DSLRUsers.com

Gidday all.
I have been trying to come to grips with what makes a "pro" lens.
This thread comes about by my endless reading I have been doing lately on lenses. I have been trying to decide what lenses to buy.
My intention is to end up with a fleet of lenses that will perform as a pro should expect.
But I have been on a pretty steep learning curve.
Take for example the newly released Nikon 18-200 VR lens.
I have (in another thread) asked the question whether people would consider this lens to be a "professional" lens.
The response has been cool and somewhat negative, despite quite a positive review at Ken Rockwell.
Then there is AF vs AF-S. I have discovered the benefits of AF-S. Faster, quieter, and less battery power. AF, from what I can gather, would also be termed "screwdriver" lenses.
F stop - in for example a zoom lens, if you had a lens that did F3.5 - F5.6, then you would assume it to be a better lens than one that did F3.5 - 6.3 over the same zoom range. I gathered this by looking at all the Sigma lenses available, and the better ones (with the gold stripe as opposed to the red stripe) had the smaller difference in F stop at extremeties of zoom range.
These are all an accumulation of impressions I get from reading HEAPS all over the place.
But at the end of the day, how does one classify a lens as a "professional" lens - one that would be used by professional photographers who would expect professional results.
And for that matter, how much difference would there be between a professional lens, and one of slightly less expense with similar specification - enter the Sigma debate (and Tamron, Tokina, Vivitar, and any others... but mainly Sigma).

To the crux of the problem I face.
I will be building a fleet of lenses.
I like the idea of getting myself back into photography in a commercial sense, doing weddings again and the like. Maybe even go full time and do a career change if things take off.
I have given my D70 to my wife and will be buying a D200.
The lenses I had in mind were
50mm F1.4
105 Macro F2.8
70-200VR
18-200VR
Possibly eventually add the 12-24, the 80-400VR, and a teleconverter.
And I will keep the 18-70 kit lens I have.
Yes this fleet leaves me with nothing below 70mm in the f2.8 range apart from the fixed 50mm. But will I really need anything else?
I know the type of photography / subject matter I choose will play a part in lens choice.
I still have some reading to do, I read somewhere today (Bjørn again, half way down) that the 50mm f1.4D might not be an AF-S. What would the benefit of AF-S be if this has been said?

I don't own many AF "screwdriver"-type lenses, but the one I tried (AF 50/1.4 D) focused very fast on D200, again no difference from the D2X.

We also do a lot of bushwalking so I imagined the 18-200VR being on the D70 permanently, the 70-200 VR being on my D200 and the 105 macro on standby in our kit, that would be the fleet we would walk with (I mean extended walks - day walks and we could carry more).

Then I read the review on the D200 by Bjørn Rørslett, where he said, among other things,

D200 shares with D2X the honour of being a quite unforgiving image recording instrument. If there is any optical flaw or aberration of the image projected by your lens, the D200 will show the defect almost with the merciless clarity observed on D2X. Chromatic aberration (CA) rears its ugly head almost everywhere. Lenses you believed were just about perfect will suddenly appear devoid of their former splendour, whilst the real optical gems will take on a magical shine on their own.

(hope I didn't break any copyright laws with these quotes)
What I am looking for are "real optical gems".
I have experienced the crap that the 70-300G kit lens is, and do not wish to spend many dollars on something that will disappoint. I know you "get what you pay for" but there are obviously differences I am missing. And I have switched my mindset to favouring Nikon lenses over the Sigma range, is that a mistake? I liked the sound of the Sigma 150 macro but think I will be happy with the Nikon 105. The Nikon 70-200 VR is lighter than the Sigma 70-200 HSM. I am a little worried about the "slowness" of the Nikon 80-400 VR so may consider something above 200mm once the budget is restored - maybe a 200-400 F4 or a fixed 300mm? Much later...

I hope to spark much discussion and advice with this thread, so it can be a reference to all.
EDIT - typo - 105 macro is f2.8 not f4.8 *slaps self*

A Pro lens is one you earn money from.

Edward Weston used a second hand Rapid Rectilinear bought for about $5 US in 1924

It is not the lens or the film or the camera or CCD that makes a professional photographer. It is the photographer who make the image saleable regardless of the camera he or she is using.

