Do better lenses result in better photographs?

B

Bukitimah

Senior Member
If everything is equal, the person behind that camera makes the difference. Otherwise, not just your lens but camera make a big difference. That is my experience. Try shooting that flying eagle 600 m away with your basic lens and match with a pro tele lens.
 
B

Blacktop

Senior Member
Bukitimah said:
If everything is equal, the person behind that camera makes the difference. Otherwise, not just your lens but camera make a big difference. That is my experience. Try shooting that flying eagle 600 m away with your basic lens and match with a pro tele lens.
Click to expand...

600 meters = 656 yards. In golf terms that's a really long par 5. I wouldn't even attempt to shoot any Eagle at that distance with any lens.
 
R

RocketCowboy

Senior Member
Blacktop said:
600 meters = 656 yards. In golf terms that's a really long par 5. I wouldn't even attempt to shoot any Eagle at that distance with any lens.
Click to expand...

In RocketCowboy terms, a 656 yard par 5 means it takes me about 8 strokes to hit the green. That also means I would need about 16 camera shots to even capture an eagle at that distance. :D
 
S

salukfan111

Senior Member
_DSC7256.jpg
Blacktop said:
600 meters = 656 yards. In golf terms that's a really long par 5. I wouldn't even attempt to shoot any Eagle at that distance with any lens.
Click to expand...
I have to take pictures of birds that far and they look like this. Not much to do with birds that far (no pixels). These were with a 600 and 1.6TC. Nobody is taking incredible pictures at that kind of range.
 
Last edited:
S

singlerosa_RIP

Senior Member
My experience tells me that better lenses make a difference. Maybe if you only post to facebook, it doesn't matter. Or if the light is always great or you don't need a lot of end to end sharpness... But for anything else, better glass can help. In my early days of digital, I had a Tokina 11-16 2.8 and the Nikon 18-70 and 70-300. That was my poor man's trinity. Now I have the real 2.8 trio and there is a difference. Is it worth the extra (big) bucks? For some, yes; others, no. Whatever make you happy. :)
 
G

gustafson

Senior Member
@aroy: your post reminded me of this technical article I came across recently. It discusses the performance & limitations of the 70-300 AF non-ED Nikkor that you may find interesting. In particular, the author remarks ... "Its performance is inadequate for 20+ Megapixel bodies, although samples produced using the 16 Megapixel D7000 appear to be of reasonable quality".

Moore's Law and Telephoto Imaging

The article also lists a number of observations on telephoto lens use that are worth reading (Some have already been covered in this thread by others). One is about lens jitter at the telephoto range. High res (20+MP) sensors are less forgiving to this. To compensate, one must not only stop down the lens adequately (f8-f11 at the long end), but also shoot at sufficiently fast shutter speeds (1/1000s or faster), and raise ISO appropriately. The trade-off is accordingly noisier but sharper images. No free lunch



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Top