Interesting Article on Cheapie v Pro Lenses
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 10:06 amOops... here is the exact URL sorry:
http://www.honda-e.com/C01_NotesOnPhotography/IsExpensiveLensBetter.htm
DSLRUsers.com
A discussion forum - and more - for users of Digital Single Lens Reflex cameras.
https://d70users.net/
Interesting Article on Cheapie v Pro Lenses
Page 1 of 1
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 10:06 amPosted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 10:07 amPosted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 11:15 amNice article - reinforces the message that we photographers should acquire gear specific to meet our shooting needs. eg. no point buying an expensive f/2.8 lens if it's intended to be used at f/11.
I'm also reminded of an article I read elsewhere recently, which I now cannot recall, similar argument as to the linked article - the bottom line being, it's easier to produce a slower lenses, and more challenging to produce a fast lens, hence why they cost a shitload more and sometimes fail to measure up to the slower variety when stopped down.
I'm also reminded of an article I read elsewhere recently, which I now cannot recall, similar argument as to the linked article - the bottom line being, it's easier to produce a slower lenses, and more challenging to produce a fast lens, hence why they cost a shitload more and sometimes fail to measure up to the slower variety when stopped down.
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 10:35 pmHrm.
That article misses a few things though.
- Expensive lenses usually AF better.
- Expensive lenses are often dust and moisture sealed. I have seen first hand how my 17-40 F4 L lens survived a bad dust storm vs a cheaper 18-55 lens that filled with grit and was rendered useless.
And I can't remember the last time I shot at F11 except for macro ...
That article misses a few things though.
- Expensive lenses usually AF better.
- Expensive lenses are often dust and moisture sealed. I have seen first hand how my 17-40 F4 L lens survived a bad dust storm vs a cheaper 18-55 lens that filled with grit and was rendered useless.
And I can't remember the last time I shot at F11 except for macro ...
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 11:34 pmDionM wrote:- Expensive lenses usually AF better.
If expensive is synonymous with faster then I agree, but I'd put it "Faster lenses focus faster" instead, not just because the USM motor (or whatever the other brands call it) is better but because with more light the camera can focus quicker (and perhaps more importantly, more accurately).
That article only addresses image quality when stopped down really, in my experience with L glass from Canon it performs a lot better wide open (whether that is F/2.8 or f/4 is irrelevant) than consumer glass. With consumer glass the quality is noticeably poorer wide open compared to when stopped down to f/8 or so.
The article also ignores other aspects of image quality, like colour rendition/saturation and contrast. The first thing I noticed moving from the kit lens that came with my 350D to a 17-40 f/4L was that the colours didn't seem washed out and they were more saturated (in a realistic good way) compared to the kit lens.
Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 3:14 pmDidnt they do the same sort of comparision in Dec popular photography?