A while back I shot a night time house fire and sold the images to a newspaper the photo editor looked at the shots and commented "You must have a wonderful camera, our photographers are always saying how they cannot get good shots like this because of the equipment they have to use."

I opened my carry bag and produced a 25 year old Nikon f2 with a standard 50mm f2 lens. He looked at me I looked at him I picked up the cheque, my camera and walked out with out saying a word.

Buy what you can afford and what will give you the greatest return for what you invest.

Ask yourself the question: Will the people I am selling to pay me any extra money because this photo was taken on a super new extra amazing whizz bang lens? Or will they say "I love the smile and the look you have captured so I will buy the photo"

Amateurs have the luxury of being able to buy expensive equipment, pros use what makes them the most money.

Tasadam,
I'm probably not the best person to answer your question as I am not a long term Nikon user, but the thing that strikes me about your choise of lenses is that there seems to be no real strategy.
If you want to cover most focal length with the best on offer then the general consensus seems to be, 17-55/2.8, 70-200VR/2.8, 200mm macro and 1.4 or 1.7 TC
For a slightly cheaper but still very good option you could go with 12-24, 80-400 and 105 micro, but I really don't see the need for the bouble-ups you have chosen.
Just my 2c worth.

If you were with that other camera system, you could easily identify the so called "pro" lenses by the Luxury designator, shortened to "L".

In the Nikkor system, 'pro' calibre lenses are denoted by a gold ring on the outer rim of the lens barrel, near the filter threads (akin to the red ring you'll see on the L's).

However the definition of a 'pro lens' is more muddy. Some would claim that it's simply any lens that a professional uses, 'professional' being defined as someone who derives money from the pursuit of photography. To Nikon, as suggested by their criteria for NPS qualification, pro lenses are a seemingly arbitrary set of super expensive lenses, mostly incorporating the latest technology (from silent wave motors, AF-S, to magnesium fluorite nano-crystal coatings, the 'N' designator).

To me, the more important factor is build quality, the ability of a lens to withstand the rigours of daily use/abuse. I find the analogy of chefs knives fitting - while amateur photographers and home chefs can easily purchase the same set of tools as their professional counterparts, it usually does not do the amateur any good in purchasing the 'pro' parts compared to the lesser cost 'consumer' counterpart. eg. When you buy a $300 knife, it still needs regular care or it gets blunt. It usually won't allow you to cut any faster or more precise. But head chefs won't buy the $20 Kmart specials and see the value of the Wustof at 10 times the price. The tools when used by an amateur contributes very little to the end result. But a true professional can take advantage of what the 'pro' tools offer and utilise it optimally. The dishes won't taste better and the images won't look any better, but getting there is easier and with much less hassle.

I am no pro.....but your list is like every amatuers wish list.

I guess what lens you get first would depend on what you want to do or specialise.
An example would be a wedding photographer would have a hard time justifying a 500mm AFS or bigger telephoto unless you were taking photos of russell crowe's wedding and you won't invited due to an oversight with the event organisers

Rockwell is a comedian i love his reviews though it seems he makes to many reviews of products he does not even have hmm

In regards to what lens...you are correct why buy mediocre lens. But its still better then nothing.

Pro lenses are better, the images you take with them will be the same images you take with an equivalent consumer lens in most cases. As mentioned above, it is the person behind the camera and lens who dictates the quality of the shot.

What you will get with pro glass "generally speaking" is sharper pictures (sometimes marginally), less lens inherent flaws, better build, faster maximum aperture, constant maximum aperture throughout the zoom range, hopefully smoother operation (not always).
You will also get much heavier weight and pay maybe around 2-3 times the price of a similar consumer lens.

For pro wedding work you will need wideangle gear alot! Much, much more than tele lenses. Many pros don't go beyond the 100-150mm range.
You will also need fast lenses and powerful flash for low light work and control over DOF. Wide open on a consumer lens which you would need to do for wedding work won't cut it on something like the 10mp D200.

You should also find AF not a big deal for weddings and it's far quicker and safer to go MF. For this reason, I would be saving some decent dollars and buy a standard D series lens over an AFS lens.
I'd also be sticking with Nikon brand lenses as picture quality, build quality and camera compatibility can all be lacking with 3rd party lenses. There are exceptions of course.

