regular basis, but I do feel it works for this subject matter. Apologies to the purists. Being a "hobbyist" , I won't be worrying the semi-pros amongst this group. Yet another "dreadful" image from my collection.

Langsett 3.3.14-6.jpg
 

480sparky

Senior Member
I'm not ragging on your editing, process or intent. But the image posted gives no clue as to your current lens' capabilities, nor have you made mention of what said lens is not doing for you.

In short...... if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
 

Dave_W

The Dude
You have nice compositions but your dynamic range is very narrow and you're losing a lot of detail in your dark areas. You might wanna pull some of those details out in your PP and/or consider shooting in bracket bursts so you can tease out the full dynamic range your camera is capable of.
 

Pretzel

Senior Member
More expensive lenses usually mean (in regards to pics taken):

1) Better low-light peformance.
2) Increased levels of overall sharpness.
3) Less pincushion, distortion, etc. at certain focal lengths.
3) Better bokeh feel.
4) Better/Faster focus or lens IQ in some cases.

Having said all that, with today's tech, the "kit lenses" are pretty quality lenses, and at least 80% of photo quality comes down to the control nut located near the shutter button. :cool:

A lot of people ask about upgraded camera bodies too, but there again, even those pics from the D3100 can be eye-catching works of art. *shrug* All depends on what you're looking for.
 

willowdogger

Senior Member
You have nice compositions but your dynamic range is very narrow and you're losing a lot of detail in your dark areas. You might wanna pull some of those details out in your PP and/or consider shooting in bracket bursts so you can tease out the full dynamic range your camera is capable of.

I have no idea what "dynamic range" means. Help?
 

willowdogger

Senior Member
Better shot in RAW? I used jpeg on Sunday due to time restraints in sending out images. I did manage to raise £100 in contributions from people for Malaria No More. Nice!
 

Dave_W

The Dude
I have no idea what "dynamic range" means. Help?

Don't get me wrong because I'm not being flippant or disrespectful but you might want to spend more time learning about the art of photography before you ponder whether or not you need higher quality lenses. You have a nice eye for composition but that needs to be complimented with a better understanding of light. Once you have that under your belt I suspect you'll already know the answer to your question about lenses.
 

willowdogger

Senior Member
Don't get me wrong because I'm not being flippant or disrespectful but you might want to spend more time learning about the art of photography before you ponder whether or not you need higher quality lenses. You have a nice eye for composition but that needs to be complimented with a better understanding of light. Once you have that under your belt I suspect you'll already know the answer to your question about lenses.

Light is not easy to come by on a winter's day on the hills of England at a specific time of day. You get what god gives you. The ART of PHOTOGRAPHY is not something I aspire to. I'm not into "triangles" and waiting for the shot that people all over the world have "copied". Rarely is the subject matter in the "correct" light when on our travels. A record is far better than no image at all.
I think I need to "log off" and just be a hobbyist.
Thanks for your comments, they ARE appreciated but I'm happy to be a hobbyist.
 

Dave_W

The Dude
I hate to be the barer of bad news but there is no such thing as "correct" light. There is just qualities of light. The question is exactly how are you going to utilize that light so it will express that which you wish to capture. As for triangles and "copied" images, I have no idea what you're talking about. Is this some kind of inside joke or ?
 

Moab Man

Senior Member
. Rarely is the subject matter in the "correct" light when on our travels. A record is far better than no image at all.
I think I need to "log off" and just be a hobbyist.
Thanks for your comments, they ARE appreciated but I'm happy to be a hobbyist.

I agree, it might be best to move on. Reading through this thread you have been given outstanding advice and suggestions. Not once has anyone been snarky, even when you were, or short and you are taking it personally rather than listening. There is a reason for two ears and one mouth, and they should be used in that ratio.
 

Pretzel

Senior Member
Photography - the process or art of producing images of objects on sensitized surfaces by the chemical action of light or of other forms of radiant energy.

One does not have to have the perfect light, but rather, just an understanding of how to best capture that light at any given point in time, thus tying back to the capabilities of the photographer in getting the right settings, or perhaps even the capabilities of a better lens. Isn't that what the original question was driving at? And I say that as a "hobbyist". The "Semi-Pro" just means that, sometimes, I have the honor of collecting a little money while I practice my hobby, and THAT because I absorbed all of the advice and learned how to better myself while practicing that self-same hobby.

Hrrrmmmm...

...and that's all I have to say about that.
 

DraganDL

Senior Member
"to give the subject matter a grittiness that fell runners have in bucket loads".
Surely, you don't have bucket loads of details in the shadow - these woods and their mirrored image in the water (photo 3.3.24-6.jpg) should have been either less dark or pitch-black (so to make it somewhat closer to "low key").

"I have no idea what "dynamic range" means. Help?". The Internet is full of explanations. Why not search for them?

The title "more expensive lens..." doesn't make much sense - different lenses are being sold at different prices, so each case is a case of it's own. A little more sensible would be "a
more expensive zoom of 18-55mm, gives better images than kit zoom 18-55mm" etc. The answer to such question would be: yes, in some situations such as the so-called low light environment, the need for a very narrow DoF etc.
 
Last edited:

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
I looked at these plus a few of your Flickr images. As someone mentioned, you have nice composition, but many of the images appear to be too dark. Is your monitor calibrated? If not, that might be why they appear too dark to some of us but perhaps not to you. On an uncalibrated monitor, they would appear lighter.

Dynamic Range--we as humans can see shades of light from very light all the way to very dark. Cameras tend to have difficulty capturing all the lights, darks, and in between shades. So the dynamic range of a camera isn't as good as our eyes. That's where bracketing and creating images using HDR software can help. HDR allows the light areas to retain detail as well as the dark areas.

The reason why it is difficult to really tell how your lens performs is because you've done too much editing. It is possible that your lens may not yield photos as sharp as a faster lens, but we can't tell by these. It might be that a more expensive lens can offer better contrast, but if you edit the contrast, we aren't seeing the true ability or lack of ability of your lens.

As far as the two images you posted here, the faces of the two men are too dark. In the shadowed areas of their faces, most likely there is a lot of detail, but the photo is just too dark to really tell. Again...part of that might be due to an uncalibrated monitor. The shadowed areas *might* look good on your monitor, but not on mine. The other photo is nice, too, except the dark trees (at least I assume they are trees) simply appear as a dark strip running through the center of the photo. I can't even discern any texture...although maybe you can see it. Again, the photo is too dark.

If you were to work with RAW files, you should be able to lighten the dark areas to allow more detail to become visible. These would look better if you had more light areas and better detail in the darker areas. Hands down a faster lens has benefits over your kits lens as the others have mentioned. OR you can keep this lens and do more photo editing than perhaps you'd do with a better quality lens. Good luck with whatever you decide to do. :)
 
Top