Do better lenses result in better photographs?

aroy

Senior Member
For two years I have been using the Nikon 18-55 and 35mm DX, and rarely had problems with getting crisp images with them. In fact most of my bird images at 55mm are really crisp even after cropping them down to 800x800 pixes.

I tried using the Nikon 70-300 AF with D3300, and could never get the same crispness at any focal length. Recently I have borrowed a friend's Tamron 70-300 macro and have shot a few hundred images. The results have been variable, but in general I find that the focus is an issue and so is the sharpness and contrast. The lens also has issues in focusing in bright backlight - bright sky shining between leaves. This has resulted in my keeper rates going down from over 90% to 10%. Even the images that are tack sharp are no match for the 18-55 crops.

I was wondering is others are facing the same poor keeper rates with their lower cost lenses, or is there something wrong in my technique.
 

J-see

Senior Member
The higher the magnification, the easier it is to get focus wrong. It's not very hard to get a 35mm into focus but a 300mm, especially at lower apertures, can be tricky.

Add to that a focus "variation" in all lenses and the inability to fine-tune on a D3300 and you get a higher miss-rate than you'd get with a 35mm prime. Also, all these lenses focus at a different aperture which makes some slower than others.

When I used the Tamron 150-600mm on the D3300, I couldn't get any shot in focus. The lens' focus just didn't jibe with my D3300 and I could not do anything to correct that.

To add: better lenses do result into better photographs (given all other factors remain identical). If I use my Nikon 300mm or my Tamron 150-600mm@300, the differences are noticeable. Not only image quality but also its focus hit-rate.
 
Last edited:

RobHD

Senior Member
My sigma APO 70-300 needs replacing but no money lol, at its limit the images are soft and fuzzy so I'm looking at either a fixed aperture zoom or a prime , but if I need huge I'll connect to my scope :)
 

Elliot87

Senior Member
I did find something similar to this when I used both my Tamron 70-300mm VC and Nikkor 55mm 2.8 macro lens to photograph the same fledgling sparrow. In this case those I would say the 55mm is probably the better lens, it's certainly much sharper but I did have to manual focus with it and heavily crop afterwards. I was quite surprised by the results and it was one of the major moments that made me realise I needed a sharper telephoto for wildlife.

The first shot is from the 70-300mm and is either the full image or a very slight crop but I think the former, second shot is 55mm heavily cropped. Both images taken at a similar distance from the sparrow.

70-300mm
DSC_2988.jpg


55mm crop
DSC_2968.jpg


55mm full image to show degree of crop.
DSC_2967.jpg


I was surprised by how similar they were in sharpness, especially considering that is a decent result for the70-300mm. I do prefer the 70-300 image because of the more out of focus background but as you found a sharp 55mm crop can at least match a shot from a less sharp longer lens.
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
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 may 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 within the same price band 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.
 
Last edited:

Fortkentdad

Senior Member
Simple answer to your question "Do better lenses give better pictures?" No - not in and of themselves.

The lens is only part of the equation.

Part of the triangle of quality is the camera itself. As has been pointed out the 3300 does not allow for tuning lenses. Not all lenses need tuning - most work well out of the box, but if it needs tuning - it needs tuning. An out of tune piano just doesn't sound right. With each (expensive) step up the camera ladder you buy more features that are designed to give you more tools to make better pictures. Cameras don't take great pictures - they give you tools to do that.

And as you are finding out lenses themselves vary - considerably, between models and between individual lenses. There are websites devoted to testing lenses and their 'sharpness' is one of the key measures. Specs for tested and previewed DxOMark lenses database - DxOMark is probably the most commonly quoted. But lenses are reviewed by many different reviewers - and if you google up reviews of a particular lens you will quickly see they do not always agree. in general newer lenses tend to be better on newer cameras as the technology is more compatible - they talk the same language and all the features of each are available. But many old lenses can be tack sharp (especially the primes).

But the third and most important part of the triangle of quality here is located several inches behind the view finder - you. And that comes with practice - believe me I'm still practicing and learning, just this year I've started using the back focus and it is making a huge difference. And I've taken the plunge and am shooting some in "M" not "A" but I've only been at this for a few decades, you may say I'm a slow learner.

It takes time be patient.
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
I've posted this before, but there's a guy at The-Digital-Picture that built a tool that lets you take a look at a pair of lenses "side-by-side" online, varying focal length (if applicable) and aperture (which has a huge impact on IQ in lesser lenses).

I've set up this link so that it preloads the Nikon and Tamron lenses. You'll see the Nikon until you mouse over the image and then you'll get the Tamron. These are single samples of the lenses, and for 3d party lenses you get them on Canon instead of Nikon, but it's one more tool for comparison sake.

My take, looking at the images? If you're shooting wide open on either lens at 300mm it's gonna be soft. Even at f8 these are both so-so.
 
There are other variables that you are not addressing. The longer the lens the faster the shutter speed needs to be. That is a fact that many people miss.

There is one rule that many miss and it is a good rule. [h=1]Reciprocal Rule[/h]The basic premise of the reciprocal rule is that the shutter speed of your camera should be at least the reciprocal of the effective focal length of the lens. If you are confused by what this means, don’t worry – it is really easy to understand once you see it in an example.

