I need a very honest opinion

[anthonyhong]

I shoot with a 20D, my collection of lenses is very small, I have a 17-85 IS, 50mm F1.8 MKII and a Sigma 135mm F2.8 M42 screw mount with an adaptor. My accesories are also very limited, I have a National brand manual flash which is about 30 years old and a cheap tripod :P.

I am a hobbiest and shoot a wide variety of things, a few of which I have posted here (http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/search.php?searchid=1658211). Now my question is, would a new lens really help that much? Well of course a new lens would be great, but would I really need it?

Thanks!

[saravrose]

I love this.. somebody actually questioning a purchase as to whether you NEED it....

oh...
wait...
your new....

LOL.. okay, sorry being serious now. My theory is that if you find something lacking in your kit now and if you are actively not able to get the shots that you want because of gear limitations than yes. It would make sense.. But, if you just feel like you should upgrade for the heck of it then no. it's probably not necessary... However, for the majority of us necessary doesnt really come into play with purchasing decisions...

sari

[Wilt]

Improve your tripod (sturdier), improve your flash (ETTL)...then think of more lenses! The tripod will help improve shots with all of your lenses, the flash will make flash shots far easier, too! If you want a new lens, FIRST think about what you specifically are going to shoot with that lens (determines focal length you want), and/or think about why your current lenses are not adequate to meet your need. Unless you simply crave
'new' and want the new lens smell!;)

[saravrose]

Improve your tripod (sturdier), improve your flash (ETTL)...then think of more lenses! The tripod will help improve shots with all of your lenses, the flash will make flash shots far easier, too! If you want a new lens, FIRST think about what you specifically are going to shoot with that lens (determines focal length you want), and/or think about why your current lenses are not adequate to meet your need. Unless you simply crave
'new' and want the new lens smell!;)

new lens smell... hmm... yes. I do think that there is a certain smell to new lenses... atleast there should be. ;):p

[Seefutlung]

Anthony-

Equipment is easy to talk about ... so these type of forums get an excess of equipment gabbering. More important than equipment is the eye, skill, experience and expertise of the photographer. You will learn/grow more with photography by having to adjust and overcome a lack of equipment than in having every lens ever made sticking out of your "Shooter's Vest".

Photography is about images ... and images is all about what you see and your ability to capture what you see in your mind's eye and translate that image onto the sensor.

Generally speaking, the intent of most photography is to get the exceptonal shot ... only thing equipment does for you is to make it easier for the photographer to get that exceptional shot ... to capture the photo they desire.

Gary

PS- When you need a new lens or equipment ... you will know. It will bite you in the behind everytime you pick up the camera. You will know what focal length ... all you need to ask of others is what maker has the sharpest, most affordable, best value lens around.
G

[anthonyhong]

Well I mainly shoot products... but besides that I shoot abandoned buildings... but recently, wherever I go, my camera goes so Ill shoot just about anything. My main reason why I am considering a purchace of a new lens is because after I got my 50 f.18 I realized just how much my 17-85 sucked!

http://img93.imageshack.us/img93/7391/10lv0.th.jpg (http://img93.imageshack.us/my.php?image=10lv0.jpg)
(Comparison)

A new flash would definitly be great, but I can 'make do' with my current flash... it doesnt meter so I kinda learned how to shoot without it :P



@Seefutlung, didnt see your post, guess we posted at the same time :P

Thats why I was asking wheter or not I would actually need a new lens, Im a really bad at shooting by any measures, so I was asking whether or not I would actually benifit/ make use of a new lens. I must admit, ever since I started reading these forums, I have been very tempted by more than a few pieces of equipment ... -.-

[Wilt]

Equipment is easy to talk about ... so these type of forums get an excess of equipment gabbering. More important than equipment is the eye, skill, experience and expertise of the photographer. You will learn/grow more with photography by having to adjust and overcome a lack of equipment than in having every lens ever made sticking out of your "Shooter's Vest".
Photography is about images ... and images is all about what you see and your ability to capture what you see in your mind's eye and translate that image onto the sensor.
Generally speaking, the intent of most photography is to get the exceptonal shot ... only thing equipment does for you is to make it easier for the photographer to get that exceptional shot ... to capture the photo they desire.




Have I found another person not obsessed with buying a bag full of L lenses and pixel peeping them to death while testing but not using them?!?!?!

[Luckie8]

Photography is about images ... and images is all about what you see and your ability to capture what you see in your mind's eye and translate that image onto the sensor.

Generally speaking, the intent of most photography is to get the exceptonal shot ... only thing equipment does for you is to make it easier for the photographer to get that exceptional shot ... to capture the photo they desire.

