Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Lenses
General Lenses
Do better lenses result in better photographs?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="BackdoorArts" data-source="post: 554825" data-attributes="member: 9240"><p>There are a bunch of things that can go into why you might see such a drastic difference between the lenses, the most significant being AF focus calibration, something that you cannot do on the D3300 if memory serves. If it's just a little bit off you're going to see soft, and that can be confused for lens softness. If you really want to test the differences then do a controlled set of shots where you shoot the same stationary target, from a tripod preferably, and focus using Live View since it's a more accurate system and will eliminate the calibration impact you <em>may</em> be experiencing. Same shot, same focal length, same aperture and shutter speed. Do that and you'll be able to assess the differences attributable to the lens, the rest is mechanics.</p><p></p><p>That doesn't mean that the Nikon lens doesn't "work better" for you. It may be closer to locked in, and I can attest to the fact that you can't shoot birds in Live View as a norm, so that lens may work better for you. But I would hesitate saying that, as a rule, less expensive (i.e. cheaper) glass will always give you softer photos. Sigma, Tamron, Rokinon and others offer more affordable versions of the lenses made by Canon, Nikon and others, and in general those <strong>within the same price band</strong> tend to perform about the same. I chose a Sigma 105mm macro over the Nikon alternative and have no regrets. I have a Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 and while it's an excellent lens, no one will confuse it with the Nikon parallel, but then the Nikon version is more than twice the price and well outside the price band of the Sigma, so it should be expected. Similarly, among birding lenses like the Nikon 200-500mm and the 150-600mm from Tamron and Sigma (contemporary series) the results and "issues" tend to be comparable (there's a good comparison on the PhotographyLife page), but when moving up to the Sigma 150-600mm Sport it's a whole new ball game in terms of sharpness, bokeh, and weight (one of the "issues"). </p><p></p><p>When choosing glass there's always a trade off - either with quality or cost. But the jump in cost does not always equate with a jump in quality, so do your research, and if you can borrow or rent a new piece of glass first that's always better than going in with just you fingers crossed.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BackdoorArts, post: 554825, member: 9240"] There are a bunch of things that can go into why you might see such a drastic difference between the lenses, the most significant being AF focus calibration, something that you cannot do on the D3300 if memory serves. If it's just a little bit off you're going to see soft, and that can be confused for lens softness. If you really want to test the differences then do a controlled set of shots where you shoot the same stationary target, from a tripod preferably, and focus using Live View since it's a more accurate system and will eliminate the calibration impact you [I]may[/I] be experiencing. Same shot, same focal length, same aperture and shutter speed. Do that and you'll be able to assess the differences attributable to the lens, the rest is mechanics. That doesn't mean that the Nikon lens doesn't "work better" for you. It may be closer to locked in, and I can attest to the fact that you can't shoot birds in Live View as a norm, so that lens may work better for you. But I would hesitate saying that, as a rule, less expensive (i.e. cheaper) glass will always give you softer photos. Sigma, Tamron, Rokinon and others offer more affordable versions of the lenses made by Canon, Nikon and others, and in general those [B]within the same price band[/B] tend to perform about the same. I chose a Sigma 105mm macro over the Nikon alternative and have no regrets. I have a Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 and while it's an excellent lens, no one will confuse it with the Nikon parallel, but then the Nikon version is more than twice the price and well outside the price band of the Sigma, so it should be expected. Similarly, among birding lenses like the Nikon 200-500mm and the 150-600mm from Tamron and Sigma (contemporary series) the results and "issues" tend to be comparable (there's a good comparison on the PhotographyLife page), but when moving up to the Sigma 150-600mm Sport it's a whole new ball game in terms of sharpness, bokeh, and weight (one of the "issues"). When choosing glass there's always a trade off - either with quality or cost. But the jump in cost does not always equate with a jump in quality, so do your research, and if you can borrow or rent a new piece of glass first that's always better than going in with just you fingers crossed. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Lenses
General Lenses
Do better lenses result in better photographs?
Top