I don't think I own any professional lens. But my first impression, when trying them, is that they would give a better image quality than a cheaper lens (when shooting in the same conditions). That means sharper and nicer bokeh (ouf of focus areas). That's my first impression, but I'm pretty sure that built quality and wide aperture would be better on a pro lens.

Link.

The only wording suitable to the Pro lens is which you can justify and afford to buy the expensive glasses, but that does not mean and guarantee you will take a stunning and beautiful images.
A Pro Photographer uses a Pro lens, sometime has to trash all his/ her taken into the bin.
Just study & find out what do you need, what range which you mostly engaged with and put them on the drawing board to create yourself a suitable lens system.

What's a professional?

I have seen professional wedding photogs in the Botanical Gardens in Sydney using Nikon D70 and kit lens and even a Canon 300d. These guys/gals make money from their photography but use consumer cameras and lenses. (So long as the customer is happy, does it matter?)

In my opinion, a pro lens is one that is not a 70-300G.

That said, i feel that a pro lens is one that feels like a pro lens when you pick it up. If it feels plasticky, then it isn't a pro lens.

A pro lens has the letters "L" after it, all other lens are just inferior copies.

nito wrote:A pro lens has the letters "L" after it, all other lens are just inferior copies.

With Nikkor or Canon?

I'd have to echo Collingwoods thoughts here. The more expensive "pro lenses" may give you some extra sharpness and nicer bokeh, along with more scope to shoot in lower light levels without, or with minimal, flash.....however the biggest impact on any photo taken will be by the photographer.

I think we have seen some recent panoramas, along with other magnificent photos, all taken on those "doorstopper" 70-300 lenses. It all comes down to how well you can use the equipment in hand. The best lenses don't afford you better photos, unless you are experienced in using them.

The only other suggestion I have is to look at the prices. If it's expensive...and well "lusted after", it MUST be a good lens. If it's good, the PRO's MUST use it

Birddog114 wrote:
With Nikkor or Canon?

Canon naturally

nito wrote:

Birddog114 wrote:
With Nikkor or Canon?

Canon naturally

So, you're going to switch to Canon with L

I would be totally unconcerned with the term "pro" as it pertains to .... just about anything.

The real crux of the issue has already been touched upon: it's the user of the camera that's the real key.

Determine the type of photographs that you are going to be taking, and get the best equipment you can afford that will permit you to most easily complete the tasks you have assigned.

Then, take the time to go and learn how to best use that equipment: go forth and shoot, shoot, shoot, and PP, PP, PP. Learn the limititations that your equipment imposes upon you, and find the sweeet spots for each of your lenses.

More importantly, learn what your weaknesses might be, and take whatever steps are required to overcome those.

There's a lot of equipment that many consider to be substandard, yet a good photographer will be able to turn in outstanding images because he's a good photographer.

Becoming a good photographer (whatever that term might mean to you) would be the goal I'd be focussing on.

I particularly liked the knife analogy above...

I like to cook and yet I'm getting more and more unhappy about the knives I've got. They cut but you need to make compromises when you are cutting and you get the s*&ts. You still make a very nice looking cut but there's more work involved in getting there. What I need to do is try a few knives to see what suits me, so therefore I need to know what I'm cutting.

Photography equals cooking!!! You need to know what end result you're aiming for, and how individual ingredients can get you to that final result. It may be that you can cook a splendid dish with very basic cutlery, stove and pans - having a mega-dollar setup won't change the flavour at all.

So you need to understand what you are going to shoot and what you want the photos to look like. Are the shots going to be 90% portraits? Is Bokeh therefore more important than speed? Is colour accuracy most important?

Now I'm no-where near being pro but what I've seen as I started from the kit lens is that I wanted to shoot in low light situations so I got a 50/1.8 (ultra good value for money). I then saw that it wasn't wide enough for indoor in-room shots so I've now gotten a 35/2 which does that task. If I was a pro however I'd be look really closely at how often I need to vary the focal range AND need low light, and go for a fast zoom in the 35-70 sort of range for my needs.

