More expensive lens means a better image.

[willowdogger]

Dave, if you read my text that you chose to quote it says "at a technical level". I did not mention artistic merit. The person asked what improvements he would see with better glass and I know sharpness and lower ISO would definitely be achieved. My 70-200 2.8 would achieve both over the kit lens with the same photographer skill and camera taking the shot. That's a "technical" fact that can be proved scientifically.

The reason I replied is because everybody leapt into answering everything but the question asked, in the same way you chose to read what you thought I was saying in my reply rather than what I actually was.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Cheers, love your photos on Flickr. Will hold my breath and see what a 70-200 costs. Find that the 50mm 1.8 serves me well for getting close up to runners. I'll start saving up for my birthday.

 

[rocketman122]

shooting a lens at 7.1, almost any lens will be great. theres many reasons why a "more expensive lens" is better. more expensive doesnt mean anything. a 50 is not expensive and can out rez a good majority of nikons lenses. by editing in HDR, you gave a bad example to prove your point. and again, at 7.1 every lens can be great. pro lenses are useable at 2.8 where amateur/prosumer lenses have to be stopped down a bit to get the same sharpness. bokeh is better, color is better, sharpness..you name it, its better. build quality is better, faster AF(on the whole). there's a polished quality look that pro lenses give that your kit lens cant.

its usually prosumers who feel "yea, my $100 18-55 is just as great as the $1000 17-55 AFS..whats all the fuss about" I was like this when I started out. but I knew I wanted the pro 2.8 zooms. problem was that nikons top lenses were selling for $1400 vs sigma at $800 (70-200) but when youll get serious and more devoted to photography, you will realize why better glass creates better images. in the hands of a talented photographer.

an example from my walk around with my lady. IM not a macro photog at all. not sure why the hell I felt like shooting flowers, but on the way back to the car I saw these wild flowers. everyone usually shoot down at flowers, so I thought Id get low and try something else. no color correction. just contrast/levels as itts not as contrasty as I would have liked. dont look at the composition, look at the quality of the render. the bokeh. you can see depth. lighting was overhead and harsh. still a nice picture. funny but the first one was shot 180º to the other about 20' spread between them.

 

[Geoffc]

Cheers, love your photos on Flickr. Will hold my breath and see what a 70-200 costs. Find that the 50mm 1.8 serves me well for getting close up to runners. I'll start saving up for my birthday.

The 50mm 1.8 is a great lens. I have the G version with the motor in it. Whilst it it a little soft at F1.8, by about F2.5 it's very good. If you have this you have a reasonable idea what a good lens can do in terms of sharpness and lowish light handling, albeit you don't have the ability to zoom. The Bokeh is possibly not quite as good as some of the expensive lenses, but it's still very good.

Give some thought to what problem you are trying to solve before spending a lot of cash on a new lens. You would never dislike owning a 70-200 2.8, however they are rather expensive. I know this as my wife is also into photography so we have one each!!! That said, we can keep them for 20+ years and they will still be great.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Ironwood]

Cheers, love your photos on Flickr. Will hold my breath and see what a 70-200 costs. Find that the 50mm 1.8 serves me well for getting close up to runners. I'll start saving up for my birthday.

Your 50 should give you good results with what you want to do, only downside is it doesn't zoom, so you have to be in the right spot at the right time.

Just be warned about the 70-200, it is a big and heavy lens, you won't be travelling light anymore with one of those. Do you have to hike up to the top of those hills ?

Another one that may be worth a look is the Sigma 50-150 f2.8, there are a couple of guys on here with this lens, they are producing some outstanding photos with it, it is also getting rave reviews by the reviewers. Only downside to this lens is its for Dx only, so if you have any intention to go to Fx later it might not be such a good choice.

 

[Horoscope Fish]

Another one that may be worth a look is the Sigma 50-150 f2.8, there are a couple of guys on here with this lens, they are producing some outstanding photos with it, it is also getting rave reviews by the reviewers. Only downside to this lens is its for Dx only, so if you have any intention to go to Fx later it might not be such a good choice.

I'll weigh in (HA!) on the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 having used on my D7100 for a while now. Simply put the Sigma is as sharp wide open, and across its entire focal range, as my Nikon 85mm f/1.8G and *that* ... is saying something.

The big drawback to this lens, in my opinion, is that it weighs in at a whopping four-pounds. It is, IMO, also conspicuously large. Still, it's my daily walkabout lens because I love having f/2.8 available throughout what is, for me, the perfect focal range for my type of shooting. The amazing sharpness is just so much icing on the proverbial cake.

When it comes to lenses, the differences ARE there. Not every photographer can appreciate the differences nor does every photographer need what a more expensive lens might offer but the long and short of it is, there are *reasons* why a $2500 lens is $2500 and why a $200 is lens is $200.