The difference with DX is the you have to go 1.5 times the length of the lens instead of 1 times. Many shooters go twice the shutter speed and find the results are better. so when you are using the 300mm lens you need to shoot at least 1/450 sec and better at 1/600 sec. (Or as close as you can to these speeds)

Tack-Sharp Images Using the Reciprocal Rule :: Digital Photo Secrets
 

paul04

Senior Member
To add: better lenses do result into better photographs (given all other factors remain identical). If I use my Nikon 300mm or my Tamron 150-600mm@300, the differences are noticeable. Not only image quality but also its focus hit-rate.

Having used a Nikon 300mm f2.8 lens a few weeks ago, I have to agree with J-see, the Nikon lens was quick to focus,

The tamron 150-600mm lens I found is slower to focus (not by much), and the Nikon lens also had the edge on image quality.
 

hrstrat57

Senior Member
My Nikkor 70-300 VR is killer on the D300.

I have never used it on a D3300 - I've never shot any Nikon low end DSLR's.......maybe try it on your D300 where you can calibrate the lens focus?

Doubt it is you as your pics are excellent from what I have seen here.
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
To add: better lenses do result into better photographs (given all other factors remain identical). If I use my Nikon 300mm or my Tamron 150-600mm@300, the differences are noticeable. Not only image quality but also its focus hit-rate.

A couple things to tack onto this...
1. "Better" is what we are trying to establish, particularly whether or not a slightly more expensive Nikon is "better" than the Tamron alternative.
2. "all other factors remain identical" cannot be used under any circumstances or with any real justification when comparing a consumer level zoom to a professional prime lens costing 6X as much. If there was any scenario where the Tamron outperformed it then you should be demanding your money back. And my statement holds even if you're comparing it to the 300mm f4 at 2X the price. A prime of equal or greater cost will always provide a better result to a zoom stuck at the same focal length.
 
For two years I have been using the Nikon 18-55 and 35mm DX, and rarely had problems with getting crisp images with them. In fact most of my bird images at 55mm are really crisp even after cropping them down to 800x800 pixes.

I tried using the Nikon 70-300 AF with D3300, and could never get the same crispness at any focal length. Recently I have borrowed a friend's Tamron 70-300 macro and have shot a few hundred images. The results have been variable, but in general I find that the focus is an issue and so is the sharpness and contrast. The lens also has issues in focusing in bright backlight - bright sky shining between leaves. This has resulted in my keeper rates going down from over 90% to 10%. Even the images that are tack sharp are no match for the 18-55 crops.

I was wondering is others are facing the same poor keeper rates with their lower cost lenses, or is there something wrong in my technique.

Can you post one of the shots here making sure that the EXif data shows. It would help us to be able to see what you are talking about.
 

SkvLTD

Senior Member
I believe he stated that he had the AF version, not the AF-S with VR.

Yes and the Tamron Macro so I'll assume the APO version, and both of these come from the same trashcan.

70-300VR/VC are kings of its class, and never any of their previous incarnations.

So in that respect, I'd say both 18-55 and 35DX out perform the mediocre tele zooms by simply being newer and optically better.

I'd say that better lenses DO result in better IQ, but it's rather marginal past that level with a sweet spot of price:performance ratio. And the more gimmicky the lenses, the more apparent the difference.
 

aroy

Senior Member
I have deleted the really bad ones, but here are some I have kept

ISC_7872.jpg
18-55 cropped to 800x800

ISC_9772.jpg
70-300 the better ones

ISC_9786.jpg
70-300, hazy

All images shot with SB800 flash
 

salukfan111

Senior Member
For two years I have been using the Nikon 18-55 and 35mm DX, and rarely had problems with getting crisp images with them. In fact most of my bird images at 55mm are really crisp even after cropping them down to 800x800 pixes.

I tried using the Nikon 70-300 AF with D3300, and could never get the same crispness at any focal length. Recently I have borrowed a friend's Tamron 70-300 macro and have shot a few hundred images. The results have been variable, but in general I find that the focus is an issue and so is the sharpness and contrast. The lens also has issues in focusing in bright backlight - bright sky shining between leaves. This has resulted in my keeper rates going down from over 90% to 10%. Even the images that are tack sharp are no match for the 18-55 crops.

I was wondering is others are facing the same poor keeper rates with their lower cost lenses, or is there something wrong in my technique.
Was it the 70-300 vrg or the other one(s)? I own some pretty nice lens and really like that between 100 and 225mm. It's gotta be the vrg model though.
 

aroy

Senior Member
Was it the 70-300 vrg or the other one(s)? I own some pretty nice lens and really like that between 100 and 225mm. It's gotta be the vrg model though.
It is the non VR, screw driver AF. Both that and the Tamron have a lot of CA.

_DSC3791.jpg
Nikon

JSC_0097.jpg
Tamron

You can see the CA at hard edges, the Tamron has more CA than the Nikon
 

aroy

Senior Member
My current photography is in two bands
1. Lens shorter than 85mm - I have 18-55 for good light and 35mm F8 for low light.
2. Lens longer than 250mm - I need to get either 300 F4 AFS or 200-500.

I have not needed focal lengths between 85mm and 300mm, as it is either people/flowers/insects at close distances, or birds at long distances. I was trying out these lenses to check what focal lengths between 100mm and 300mm I use the most.
 
Top