More expensive lens means a better image.
- Thread starter willowdogger
- Start date
willowdogger
Senior Member
I still have a lot to learn, would the expense warrant it ...
willowdogger
Senior Member
Well, he did ask. Do you think we have him totally confused by now or do we need to bury him in more rhetoric?
The query "wasn't" about making me a better driver. Having taught kids for 40 years, I know that be highly qualified, having degrees etc ... doesn't mean that you are a better teacher. It WAS a simple question. Does lens A produce a better image in terms of quality (not composition) than lens B, and why? I am picking up bits of useful info from people and I am grateful for people's time and effort. Cheers.
In some cases then yes, better more expensive lenses will give sharper output, but it depends at which aperture they are used. The more expensive lenses usually offer large aperture. This is mainly what makes them more expensive. They can be used in lower light situations with a higher shutter speed. They require larger glass for production and this is a big part of their higher price.
On the other hand, some "kit" lenses (18-55 being one of them) are very sharp as soon as you close them down a bit. I'm not sure there would be a sharpness difference at f-8 between the 18-55 and the 24-70. I didn't write that they are even, I wrote I'm not sure. But, the out of focus zone (Bokeh) will be nicer to look at from the more expensive lens almost always.
Hope this helps you.
willowdogger
Senior Member
Thanks for that. I'm really interested in sports photography, especially being out on the hills photographing fell "hill" runners. While out there, there are excellent landscape opportunities as well. I want to spend wisely and only buy what will help me to achieve what I feel is "good". The 50mm 1.8G prime lens is brilliant and performs well for me in a number of situations I have encountered. It isn't good for those landscape moments but if I use the kit 18-55mm at f7.1? f8? then the results are fine for needs. Will a prime 35mm help with the sport and/or landscape being able to perform at lower (is that the right way round?) f stops? I don't want to buy anything that won't perform in my areas of interest.
I'm certain that you'd love the 35 1.8 DX. I remember telling you about the 35 Ais f2, but I then thought you were using an FX (full frame format). Although the 18-55 can get you more framing options with the zooms, I suspect that you could get a faster shutter speed with the 35 1.8. This is not an expensive lens though but it would give you extra speed for your runners. And it weights almost nothing.
An excellent and talented photographer can make a excellent image using even average equipment. One of the thing that I find so hilarious, and sad at the same time, about digital photography is the obsession of so many people with megapixels and auto functions. All that techie bullcrap does not amount to a puddle of spit when it is compared to true artistic ability. Some of the most iconic photographic images ever taken were made with decidedly "low tech" fully manual film cameras and a exposure meter, PERIOD. Adams, Cunningham, Steiglitz, Weston, Cartier-Bresson et all, did not need all that high tech s**t because the were artists who were masters of their craft They did not rely on a machine to do all of the thinking and a lot of the work for them. They used their BRAINS nstead of some program written by an engineer. A hundred years from now their images will still be iconic whereas 99.9% of digital "photographs" will have been completely forgotten
I will take my decidedly low tech Nikkormat FT3 and (some) 30+ year old manual AIS lenses and color or B&W film and produce images that blow the doors off of over 95% of the images made by techies with D800's and AF Nikkors. Why? Because I have a decidedly better understanding of the true photographic process than over 95% of the people who are obsessed with their megapixel and auto everything equipment. Honestly? I could get rid of my D700 and really not miss it except for the convenience and speed it has over film when doing commercial or modeling work. That is the only disadvantage they have as far as I am concerned.
Last edited:
willowdogger
Senior Member
I'm retired and I'll do what I want!
I don't recall motioning you specifically anywhere in my post.
willowdogger
Senior Member
I know that. I'm not being critical. The problem is, we can't tell a persons tone of voice through the written word. The "I'll do what I want" wasn't aimed at you. It was aimed at the WORLD.
After 40 years of teaching and trying to put a bit of fun into kids' education, it is time for me to spread my wings and go for it. Life is fleeting and I'm happy(ish) with the images I'm taking. They are not special, I want to tell the story of runners on the hills. Black and white will be my choice, graininess to represent the mud, sweat and tears of effort.
A parent has asked if they can collaborate with me on an art; they've just finished a degree course. I feel honored and look forward to doing something alongside them.
STM, I admire you for what you stand for. We are bombarded with technology at a rate that I certainly can't keep up with. I don't even have a mobile phone!
The link you have doesn't seem to work for me. I'm really interested in seeing what you "produce".
Cheers.
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
As is often the case in threads like this there are two things that can be looked at, if not confused. Those things being inherent lens quality and aesthetics.