...

....

 

[Dave_W]

In a similar vein as Fish mentioned, more "expensive" lenses on a DX body will look nearly the same as a kit lens since the DX is sampling from the sweetspot and the sweetspot of an expensive vs. cheap lens is about the same.

 

[Dave_W]

Dave, if you read my text that you chose to quote it says "at a technical level". I did not mention artistic merit. The person asked what improvements he would see with better glass and I know sharpness and lower ISO would definitely be achieved. My 70-200 2.8 would achieve both over the kit lens with the same photographer skill and camera taking the shot. That's a "technical" fact that can be proved scientifically.

The reason I replied is because everybody leapt into answering everything but the question asked, in the same way you chose to read what you thought I was saying in my reply rather than what I actually was.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I suspect this will come as no surprise to you but I stand by my assessment of your post and my reply that expensive lenses will not deliver "better" photos. "Better" remains a subjective term that has nothing to do with "crisp" or lower ISO (more light). "Better" images can be blurry, can be overexposed or underexposed. It's all about the photographers vision and not about what lens he or she is using.

 

[Ironwood]

I'll weigh in (HA!) on the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 having used on my D7100 for a while now. Simply put the Sigma is as sharp wide open, and across its entire focal range, as my Nikon 85mm f/1.8G and *that* ... is saying something.

The big drawback to this lens, in my opinion, is that it weighs in at a whopping four-pounds. It is, IMO, also conspicuously large. Still, it's my daily walkabout lens because I love having f/2.8 available throughout what is, for me, the perfect focal range for my type of shooting. The amazing sharpness is just so much icing on the proverbial cake.

When it comes to lenses, the differences ARE there. Not every photographer can appreciate the differences nor does every photographer need what a more expensive lens might offer but the long and short of it is, there are *reasons* why a $2500 lens is $2500 and why a $200 is lens is $200.

...

....

I wasnt aware that lens was so heavy .

I guess carrying that weight around is a compromise that has to be made in order to use such a lens.

 

[Geoffc]

I suspect this will come as no surprise to you but I stand by my assessment of your post and my reply that expensive lenses will not deliver "better" photos. "Better" remains a subjective term that has nothing to do with "crisp" or lower ISO (more light). "Better" images can be blurry, can be overexposed or underexposed. It's all about the photographers vision and not about what lens he or she is using.

Ok Dave your well reasoned argument has got me beat. To help us all understand this better would you mind explaining the logic behind the gear (lenses and bodies) you own without referring to its ability to deliver sharp images or handle higher ISO settings. I'm particularly interested in why you bought the D800e as well as the D800. Personally I stuck with the plain D800 because I thought the extra crispness would simply ruin my pictures.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[fotojack]

When I first read the OP's heading, I thought...hehehe.. that's like saying "buying a more expensive car will make me a better driver". Then I read the rest of the posts from everyone, smiled a few times at the responses, continued to read more, then just left, shaking my head.

Willowdogger, I hope you got the answer you were looking for.

 

[rocketman122]

I suspect this will come as no surprise to you but I stand by my assessment of your post and my reply that expensive lenses will not deliver "better" photos. "Better" remains a subjective term that has nothing to do with "crisp" or lower ISO (more light). "Better" images can be blurry, can be overexposed or underexposed. It's all about the photographers vision and not about what lens he or she is using.

very true. WHen I bought my sigma 70-200, I could not deliver better pictures than my 50 1.8D because I couldnt hold it well. didnt know how to use it properly. after time though when I got used to the weight, then I was able to deliver better photos. the photographer delivers the final image but it is also the gear that will limit him. good or bad. theres only so much I can do with an iphone or kit lens. I will also add that if I gave an amateur elite gear, most wont know what to do with it. and im not talking about shooting. im even talking about settings in the gear.

I'll weigh in (HA!) on the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 having used on my D7100 for a while now. Simply put the Sigma is as sharp wide open, and across its entire focal range, as my Nikon 85mm f/1.8G and *that* ... is saying something.

The big drawback to this lens, in my opinion, is that it weighs in at a whopping four-pounds. It is, IMO, also conspicuously large. Still, it's my daily walkabout lens because I love having f/2.8 available throughout what is, for me, the perfect focal range for my type of shooting. The amazing sharpness is just so much icing on the proverbial cake.