Birddog114 wrote:

nito wrote:
So, you're going to switch to Canon with L

No I'll just convince my boss that he needs L lenses for our scientific studies and borrow the 20D over the weekend.

paulvdb1 wrote:
Photography equals cooking!!! You need to know what end result you're aiming for, and how individual ingredients can get you to that final result. It may be that you can cook a splendid dish with very basic cutlery, stove and pans - having a mega-dollar setup won't change the flavour at all.

So you need to understand what you are going to shoot and what you want the photos to look like. Are the shots going to be 90% portraits? Is Bokeh therefore more important than speed? Is colour accuracy most important?

Thanks Paulvdb1,
Your post is exactly what I wanted to say in my early post.

I think there is a lot of trial and error in photography when it comes to lenses. There is no such thing as a perfect lens (other than an imaginary 10-500mm 1.4 weighing 300g).

My suggestion, if your objective is to grow your system, is to purchase a 35 or 50mm Nikon lens and explore it to the max. Dont get any other lenses until you have truly mastered these. I have the 50mm 1.4 which I think is supurb but the 50mm 1.8 by all accounts is also a beautifully sharp lens.

The discussion of professional lenses is probably better described as 'specific purpose' lenses. If I was a professional (ie gaining the best part of my income from photography and/or having been trained) then I would buy the best equipment available that suited the work I was doing. Many professionals have so much equipment because they vary the work a lot and dont sell their gear.

In short, start with a fixed focal or a small zoom and it will help you define your objective....or do what I do and buy lenses that everyone else raves about until I talk myself into it.

Regards

Peter Mc

my 2 cents.

I put it in this analogy.

I have a B&D battery drill - It cost >$ 500.00 12 years ago. - a pro model. You can buy a consumer B&D at Bunnnings for less than $ 100.00. This model even looks the same as mine. - The innards are different. My innards are metal the cheaper innards are plastic.
They both do the same job - bore holes and drive screws.

My drill is used virtually every day. It will take abuse, the batteries take only 12 minutes to charge, its been dropped from ceiling heights many times but keeps going. The batteries are now held on by cable ties. It has been repaired 4 times. (new chucks, triggers etc etc). It still works. Just in case it breaks and is being repaired I have a >$ 500.00 AEG battery drill for backup. Why? I can't be let down on a job. I wouldn't buy a $ 100.00 drill for backup - why? Because I use it in my work every other day and it might break with the pressure I put on it. If a $ 100.00 drill broke down the repair costs are generaly more than the drill is worth.

If I was a handy man I wouldn't need a $ 500.00 drill.

I refer to Dugs previous post. He took a saleable shot with a 25 year old camera and lens. He is a pro and would have taken thousands of shots with this Camera/Lens combo. I have a Chinese built Nikon $ 170.oo plastic 50mm 1.8. It takes fantastic shots - will it last 25 years? - I don't think so. Especially if I take thousands of shots with it. Will it be worth repairing if it breaks - I don't think so.

Between 1970 and 2004 I shot around 28,000 film pictures with my Pentax SLR's and Olympus P&S. These cameras are now retired because the electric circuits in them have died and the cost in fixing is more than they are worth. However the SMC Pentax lenses are still all in great condition.
( I have bought a modern Voigtlander with 42mm lens capacity to use with these great lenses).

Between May 2004 and up until now I have already taken more than 12,000 digital shots with D70s and Nikon P&S. I am a hobbyist. I have taken nearly have as many shots in two years with digital than I did in over 30 years with film.
How long will my modern lenses and plastic digital cameras last? Especially consumer AF lens with plastic innards and plastic filter mounts.

As a Pro tradesman, I will buy the best tools for my job because they help me to make money. I will not buy 2/3 pro tools. They will not take the hard pressure I put on them or being dropped and have a habit of breaking down and then costing way too much to be repaired. At a pinch if I require a tool for a certain job I will buy the cheapest. Then I can throw it away if it breaks down - or give it to my sister.

Thats 4 cents

Ivanerrol,

Are you talking about the Pro-tradesman vs Amateur tradesman.

Same as:

Pro Photographer vs Amateur photographer,

Tasadam is an amateur and hobby photographer.

Its hard to draw a distinction in the amount of shots that you take.

