What makes a lens good?

[chartbin]

With a the choices, how does one go about picking the best he/she can afford?
I have
28mm 2.8 EF
35-80 mm 4-5.6 EF
75-300mm 4-5.6 EF

I am thinking of buying a 10D to use with them. Is that wise. Are these lenses worthy?
:?:

[DocFrankenstein]

Affuming it's all canon.

28mm 2.8 EF - yes, it's a prime.

35-80 mm 4-5.6 EF - dunno. Probably not. Not if it's plastic. You're gonna want something with 17-18 mm range anyways because of the crop factor.

75-300mm 4-5.6 EF - No way. I borrowed it from a friend of mine. It takes pictures, but it's resolving capacity is nowhere near the capabilities of the CMOS chip of the 10D. Had it had the same size. IMO it provides enough info for 1200*800 picture and no more.

You're gonna want a 70-200 f/4 L and 24-70 L. Or at least get a 50 mm prime.

Without those lenses you won't be satisfied, cause your zoom ones don't provide enough information for the 10D sensor to record.

[ron chappel]

This is a complicated subject because some judge lenses mostly by resolution,some by contrast and some even care about nothing but distorsion :shock:

Personally i really dislike high contrast/low resolution lenses such as the cheap kit zooms :x -it looks just fake.My favorites are the ones SO sharp looking that you could step into the picture :) ..but not many cheap lenses come close to that ability.I never worry about distorsion at all-probably because i just don't take pictures of buildings

For value for money verses optical ability, NOTHING comes close to the 50/1.8 lens.Unfortunately it's not a zoom

In my opinion the really bad ones are: 35-80!, maybe the 90-300 & the 18-55 kit zoom(for 300D only),all of the current generation of kit zooms

The OK-ish ones are: 28-80(versions I-IV) 28-90(not the latest II type),75-300

The good ones are: 80-200II, 100-300, 28-105II, 24-85, 28-135 IS

[nosquare2003]

The OK-ish ones are: 28-80(versions I-IV)



I have tried my friend's 28-80 but it's really "bad". I don't know which version, however.

[ron chappel]

I should add...
The first 28-80 version was a metal mount lens with true ring USM.It was very closely related to the good 28-105 and had very similar optical quality i'm told
The middle version are all very similar as far as i know.They aren't as good as the good 28-105/24-85/28-135 etc but look pretty OK on digital (they might be pretty bad on film-i can't remember as i only used them very breifly on film)
The very latest 28-80 has identical cosmetics to the 18-55 kit lens.I've not used any of these latest kit lenses but results i've seen from others' photos are really quite bad :?

The 28-90 i mention-not the newest cosmetic design-is rather good at the wide end on digital but starts to get soft and show purple fringing/lack of contrast at the long end

The 35-80 is just point blank disgusting :shock: Of the 5+ examples i've tried on film and digital i've never seen one that is 'good enough' to tollerate

I put the 75-300 in the 'ok' list but it can get excellent pics.It's just inconsistant is all

The 80-200II i put in the 'good' category but it's not quite as good as the ones it's listed with (very close though-and slightly better than the 75-300)

And the 28-135IS probably should be a slight notch above the 'good' group

[Xibalba]

I have a 28-105II and I love it. In terms of flexibility and value for money, I think you cannot go past this lens. With a digital camera like the 10D it ends up being a little long, but that is something I am willing to live with as most of my shots are at the long end anyway.

One thing about the 28-105II that I didn't realise until I got my digital is that it has significantly better resolution than the 20-80 III and the 18-55. I hadn't really noticed it while I was using film, but the first thing I did when I got my 300D on the weekend was to do a comparison between the three lenses I have. I had expected to see a difference, but I was expecting to have to zoom in before I would be abel to see a difference. However, as soon as I looked at the shots, I could clearly see the difference between the clarity of the 28-105II and the other two lenses at 100%.

One thing to be aware of though when looking for a 28-105II is that there is another 28-105 that is of the same quality as the 28-80. The good 28-105 is f3.5-4.5 while the cheaper, mass produced one is 28-105 f4-5.6.