Lens quality, to my way of thinking, means how well a specific lens can can render an image to the camera's sensor (or film). Things like contrast and resolution can be measured and plotted. How much distortion, chromatic aberration and so forth a particular lens produces can also be measured objectively. Then, data from one lens can be compared to another and, based on that data, you can objectively determine if lens X is a more capable lens than lens Y. All of this makes for a relative, but still objective, comparison that I, and I think it safe to say most, consider a valid set of data points. It's the stuff MTF charts are made of and I'm glad we have them. All of this is entirely separate from a photographers ability to correctly compose a shot however.
Rhythm, balance, positive and negative space, color, mood, contrast, tonal value, et al. are all tools of the brain that have nothing to do with how good your lens is but everything to do with how good a particular photograph is (or isn't). So yes, I think it's clear to most people the lens does not make the shot great, the photographer does. By the same token, I don't see Jack Cunningham using a Kodak "Brownie". While I'm sure he could turn out some amazing images with one, I still feel safe in assuming he chooses to use top-notch equipment because he knows doing so will produce technically superior images. HCB is one of my personal photographic hero's and I feel safe in saying he would have availed himself readily of any better technology that his time could have afforded him; he certainly didn't hesitate to embrace 35mm when it became available.
...
Yes, that is certainly a drawback of the web. I do have a cell phone, an “antique” Blackberry Torch and the only thing I do with it is send the occasional text and make PHONE CALLS.
I am a photography purist and will be until I die. I cut my photography teeth in 1972 when all that existed were manual film cameras. It was not until 1985 that I got a Nikon FE-2 with aperture priority automation and it was my first camera which required batteries to operate rather than just power the meter. I don’t think I ever used it on auto more than a few times. To this day I do not use automation, my 42 years ofexperience trump anything some engineer can come up with. My D700 is nothing but a digital F2 for me. It stays on manual 99.9% of the time. I do not know how to use at least 90% of the functions on that camera and honestly, I could care less about taking the time it would require to learn how to use them. What is the point? I would not use them anyway. If people want to embrace digital and auto everything, more power to them, but it is just not for me.
I apologize for the broken link. The server company where Ihad my website for 10 years went belly up about 6 months ago. I have a newserver host but I just have not had the time to get a new domain name andupload a website that has over 200 images in it to the web.
If you want to see more examples of my images, you can always look at my portfolio here and also at Photo.net. I am not restricted to Nikon equipment there so there are many images there that I take with my favorite camera, my Hasselblad 500CM. This is still just a small portion of the images on my website. I have this weekend off from work, maybe I will finally get around to it.
http://photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=7422054
Last edited:
kevy73
Senior Member
Howdy - just my 2c's worth.... No, I don't believe you would get a better image if you had a more expensive lens for the image you mentioned.
More expensive images for me are a must because in my line of work, I need the super fast focusing times and low light abilities that they provide.
I have used kit lens (and to be honest, I love the Nikkor 18-105) awesome kit lens. However the focus speed of the lens leaves a lot to be desired and if you are photographing fast paced moving targets then you need the extra focus speed that comes with Nikon's professional range lenses.
More expensive images for me are a must because in my line of work, I need the super fast focusing times and low light abilities that they provide.
I have used kit lens (and to be honest, I love the Nikkor 18-105) awesome kit lens. However the focus speed of the lens leaves a lot to be desired and if you are photographing fast paced moving targets then you need the extra focus speed that comes with Nikon's professional range lenses.
everprentice
Senior Member
If you want your car fixed, there are three kinds of jobs:
A quick, cheap job but not great;
A cheap, great job but not quick; and
A great, quick job but not cheap.
That said, generally, what you gain from buying a more expensive lens (within the same zoom range) is technical advantage:
1. Better optics;
2. Larger openings;
3. Better build; and
4. Advanced features like VR/OS/VC or SWM/HSM
A quick, cheap job but not great;
A cheap, great job but not quick; and
A great, quick job but not cheap.
That said, generally, what you gain from buying a more expensive lens (within the same zoom range) is technical advantage:
1. Better optics;
2. Larger openings;
3. Better build; and
4. Advanced features like VR/OS/VC or SWM/HSM
everprentice
Senior Member
I thought golf was stress-relief?
Going to a spa is stress relief... everything else is another form of stress.
ryanwphoto
Senior Member
"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. "
Very true statement! The only reasons I would upgrade lenses would be to get weather sealing and larger aperture.
" Very true statement! The only reasons I would upgrade lenses would be to get weather sealing and larger aperture.
"get weather sealing and larger aperture". Alas! - that's the catch: you get a "kit" lens with the camera body, say, Nikon D5xxx and a18-55mm, where the lens's price is "next to none". Than you feel like needing a f2.8 throughout the zoom range and you find that it would cost you 1400$ (your previous purchase x2 and a little more): http://goo.gl/D0c30