A pro photog and amateur photog may now take thousands and thousands of shots with their camera lens combos.
A hobbyist photog may take hundreds as against thousands
Digital is different because you can take thousands of shots - it doesn't cost anything - unlike film

I think he should weigh up if the equipment he buys will still hold together with the load he puts on it. ( and the price he can afford).
As a hobbyist photog I have expensive lenses - because I have more money than sense)

A handyman doesn't need pro model tools however with the volume of work a handyman does, 2/3 pro tools may suffice where cheap tools do not measure up. An very occasional handyman only needs cheap tools because he is not making money from them.

I think the analogy between tools and camera equipment isn't exactly 100% right.

If the lens was a $20 bunnings model then yes it's going to be dodgy. What's happened with Nikon is that for a given scenario the $200 50/1.8 may produce BETTER pictures than anything else ever made - if that's the exact photo you are after. My 50/1.8 is a actually a Japanese one so it's quite likely to last as long as any other Nikon lens.

The Zeiss 50/1.4 may be a bit stronger and have a more consistent image but that doesn't make it BETTER or more professional.

I'm still of the opinion that a pro would select the lenses that work best for them in a given scenario even if it's a "cheap" 50mm prime.

There's no question that a pro will however stay clear of a 70-300G. There are better lenses available that will not only last longer but also produce better shots.

Given that we are all now shooting MANY more shots old the DSLR than we would ever have tried in film, then we should all be assuming shorter life (in years) for our cameras and lenses. If you are a pro and using a D70 you would be mad not to have a backup - BUT it may be that having a few cheaper items is more cost effective, and produces perfectly acceptable photos. Eg a pro may choose a couple of D200, a 50/1.4, a 35/2 (or Sigma 30/1.4), a 12-24, a 70-200 and a TC and be quite happy.

Most lens stopped down are just as sharp as a "pro" lens. The sharper shots at a wider apeture of a "pro" lens opens a easier avenue for creativity.

Hello paulvdb1
Actually I did infer this earlier.

"At a pinch if I require a tool for a certain job I will buy the cheapest. Then I can throw it away if it breaks down"
As a Pro of whatever, It all depends if a tool is adequate for the task in hand, after all a Pro must make money while using it. A Pro will also pick the tool that makes it easy for him. This also helps him make money

My real concern for a Pro/Amateur or hobbyist is buying equipment that is less robust and will at a rather short time require servicing where that servicing/repair will cost more than the original product is worth.


One of my interpretations is that Pro equipment is of the more robust variety. Your Japanese made 50/1.8 is more "robust" than my Chinese 50/1.8. They will both certainly produce exccellent images but whose will stand up longer?

I hope you ar not giving the impression that Bunnings sell dodgy equipment

Tasadam,
I agree with Gary, Dug and others that its the photographer that makes all the difference. Sure, a 105 2.8 macro will give you sharp results but you need to be able to take pics in the first place. 8 or so years ago when I started photographing nature I was using an second-hand Canon A1 (1980) with a Koboron lens and other cheap lenses. I ended up being published in a number of magazines, calendars, diaries, brochures etc. Up until just recently (and for the last 4-5 years) I have had a Nikon F90X (1990) with Nikkor lenses and more publishings. I've been dabbling in digi for the last month or two and am awaiting a D200. I have gone with what I can afford and made the most of it.

I recommend you buy the best lens that you can afford and upgrade as money allows. In the meantime, get out there and keep trying to capture those special shots. Practise, listen to others, read mags and books, surf the Net. Its a great learning curve!

Good luck with your decision.

Cheers

Michael

Adam,

Great question. I think Gary had the correct answer when he suggested a pro lens is one which allows the job to be done most easily. I believe the benefits of better quality lenses are they allow a satisfactory result in a wider range of conditions either by their additional speed, VR capabilities, better boke or image quality. Under good circumstances many identical images can be taken with lesser glass. Good glass just widens the range of conditions when acceptable shots can be made.

For wedding photography, I would suggest the 17-55/2.8 would be a staple, then a second body (I am not brave enough to be chased by an irate bride, so am no wedding photographer, but one body is just too risky even if you are brave). The second body could wear a longer lens and then 18-70 when needed. The 70-200 VR or Sigma 70-200 are both excellent lenses. Both 50 mm (1.4 or 1.8 ) are excellent. Macro is a subject within itself but your choice is fine.

