Are my lenses holding me back?

dugmar · August 19, 2004

One thing I am clueless about is the difference between Amatuer and Professional lenses. What makes one lens which?

What makes a sigma 28-300 cost $249 but the Canon 28-300 $2500?

Obviously features such as IS, etc.
More glass makes a lens "Faster"? What does that mean exactly.

What is an all around lens that would be good for someone that has taken a lot of photos that may want to move up the rungs a little bit? I cannot afford a $2500 lens, but I would be willing to pay out if it will drastically change my photos.

What features of a lens result in better quality images? That is the question I really don't get.

Right now, I have a digital rebel with the standard lens. I also have a sigma 135-400 f4.5-5.6, but it's huge and there is no lock, so it slides open all the time. I want a lens that will get me close to the action, but something I can use at 28mm or close to it for wide angle shots. It must have a lock so it stays put when I walk. Basically, I am sick of changing lenses everywhere I go. I'd like to not have to take my big bag everywhere I go.

I guess I just need a short "Lens 101" lesson.

Thanks so much for reading, any help is appreciated.

Doug

evil eggplant · August 19, 2004

dugmar wrote:

One thing I am clueless about is the difference between Amatuer and Professional lenses. What makes one lens which?

What makes a sigma 28-300 cost $249 but the Canon 28-300 $2500?

There are quite a few meaningful differences between an expensive lens and the types I use *sigh*

An expensive lens is almost always faster (t's maximum aperture is larger). This allows the lens to gather more light, aloowing a faster shutter speed (good for sports-shooters). A faster lens also has a more shallow Depth-of-Field. This is what nature shooters, sports shooters, and portrait photographers crave. Shallow DOF keeps only your subject in focus, blurring away the background and foregroud. So you know, the quality of the blurred background is sometimes referred to as "bokeh". The better the lens, the better the bokeh.

The optics in an expensive lens are much better that the optics in my lenses (sigh) expensive lenses use special coatings that increase contrast in an image. Differrent colors of light have different wavelengths. The focal point of light through a lens is affected by the wavelength (color) of the light. What this means is that when using a cheap lens different colors will have focal points in front of, dead on, and behind the film or sensor. These differences are small, but can be easily seen. The cheaper the lens, the easier to see. An expensive lens will be apochromatic, and will be thoughtfully designed, allowing all wavelengths of light to focus exactly on the film or sensor.

The optics in an expensive lens will be made of better glass, and will be ground to tighter tolerances. The images will be sharper, there will be less pincushioning and barrel distortion, there will less vignetting.\

There are other differences in additione to what Imentioned.

It all depends o what you do with your images. You dont need a pricey lens if your stuff goes mostly on line, or gets printed small (like 6 X 40.

If you print large (8 X 10 or bigger), shoot to sell, create fine art, or your standards dictate that you want the best possible image quality than an expensive (expensive = best quality) may be for you.

There are lenses out there that are "sleepers", high quality at a reasonable price. My 50mm f/1.8 is as good as anything out there (almost) and I paid sixty bucks for it brand new.

The Sigma 70-300 APO is a real good zoom for under $200.00. (When it comes to lenses 200 bucks is cheap. If your idea of cheap is $79.00 then you're probably SOL

)

Most decent (middle of the road) lenses do OK in the middle of their aperture range. Just about any 50mm lens will work OK at f/5.6, but fail to cut the mustard wide open (maximum aperture). Your 70-300 may be ok at f/8, but really bite wide open (maybe f/5.6 for a cheapo) Expensive lenses should do well wide open.

Please note, in my comments I have used the word "expensive" frequently. Please understand that when I say "expensive" I imply "quality" (just like Canon L lenses) It is possible to pay less for a good lens, it is also possible to spend a fortune on a dud. Visiting forums like http://www.dpreview.com is a good way to stay informed.

Regards

rich

PerezDesignGroup · August 21, 2004

This post made my day! I had been wondering about these terms and lenses as well. Thanks, guys!

REECEPHOTO · August 21, 2004

Short answer no
NO the so called cheap lenses will not hold you back as long as your not doing this on a (I have to shoot to eat ) level.

Yes...........by all means spend as much as you can on good lenses.
But 99.9% of people (myself included) need to focus on learning about light,compisition,ect.ect.ect. way befor they go spend $3000 on a lens.
Anyone can go spend $3000 on a lens but the photo may still suck.
Then again you can give someone who really knows what there doing a cheap lens and they will make it look like a million dollor photo.
Is it the pan or pot that made the meal so good or the cook that knew what they were doing that made the meal taste so good? It's the same way with photography.
#1 Most important thing (get out and shoot)
That will make your photgraphy better than anything.