Gary
I like that.. ;)

[Seefutlung]

Anthony-

A new lens won't make you a better photog. Just like a new calculator won't make you a better at math. Firstly, before you buy your next lens ... check out places like Fred Miranda or photozone.de ... websites which rate different lenses to sharpness, CA, et cetera. That will begin to give you a feel of what to expect from the various lenses in the price range and focal range you wish.

Meanwhile, read up on the tech end of the 17-85 ... see where the lens is strongest and weakest and use the lens to its strengths. Do you own tests to verify what you've read. Join a local camera group ... at a meeting or shoot see what everyone is using and ask for their opinions ... try out their lenses. Many people swear by the 17-85 ... see how they are using it ...

It could be that you have grown out of the 17-85 and you're ready for lens which are more specialized than the one-lens-does-all-walk-around of 17-85. Or it could be that operator error has contributed to poor image quality.

Gary

[Seefutlung]

PS- Nice pooch.
-G-

[Bill Roberts]

The truth is you probably don't actually need a new lens. But never feel guilty about buying one just because you want it either, it's just as valid a reason. Especially as it's a hobby and you get enjoyment from it. Providing it's not hurting anyone and you can afford it then why not? Just never forget that it doesn't really matter what gear you use, it's the end result that counts most, and in the long term gives you most pleasure.

cheers
Bill

[shaunknee]

Photography is much like cycling... as there is nothing like new equipment to keep the interest honed!

[Jon]

What don't your lenses do for you? If you can answer that, then you can identify (or not, as the case may be) the lens you need to get (again, or not, as the case may be). Are there holes in what you want to shoot because of what you have and don't have?

[Davidsl222]

A little over a year ago I bought an SD400 to take some snapshots. (I was a film SLR user 20 years previously.) I quickly found that I couldn't make the SD400 do what I wanted it to do. A little over a year later I have a 5D, 3 L lenses, a very good tripod and head, some lighting and a 580 EX flash. I probably only "needed" the SD400 but I use all of my gear constantly and don't regret buying all the stuff I didn't really need.

[Davidsl222]

Oh, and now I'm convnced I need a 1D camera. Still really only need the SD400.

[JNunn]

One thing a new and better lens will do for you is help you see how well your present skills allow you to shoot. That is, if you've got an excellent lens and get average shots, then you know that you need to work on some aspects of your skills. On the other hand, if find the quality of your images do improve with better lenses, well then just join the club. That's what really good glass is supposed to do!

[Layston]

From another amateur who has recently expanded his collection, new lenses did the following for me:
1. Taught me what I was missing - namely sharpness and ability to get bokeh.
2. Taught me what I was doing wrong (i.e. I thougth a new lens would fix a specific issue, and found out that it was a user error that showed itself on both old and new lenses).
3. Let me expand my shooting. I now can shoot sports. I can also be more artistic because of my increased choices for equipment.

Did I need more/new lenses? After having the kit lens, a 24-200 and a 75-300, I had all the focal lengths I needed covered, but I still wasn't really happy. So because I get a lot of enjoyment out of photography, it was worth my investment. So the answer is "no.. but..."

I would say that if you are asking the question, you probably already feel that there is something you MIGHT want to do that you can't right now. Either figure it out and then buy a lens to fill the need, OR go out and rent a few lenses to "see what you are missing". Who knows, maybe you'll be a closet duck shooter... :)

[rdenney]

Your choice of lenses should follow your artistic vision, not lead it.

if you stand before a scene you want to photograph, and you have found the spot that gives you the perspective on the elements of the scene that fits the image in your mind, then all you need is the lens that includes the right amount of the scene to conform to your composition.

So, learn to choose your viewpoint and your composition before making the lens decision. Your lens choices will get a lot easier after that.

I moved further and further into wide angle lenses as I found I couldn't include enough of the scene from the point of view that seemed to me most dramatic. But it took many years to finally get to the point where I understood how fisheye and extreme wide angle lenses would fit with my objectives.

The alternative is to buy a lens and then wander around looking through the camera to see what it's good for. I submit that this is a lot less efficient producer of good photographs.

Don't obsess on lens quality at first. Nearly all modern lenses are good enough if you use them well. A state-of-the-art lens might not be as good wide open or with too slow a shutter speed as a cheapie at f/8 on a good tripod, so the aperture you choose will have a bigger effect on your results than the quality of the lens. Learn to use excellent technique first, so that you know when you are using the lens in accordance with its strengths.

The old truism goes that beginners argue about lenses, experienced amateurs debate tripods, and commercial photographers discuss lighting. Like all such truisms, it belittles those who are starting out, and even some grizzled veterans love to argue about lenses, but there is a lot of truth in it. So, first learn to look for the light and drama in the scene, and learn to identify what it is about the scene that makes you want to photograph it. Then make sure you are using excellent technique (which will require a sturdy tripod in many cases). When you are proficient in those, then when you do upgrade your lenses you'll get your money's worth out of them and truly appreciate their quality.