The 18-200 is untested as yet, but I truly doubt that Nikon is smart enough to change the laws of physics. That is eleven times range! Not long ago most pros used primes. Zooms have come a long way and have had more R&D spent on them and now may exceed some primes in quality. Most pro or accepted high quality zooms within the Nikon range such as 17-55 or 70-200 are two to three times zoom. Whilst things like electronics have come a long way, I personally dont believe that Nikon can make 16 pieces of glass perform at their optimum over that range. I believe it is not possible to change the laws of physics, no matter what marketing people tell me. It is a bit like saying your HSV station wagon is a better sports car than a Porsche Cayman, can fit more in it than a Toyota Targago and is more economical than a Toyota Prius. It is not possible.

Ken Rockwell should be read with a big smile on your face as it is great humour. The most correct thing he says is the gear doesn't matter. At the time you are about to spend your own hard earned though, you want to be sure you are making the best choice possible. Many times he reviews lenses he has never touched or used, which I find just a bit of a stretch. I have stickied at the top of the equipment section lens reviewers I trust, which many others have placed other good reviewers in posts after. I suggest you refer to those with Bjorn Rorslett ranked highest. I am not sure if your initial post implied he doesn't use many AF lenses, but look at his car boot and reviews, many are AF or manual. AFS doesn't make a lens better quality, consumers want it because it is faster and quieter, but I doubt a lens such as the 18-200 is quality because it has AFS. I believe the 18-200 is a very, very saleable lens by counter jockeys in stores because it sounds like it does everything, it covers a very wide useful range and has the two biggest options in Nikons range - both VR and AFS.

Hope this helps and good luck in your choices.

Adam,
Upon rereading your post I realised I haven't addressed your above 200mm needs. Firstly I should say that I don't believe a photographer need to cover every mm in focal range between certain sizes eg 12-500mm.

That said, a longer lens should be chosen with its intended purpose in mind. You haven't specified this yet. I also noticed you suggested a 70-200 for bushwalking. I think it is too heavy for that (overnight walks), though you may not. A good modestly priced companion for the Nikon 70-200 is the 1.7TC or for the Sigma the 2XTC. After that choose the lens based on intended use.

Good luck, this isn't easy. I would suggest when you decide on a few pieces to ask the collective opinion of the group, you are sure to get a range of opinions, in fact I am sure you will get some disagreeing with mine soon

About Ken Rockwell, I know his reviewers are a bit over the top, but alot of his "philosophical" stuff are quite fun to read and absorb, also, I think you should look at his gallery instead, it speaks more than just obsessing over gear...

Getting back to the topic, all the pro lenses described (17-35 and 70-200 namely) are great lenses if you can afford them, but as also said, it doesn't guarantee better images, just more of a safeguard and buffer zone for you to get good quality images.

Anyway, I have the 70-300, but never use it, I wonder why... And no wonder all the others are doing the same...

tasadam wrote:Gidday all.
And for that matter, how much difference would there be between a professional lens, and one of slightly less expense with similar specification - enter the Sigma debate (and Tamron, Tokina, Vivitar, and any others... but mainly Sigma).

The lenses I had in mind were
50mm F1.4
105 Macro F4.8
70-200VR
18-200VR
Possibly eventually add the 12-24, the 80-400VR, and a teleconverter.
And I will keep the 18-70 kit lens I have.
Yes this fleet leaves me with nothing below 70mm in the f2.8 range apart from the fixed 50mm. But will I really need anything else?

We also do a lot of bushwalking so I imagined the 18-200VR being on the D70 permanently, the 70-200 VR being on my D200 and the 105 macro on standby in our kit, that would be the fleet we would walk with (I mean extended walks - day walks and we could carry more)...

A lot of useful stuff has been written by others, so I'll just pick out a few points. Re the difference in lenses, quite a few years ago I tested my Sigma 600mm mirror lens against the Nikon 500mm, measuring out the distance and moving closer with the Nikon to compensate for the shorter focal length. I couldnt tell which was which from the photos, neither could anyone else I showed them to. Of course not all lenses are equal, but some Sigma, and no doubt other brands, can be as sharp as Nikon. Sometime soon I'll see how my new 30mm f/1.4 Sigma performs on the stars, which is a much more severe test than general photography.

