• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

SLR Lenses - Is Price Justified?

edro

edro

Lifer
I have a Digital Rebel, the Canon 18-55 Kit Lens, Canon 50mm f1.8 Prime, and Sigma 70-300mm APO Super Macro lenses.

All 3 are very cheap and are basically beginner lenses.

My question is this,
How big of a difference is there between the cheap lenses and the expensive ones (L glass, USM, Image Stabilization)?

I have seen tons of user galleries for all types of lenses, but they never give a full story of what the user went through to get them.

Lets say I go out with my kit lens and take 100 photos. Maybe 20% are "excellent" photos. If I had an L Series lens with USM and IS, would I get a 40% ratio, 60%?

I feel I have a good understanding of how to use my camera for various situations now.

Is the upgrade to a USM / IS lens justified for ~$500? (a lens in the same range as a Kit Lens, like a 28-135 IS or comparable)

Thanks for your input.
 
i'd like some more input on that as well.

for instance, i keep seeing these photos that are extremely crisp, clear, and vibrant. are these heavily modified in Photoshop or are they untouched photos that were taken with extremely good lenses? or is it the camera?

if i can find some examples i as to what i'm talking about, i will link them.

example 1
example 2
example 3
 
Originally posted by: MustangSVT
personally , I believe its the user that matters more, rather than equipment.
Click to expand...

I agree, although I'd say instead, it's the user that affects the picture first, then the lens. Really good photographers can make different decisions knowing they have a pro lens, but for most of us amateurs it really is more about the user.
 
Personally, I think it's about 80% Indian, 20% Arrow.

Meaning - most of it is the person holding the camera. That being said, there is some merit to having higher quality, faster, and speciality lenses.

Personally, a $1500 Canon IS enabled "L" lense isn't going to magically make me much better of a shooter or yield better images than my $450 Sigma of a similar optical range 🙂

 
I really wish I could spend a day with a "good" lens to test it in different situations and to pull up the result on my computer.

Can you return lenses if you just "don't like them"?
 
Originally posted by: edro
I really wish I could spend a day with a "good" lens to test it in different situations and to pull up the result on my computer.

Can you return lenses if you just "don't like them"?
Click to expand...

join a local photo club and someone could let you play with it 😉

anyways, invest in a flash if you haven't already. expensive lenses <usually> makes the difference in the end assuming the user is "operating" efficently.
 
Originally posted by: edro
I really wish I could spend a day with a "good" lens to test it in different situations and to pull up the result on my computer.

Can you return lenses if you just "don't like them"?
Click to expand...

Some shops will let you rent for a day.
 
There are so many aspects to a lens making your question hard to answer.

Canon L lenses are better in regards to build quality, focus speed, color and contrast, wide open sharpness and Bokeh.

IOW, using your 50 1.8 to take a picture of a static object at f/5.6 should yield just as sharp a picture than any L lens. However, the L will have slightly more saturated colors and better contrast.

However, I'd say that it is usually not necessary to have an L lens unless you are making money with your photography. There are usually comparable lenses in any category that offer 90% of the performance for 1/3 of the price.





 
Originally posted by: vi_edit
Originally posted by: edro
I really wish I could spend a day with a "good" lens to test it in different situations and to pull up the result on my computer.

Can you return lenses if you just "don't like them"?
Click to expand...

Some shops will let you rent for a day.
Click to expand...

I rented a $1300 70-300DO from rentglass.com for 3 weeks. Total was around $120 including shipping. They appear to be the cheapest by a considerable sum. The problem is visiting when they have much stock.
 
Originally posted by: edro
I have a Digital Rebel, the Canon 18-55 Kit Lens, Canon 50mm f1.8 Prime, and Sigma 70-300mm APO Super Macro lenses.

All 3 are very cheap and are basically beginner lenses.

My question is this,
How big of a difference is there between the cheap lenses and the expensive ones (L glass, USM, Image Stabilization)?

I have seen tons of user galleries for all types of lenses, but they never give a full story of what the user went through to get them.

Lets say I go out with my kit lens and take 100 photos. Maybe 20% are "excellent" photos. If I had an L Series lens with USM and IS, would I get a 40% ratio, 60%?

I feel I have a good understanding of how to use my camera for various situations now.

Is the upgrade to a USM / IS lens justified for ~$500? (a lens in the same range as a Kit Lens, like a 28-135 IS or comparable)

Thanks for your input.
Click to expand...