When it comes to lenses, the differences ARE there. Not every photographer can appreciate the differences nor does every photographer need what a more expensive lens might offer but the long and short of it is, there are *reasons* why a $2500 lens is $2500 and why a $200 is lens is $200.....

with camera, yes? the lens is 780g or 1lb 11oz, from a review I saw. hows your af accuracy? sigma are known for bad af accuracy. my lenses suffered at times. thats why im reluctant to buy sigma again. af mechanism has to be fast and accurate. I couldnt care about noise. thats why I love my crappy 50 1.8d. its blazing fast, and extremely accurate.

mostly true. any photographer can benefit from more expensive gear. no one needs expensive pro gear. but the final image has the potential to be better. FF vs DX. DX you can shoot to 2000 and not suffer loss of detail and smear/chroma noise. use a FF and bump it to iso 3200 or a bit more and you can get a shot that has nice ambient light mixed with the harsh flash. same with glass. a 2.8 zoom vs a variable aperture zoom. more light, more mixed ambient light with flash, more aesthetic and doesnt look like a picture shot with a smrtphone . and todays smartphone arent that far from what a dx camera can do. its not on the same level, but most just shoot those heavy flashed pictures and they all look the same.

on the whole true, but I can list quite a few lenses that are very much overpriced. at least 10. crap performance for the high price tag. theyre not crap, but for the price tag, theyre crap performance. a junk $100 50 1.8d can out rez $1000+ zoom lenses.

 

[willowdogger]

Took these shots last night with ISO set at 3200 - Late evening and not too much light about. Prime 50mm lens. Really happy with most of the "shots" They are original jpegs, not from raw. Struggling with Lightroom and adjustments from raw.

 

[rocketman122]

looks great to me. try not to cut peoples heads if youre including most of their bodies. its not an isolation image of one person, the third and 4th images are a group and you cut their bodies and heads.
whats wrong with the images that you dont like?

I would try to do a slower shutter speed and pan to get some movement. I would drop it a bit and shoot it in CH mode. the top two pics would be the perfect setup for that. just a suggestion. u could use it with rear sync flash. you could get some really creative shots...

 

[rocketman122]

Photographing High School Track and Field | Jon C. Haverstick Photography ? 714.679.4863

not exactly the same sport but you get the idea. very interesting pictures.. you can do a bit of this and a bit of that. I say a good photographer is one who can create a wide range of creative images. not only be set in his way but always willing to try new things.

 

[willowdogger]

Thanks for that.
There were 350 people in the race and unfortunately, they don't all come across one at a time. I quite like the guy looking at the lens while "bits" of bodies are at the edges. I was paddling in the stream at the time and could have stayed in the same position, but I'd be bored with just standing back for each shot. The girl stands out and I focus on her, the 50mm lens is obviously fixed and doesn't allow me to zoom in and out. I do love how light it is.

 

[Marcel]

Thanks for that.
There were 350 people in the race and unfortunately, they don't all come across one at a time. I quite like the guy looking at the lens while "bits" of bodies are at the edges. I was paddling in the stream at the time and could have stayed in the same position, but I'd be bored with just standing back for each shot. The girl stands out and I focus on her, the 50mm lens is obviously fixed and doesn't allow me to zoom in and out. I do love how light it is.

If you could put your hands on an older 35mm f2 manual lens, I think that you'd just love it. You could pre-focus and then just shoot away. It's as light at the 50. You've got great shots in there and you have to accept that they can't be all perfect. The more you take, the more keepers you'll end up with.

 

[Horoscope Fish]

on the whole true, but I can list quite a few lenses that are very much overpriced. at least 10. crap performance for the high price tag. theyre not crap, but for the price tag, theyre crap performance. a junk $100 50 1.8d can out rez $1000+ zoom lenses.

I was speaking in the general sense; but yes, there are always going to be exceptions. And when it comes to primes vs. zooms that's sort of an apple-to-oranges comparison in my estimation. It's just not fair to expect a zoom lens, with all its required moving parts, to perform at the same level as a prime. What you're paying for in a zoom lens is the magic of magnification and that comes at a price all by itself and is distinctly apart from image quality.

...

 

[rocketman122]

I was speaking in the general sense; but yes, there are always going to be exceptions. And when it comes to primes vs. zooms that's sort of an apple-to-oranges comparison in my estimation. It's just not fair to expect a zoom lens, with all its required moving parts, to perform at the same level as a prime. What you're paying for in a zoom lens is the magic of magnification and that comes at a price all by itself and is distinctly apart from image quality.

...

I wont list the lenses I feel are a ripoff because I dont want to offend those who bought it. no one wants to feel like hes a sucker. there are quite a few primes in my list as there are zooms. I cant wait to see nikons quarterly revenue.

 

[willowdogger]

If you could put your hands on an older 35mm f2 manual lens, I think that you'd just love it. You could pre-focus and then just shoot away. It's as light at the 50. You've got great shots in there and you have to accept that they can't be all perfect. The more you take, the more keepers you'll end up with.

I'll search for the lens you mentioned. Hopefully find one and check with you first. Thanks for that.

 

[willowdogger]

Is it this one?Tai Shimizu