With the 1.5multiplier consideration, I think you will need something wider than the 50mm in a prime lens. Personally I think prime lenses are still better than zooms, the resolution of zooms is improving, but they are still slower. This may not be a consideration for your type of photography, but it certainly is for mine I doubt the 18-200 is going to be as sharp as I would like over its whole range, and its definitely not as fast as I would like. If you are going to carry a 2nd body, I suggest leaving your longest lens on it, as subjects that need a telephoto are often the ones that take off in less time than it takes to change a lens, and they do that from a distance rather than close by. Stepping on snakes excepted

On recent expeditions into the bush, which I generally do on mountain bike these days, as I can cover much longer distances (117km last Sunday to and around Mummel Gulf NP for example!) I've been taking the following 18-70, 30 f/1.4, 105 f/2.8 micro, 180 f/2.8. Ocassionally I'll take the 300 f/4.5 instead of the 180 if I have a bit more space.
Once I get my bike trailer set up, I'll probably take a fisheye, 55mm f/2.8 micro and 85mm f/2.0 as well and maybe leave the 18-70 at home. When its time to leave the track and go bush, I just stash my bike out of sight and head off on foot.

Gordon

There are no such things as "PRO" lens. There are expensive lenses and there are budget lenses. There are sharp lenses, soft lenses, high contrat lenses. low contrast lenses, lenses of differing focal length and construction. There are lenses that can do the job and lenses that don't cut the mustard. I have seen and owned expensive lenses that were not worth the money and cheap lenses that were supurb in every way. It has always been good advice not to buy any lens until you have tested it out. Most camera stores will allow you to put a new lens on your camera and go the front of the store and shoot a few shots. Then you get them printed at the same store...takes 30 minutes....and check it out. I once knew a girl who shot a whole series of colour images with a $2 "Diana"plasric camera. Camera had to have the light leaks taped up before use. She produced a series of very large coloured prints that were worthy of acceptance in any gallery. It really ain't the gear.

I remember a thread a while ago that had tin foil across the camera mount to create a pinhole lens. This could well be a pro lens - money could be made from it!

Heath Bennett wrote:I remember a thread a while ago that had tin foil across the camera mount to create a pinhole lens. This could well be a pro lens - money could be made from it!

Yes and a Coke bottle with F mount at some mini meets & Xmas dinner last year

Birddog114 wrote:

Heath Bennett wrote:I remember a thread a while ago that had tin foil across the camera mount to create a pinhole lens. This could well be a pro lens - money could be made from it!

Yes and a Coke bottle with F mount at some mini meets & Xmas dinner last year

The foil is Leigh's, and the Coke bottle is my new Sigma.

We're thinking of making a tele version of the latter, but all we can see is plastic construction, and most hre know how I feel about that.

a few months ago i sold 32 pics to a magazine taken with a Pentax *istDs and a russian made zenitar 16 f2.8 lens that cost me 150 bucks.
although that technically makes me a pro i believe i am far from it as i have only had a DSLR for just over a year.
I have noticed that the pro lenses [pentax "limiteds" or pentax " FA* " or
"A* " lenses] are usually faster than the consumer lenses and give a sharper image.
I am slowly trying to get some of these but they are discontinued which makes them hard to find

Don't forget to read my last sentence in this post.

Matt. K wrote:There are no such things as "PRO" lens. There are expensive lenses and there are budget lenses. There are sharp lenses, soft lenses, high contrat lenses. low contrast lenses,

I can see from the varied responses I have received so far, that perhaps I should not have referred to the term "PRO" lenses. I put it in quotes, hoping to indicate it was a liberal term, referring to "lenses that DO cut the mustard", or in the words of Bjørn Rørslett, "real optical gems".
I was hoping to get an indication as to which of the lenses out there fall into this category, and more importantly, which don't. The main reason is that I do not want shots coming out of the D200 looking like they've been taken using the 70-300G - particularly arberration and softness.
I failed to mention that I already know a lot has to do with the photographer, hoping to keep the discussion about lenses as the title suggests. I've read that elsewhere on many an occasion and it is "drummed in".