I have the same thing you do (XT) and I would hang on to the 50mm and even the Sigma.
My Sigma has to be 're-chipped' to work with my new Digital Rebel. I bought it a long time ago with my Elan IIe in 1996 or 97.
I have since ditched my 28-80 USM 4.5-5.6, because I couldn't stand the rotating front element when focusing.
I bought a 28-105 3.5-4.5.
If anything I would research a better 'walk around lens' to replace the kit zoom. You will thank yourself.
The difference between my old and new lens is amazing. Faster shutter speeds allowed, and a really fast AF. Image quality went way up, a layman can notice the difference in a 5x7.
And wait until your hunger wants a better tele-photo.
I have been taking pictures for a hobby for a long time, and it's the first time I want more in a telephoto.
I am probably getting a Sigma 70-200 2.8 APO HSM Macro in the next few months.
Have you tried Fred Miranda's site?
 
I am sure that there is a demonstrable difference between beginner and more expensive lenses. It's tough to get an unbiased opinion about any particular piece of equipment, though, especially with digital photography equipment for some reason. When I was shopping for a lens pretty much everyone said that the lens that they had chosen (and dropped a lot of $$ on) was the one to get. People tend to adopt beliefs to justify their purchases.
 
Originally posted by: KoolAidKid
I am sure that there is a demonstrable difference between beginner and more expensive lenses. It's tough to get an unbiased opinion about any particular piece of equipment, though, especially with digital photography equipment for some reason. When I was shopping for a lens pretty much everyone said that the lens that they had chosen (and dropped a lot of $$ on) was the one to get. People tend to adopt beliefs to justify their purchases.
Click to expand...

The site I mentioned above seems to ditch loyalty most of the time. You will find reviews where they ditched more expensive lenses.
But the best advice has been mentioned, photo clubs and rentals.
 
Originally posted by: KoolAidKid
I am sure that there is a demonstrable difference between beginner and more expensive lenses. It's tough to get an unbiased opinion about any particular piece of equipment, though, especially with digital photography equipment for some reason. When I was shopping for a lens pretty much everyone said that the lens that they had chosen (and dropped a lot of $$ on) was the one to get. People tend to adopt beliefs to justify their purchases.
Click to expand...

This is true, but just like any expensive items, the more expensive it gets, the smaller the gains you see.

There's a huge jump in quality from a $200 lens to a $600 lens. But going from $600 (say a sigma) to a $1200 (Canon "L" of similar stats) is not as defined.
 
Originally posted by: pontifex
i'd like some more input on that as well.

for instance, i keep seeing these photos that are extremely crisp, clear, and vibrant. are these heavily modified in Photoshop or are they untouched photos that were taken with extremely good lenses? or is it the camera?

if i can find some examples i as to what i'm talking about, i will link them.

example 1
example 2
example 3
Click to expand...

At those sizes, you can't tell much about the lens. You can tell that there was some pretty aggressive sharpening as well as increased saturation applied in post-processing.

 
The other thing that I've noticed from reviews and user comments is that every brand (Sigma, Canon, Tamron, ect) has at least one lens that manages to transcend above cost/brand name and offers incredible image quality for the price. A diamond in the rough so to speak or "Gotta have" lenses.

The Canon 50mm is one of them.
 
Originally posted by: DBL
Originally posted by: pontifex
i'd like some more input on that as well.

for instance, i keep seeing these photos that are extremely crisp, clear, and vibrant. are these heavily modified in Photoshop or are they untouched photos that were taken with extremely good lenses? or is it the camera?

if i can find some examples i as to what i'm talking about, i will link them.

example 1
example 2
example 3
Click to expand...

At those sizes, you can't tell much about the lens. You can tell that there was some pretty aggressive sharpening as well as increased saturation applied in post-processing.
Click to expand...

they did have them in larger sizes, i just linked the smaller sizes because most people bitch about large sizes.
 
I've got an old film camera, Ricoh KR-10, with a decent lens, and it's pretty damned awesome. The picture quality is excellent, much better than the digital camera.
 
With my newest lens, an Olympus 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 ($850), every single one of my images has turned out great (from a technical standpoint of sharpness and contrast handheld or on a monopod)
 
Originally posted by: edro
Originally posted by: edro
Thanks for the RentGlass.com link guys!
I am totally going to us that.
Click to expand...
Maybe not... every single Canon lens is out of stock 🙁
Click to expand...

They are rented out very quickly, sign up for the in-stock notification for whatever lens you want to try and order it the second it comes back in stock.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top