I actually got my lens second hand and the guy who I bought it from said his biggest regret in upgrading to the 17-40 f4L was that he didn't keep the 28-105 as well.

Rick

[Jesper]

Here is a page that explains about the different properties of photographic lenses. It can give you an idea of what characteristics make a lens good or bad:

How to test a lens (http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/How_to/ha_Testing_lenses/a_How_to_test_a_lens.html)

[Tom W]

Don't forget the physical characteristics - build quality, ease of operation, and that kind of thing. A great lens with a nasty focus mechanism can be pretty hard to use at times.

[chartbin]

Jesper,
Thanks for the link.

I guess I am too much of a novice to judge my own stuff, ie. if I look at my own pics, are alle the faults due to operator error of lens limitation. or both?
And why the price discrepancies, is it the f factor?

[Jesper]

Don't forget the physical characteristics - build quality, ease of operation, and that kind of thing. A great lens with a nasty focus mechanism can be pretty hard to use at times.

If you look at the page I linked to, the first thing mentioned is the build quality... :)

chartbin, what do you mean with the "f factor"? If you mean the max. aperture (smaller f/stop number), "faster" lenses (that is, lenses with a larger max. aperture, such as f/2.8 or f/2.0) are generally more expensive, because they require more (expensive) glass to manufacture. Ofcourse they have a major advantage, you can use them in low light with shorter shutter speeds and still get a good exposure, and you have more freedom in controlling the depth-of-field (which depends on the aperture).

Canon's professional quality lenses have an "L" in the name and a red ring around the end of the lens barrel. Ofcourse, L lenses are more expensive, but they are great quality. There are many people who don't want anything else than L lenses after they've tried one.... 8)

[chartbin]

Jesper,
Yes, I was refering to the f stop, thanks for clarifying the "faster ' lenses,etc. I suspected that much. And also the "L" stuff.

I am either getting the 10D or its "replacement" in neet few months.
I am not a pro but a wannabe facinated with hi-tech basically. I want to try my best to take this seriously. Maybe make some money. So thank for passing some of your knowledge.

[Alexandre Gabriel]

For value for money verses optical ability, NOTHING comes close to the 50/1.8 lens.Unfortunately it's not a zoom


Ditto. :wink:


In my opinion the really bad ones are: 35-80!, maybe the 90-300 & the 18-55 kit zoom(for 300D only),all of the current generation of kit zooms


If I can't buy 17-40 f/4 L, and I need a real WA zoom lens, what is a OK-to-good budget lens for DReb?


The OK-ish ones are: 28-80(versions I-IV) 28-90(not the latest II type),75-300


Ditto again for 75-300 and 28-90. This last one is even good with a film body.

[Tom W]

Don't forget the physical characteristics - build quality, ease of operation, and that kind of thing. A great lens with a nasty focus mechanism can be pretty hard to use at times.

If you look at the page I linked to, the first thing mentioned is the build quality... :)



I suppose I should have looked. :)

chartbin, what do you mean with the "f factor"? If you mean the max. aperture (smaller f/stop number), "faster" lenses (that is, lenses with a larger max. aperture, such as f/2.8 or f/2.0) are generally more expensive, because they require more (expensive) glass to manufacture. Ofcourse they have a major advantage, you can use them in low light with shorter shutter speeds and still get a good exposure, and you have more freedom in controlling the depth-of-field (which depends on the aperture).

Canon's professional quality lenses have an "L" in the name and a red ring around the end of the lens barrel. Ofcourse, L lenses are more expensive, but they are great quality. There are many people who don't want anything else than L lenses after they've tried one.... 8)

Canon's mid-priced zooms and most primes with ring-type USM, focus scale, and non-rotating front element are pretty well made and operate quite well. The 24-85 f/3.5-4.5, 28-105 f/3.5-4.5, and the 20-35 f/3.5-4.5 are all good examples of decent lenses of good quality.