An example: I frequently make photographs using a light meter that cost more than the camera (this was routinely true for me before digital came along). And I have more invested in my flashes and studio lights than in all the lenses I use for commercial work combined.

98% of what makes a good photograph comes from behind the camera.

A mistake lots of folks make is that they look at the equipment pros are using and buy the same thing. I think that this practice often slows people down in their photographic development, because they are trying to figure out what the equipment can do for them before they know what they need. Another common mistake is that people postulate needs they don't really have, such as a "need" to do sports photography, a "need" to do wildlife photography, or a "need" to do macro photography. They buy according to the need they have postulated, but without having actually put themselves in the position of executing those specialties. Someone who doesn't like to hike has no business buying a specialty lens for wildlife, for example. Commercial photographers buy a specialty lens when it becomes apparent they will get enough specialized gigs to pay for it. For one-time gigs, they rent. Every lens has to pull its weight, or they are undermining their commercial success.

On the other hand, amateurs who have the money don't have to justify their purchases to anybody. If you want fancy lenses and have the money, that's all the justification you need. But all the posts I see about people maxing out their credit cards suggests that many don't meet the "have the money" requirement. I might make a dent in a credit card or a savings account for something that really fits my vision, but short of that I'm just buying on spec, and that's risky.

Note that as we mature, our vision changes, and thus our collection of lenses grows. I own an obscene number of lenses, but then I've been buying them steadily for 35 years.

Rick "who has done a mountain of commercial work with only a normal lens" Denney

[oakleydo]

Photography is much like cycling... as there is nothing like new equipment to keep the interest honed!



Being a cyclist, I agree. Of course my other hobby, woodworking, is the same. I need to find a cheap hobby!

[Layston]

Wow that's one long post Rick. I like your outlook and appreciate your perspective. However, I have to disagree with one of your points. You said
Nearly all modern lenses are good enough if you use them well
However,my experience has shown this not to be true. To modify it just slightly, I would say that either all modern Canon lenses or high end lenses from third party manufacturers are good enough if you use them well. I picked up a cheapo Tamron 28-80 and it's got good color and I actually like it, but the 55-200 Sigma that I bought disappointed me so much I couldn't stand it. I have the cheapo Canon 75-300 III (non-usm) and it can take some nice shots. I've never heard of a bad Canon lens - mediocre yes, bad no. I guess it comes down to the old addage, you get what you pay for. So in the range of lenses available, buying too cheaply will most likely disappoint.

[rdenney]

However,my experience has shown this not to be true. To modify it just slightly, I would say that either all modern Canon lenses or high end lenses from third party manufacturers are good enough if you use them well.

Try a comparison of your 50/1.4, at f/1.4, with the lens you hated at f/8 or f/11.

Of course, there are indeed some really terrible lenses out there. But if you limit your enlargements to, say, 5x7, then I'll bet that even the lens you hated wouldn't be unusable. I have made some good and even fairly large prints from some lenses that really howled at the moon.

Even a slight focusing error will create more blur than the lens faults from a really cheapo lens when used at f/8 or f/11. Ditto any camera shake at all.

Once a person has developed the technique to get the most out of cheapo lenses, I bet they'll be empowered by good technique to be the advice giver on POTN more often than the advice seeker.

Rick "who has some images made with Phoenix Garbajomat lenses on display" Denney

[Layston]

While I don't disagree with you Rick, I spent 4 hours diligently testing the one lens I hated. I put it on a tripod and took about 100 shots. I went through the aperture range from one extreme to the next. I manually focused and autofocused, I tried natural light and flash, all on a tripod with remote release. No matter what I tried the lens was just soft with horrible CA. I tried printing some 4x6's and in the end, the only thing I thought the lens might have been good for was portrait photography like an EF 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus.

Now I just wish I had that 50/1.4 to test against - reminds me of my old 50/1.4 FD that I used to have...ahh the memories :)

[rdenney]

While I don't disagree with you Rick, I spent 4 hours diligently testing the one lens I hated.

Well, there is always the exception that proves the rule. Just think of it this way, how horrible did a lens have to be in order to become that exception? It sounds as though it was pretty horrible.

I have a Quantaray 18-35 and a Phoenix 100-400, both of which are widely regarded as junk. But I've made worthy photographs with them. They are demanding, however; their sweet spots are narrow indeed. I bought better lenses just so I wouldn't have to work so hard.

Rick "who still uses the Phoenix from time to time, like at the beach to keep from getting sand and salt in a good lens" Denney