So far there has been an excellent response. Great analogies about knives and drills. I must agree with

I think the analogy between tools and camera equipment isn't exactly 100% right. If the lens was a $20 bunnings model then yes it's going to be dodgy.

so going back to my original question, how do I know which are the "$20 Bunnings models"? Or perhaps more accurately, "the inferior Nikon / Nikon compatible models"? Off to Bjørn's site to read the reviews I suppose.

The lens choices I listed were for two camera bodies - the 18-200VR that I was considering to put on the D70 for my wife, and something to put on the D200 that "cuts the mustard". Thank you Glen for your write-up here, this is a great wake-up. I did say I have given my D70 to my wife and will be buying a D200 so will have two bodies available for shoots. 3 if I keep the F80 in the bag (not for walks, and yes I know DX lenses won't cut it on film).
So for getting out and about, the 12-24 or 17-55 would seem to be a wise choice for my wife and the D70. She would have to have the 105 f2.8 macro with her - the Olympus does a pretty good job at macro and it is an aspect we both enjoy.
On the subject of macro, I know little of the 200 F4 macro, but from what the Olympus does now, I think the 105 will do fine for us. Please slap me over the head and show me the light if I am wrong here.
The main reasons why I was considering the 18-200 for her were that she is used to the Olympus and its broad zoom range, and it seems to be a light weight lens. Now I see - good glass weighs...
I think I am prepared to lug the weight of the 70-200 around. I will find out soon enough - I still have the loan of an 80-200 f2.8 and am planning a walk late Feb. Then it's to decide on a 50mm or 30mm fast lens, hoping it to be Sharp. If a 2x teleconverter can be used on a 70-200, that gets me started toward super zoom (and empty pockets if I develop a lust for 200-400 f4). If a 2x tele goes on a 1:1 macro lens, will that give 2:1? Or just let you get the same from twice as far...

I have been using SLR gear since 1981 when I did Photography as an extra subject at TAFE. Even at primary school I spent my extra money at school camp on film for the 110... My hobby got quite serious for a time, I was doing weddings and portraiture, got a few flash units and umbrellas and the like. Got business cards printed up, etc. After a while, work got too busy so my photography was getting less time. My wife and I bought the F80 in 2000, then we bought our first digital P&S in 2003 - the Olympus C750 (now replaced with the C770). This little camera made me very lazy as a photographer. The F80 has hardly been touched since then. After time I realized I just couldn't do what I wanted with the P&S so I got the D70. As it came with 2 kit lenses at a good price, I got both.
I've had that for just over a year and have now given the D70 to my wife and will be getting the D200. Why say all this? A question I have not yet answered is what sort of photography will I be mainly doing... I don't know yet, suffice to say that when I go bushwalking photography takes a major part - in 7 days between my wife on the Olympus and me on the D70, we took over 1900 photos. Biggest regrets were one battery short of what I needed, and the 70-300G lens, followed closely by learning all about dust bunnies. 2 days break then a 3 day walk that resulted in ~ 2300 photos.

It goes with out saying that getting into digital with a D70 has been a learning curve and I am by no means on top of it. But I can see the advantages and potential a DSLR can give in the hands of someone prepared to learn - another reason why my wife now has the D70 (ok, we still share).
So that pretty well sums up where I'm at - I did say

I like the idea of getting myself back into photography in a commercial sense, doing weddings again and the like. Maybe even go full time and do a career change if things take off

so flash units and other stuff will come later. But I am, for now, feeling for an idea on how to tell which lenses fall into this

D200 shares with D2X the honour of being a quite unforgiving image recording instrument. If there is any optical flaw or aberration of the image projected by your lens, the D200 will show the defect almost with the merciless clarity observed on D2X. Chromatic aberration (CA) rears its ugly head almost everywhere. Lenses you believed were just about perfect will suddenly appear devoid of their former splendour, whilst the real optical gems will take on a magical shine on their own.

as I said at the start of this post.

I want to again thank everyone who has taken the time to read through my waffle and then taken the time to put forward their experiences and opinions, it ALL helps. Thank you.

tasadam wrote: If a 2x tele goes on a 1:1 macro lens, will that give 2:1? Or just let you get the same from twice as far...

yes you will get approximately 2:1 - twice the focal length from the same distance, less DOF and more diffraction though.

Gordon