PerezDesignGroup · August 21, 2004

REECEPHOTO wrote:

Then again you can give someone who really knows what there doing a cheap lens and they will make it look like a million dollor photo.
.

Good point. I own a movie on Pable Picasso. In it, he uses a plain 'ole brush and some plain 'ole black ink. The results were anything but 'plain 'ole'

It's a great movie for art buffs by the way. Filmed by Henri-Georges Clouzot and depicting Picasso in action.

evil eggplant · August 30, 2004

hmmm...
Good equipment won't make you a better photographer, but will allow you to take better photographs.

No matter how you slice it and dice it, you get what you pay for.

ginger_55 · August 31, 2004

I love this thread, would so love to wallow in it, I have always said that a good photographer should be able to shoot well with a Brownie, and that was before digital, but it is still true, if one wants film. Also the old pin hole experiments, I have never had the patience to do it, but in theory, I think a really good photographer can do it: with anything, any focal length, glass or whatever the other stuff is. And I have that 1.8 50mm Canon, it is cheap, supposed to be good, but it is not glass, there is a glass equivalent, but since I so rarely use it, I am glad I did not pony up the money for it. I do not own a glass lens, it was one lens, or less, in glass, or a basic set up in the less expensive alternative.

I have the dRebel, so Doug, you and I have that in common. I do like the kit lens, I think I have gotten really good shots with it. It shoots wide, I like that. A good wide lens, well, you used to be able to buy a good car for what those cost. So, I like what I have.

I also have the less expensive, but with the IS (image stabilizer) feature on it, it is the zoom 28-135 Canon. On dPreview, it was talked about as a good walk about lens, it is on my camera now, I do like it. Most of my best shots were taken with the kit lens, though. And I own the 75-300 IS, get some shots with it. The best thing I did, in addition to buying the Rebel, that was a major purchase for me.

But the next best thing I did was buy a good, IMO, Tamrac, backpack type (only one shoulder strap) carrying case. It has made my days, my evenings, my time as a participant here, it is the easiest camera carrying experience of my life. It cost as much, almost, as that Canon 50 mm 1.8 lens, but I can carry it all easily, without pain, even in pouring rain. I throw my billfold in it, leave my purse in the car and head out.

If carrying all your stuff is a pain, a good comfortable, for you, carrying case is the first thing I would get.

On the equipment, I have never been much for technicalities, it just isn't my thing. I can't talk the talk, I just walk the walk, so to speak. (Hey, I think that was a good one)

I have chased equipment, but in tennis. I always thought a different raquet would get me "there". I have settled on one and have no money left, nor desire, to keep chasing for tennis. But I understand the feeling, whatever might help, I would get, there. A good raquet, for me, others don't like it, and some do, but it was not cheap, it has been a help, bought it at least three years ago. And I have played a lot in that time, too. Which helped the most, playing, or the raquet, I have no idea.

But I would get a digital Brownie, just kidding, and get out there. If the weight, etc, bothers you. Get one lens and learn to use it for everything. There is more than one way to shoot a horse (I am just warming up on the phrases here). That is a great idea, get, or keep, just one lens and walk around with it until you are an expert with that lens.

Or, do as I did, get what you think you need, and a good case, the case is the key here, and get out and shoot. I cannot afford glass, do not have glass envy, but I understand the feeling. Been there and done that, but in tennis. I am still a low intermediate player, just a mite better, not a lot.

ginger

mercphoto · August 31, 2004

Lens envy

dugmar wrote:

One thing I am clueless about is the difference between Amatuer and Professional lenses. What makes one lens which? ... I cannot afford a $2500 lens, but I would be willing to pay out if it will drastically change my photos.

Fundamentally, what makes a photo "great" is the composition, the emotional impact. From that standpoint just about any lens will work for you. It doesn't need to be pricey L glass to do that.

So practice your composition, your timing, get the emotional impact in your photos.

Having said that, what if you don't have the lens to get that composition? Sports and wildlife need telephot. Street and architecture needs wide angle. Portraits need big apertures. So in some respect, yes, you need the right lens to make a photo come out. But, for a given category, the more expensive lens won't solve composition issues for you. A CD might sound techynically superior to a cassette tape, but if the guy can't play the violin, it doesn't make much difference.

mercphoto · August 31, 2004

Hold me back...
Now, having myself said that lenses will not hold you back, I want everyone to convince me that I absolutely need to replace my 300D with a brand new 20D to take me to the next level.

Are my lenses holding me back?

Comments