Expensive not always better

[Michaelmjc]

I've read quite a few times that an "expensive lens" is soo much better than a cheap lens. Well I dont believe that. Sure expensive lenses might have more features, ex.. IS, USM, etc... But the image quality is not always that much better.

I bought a cheap sigma lens a month or two ago.

Sigma 55-200mm DC
http://www.digitalcamera.jp/html/HotNews/image/2003-10/27/55-200DC-L.jpg

It cost me $279.00.


Here is another picture with it,
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y7/mikeclarke/flower2.jpg

I just wanted to let people know that expensive isn't always better, sometimes the cheap lenses are just as good.
http://img251.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bird2fl.jpg

[ddelallata]

??? The only way to tell is by doing a comparison of the same shot with a different lens....for example a 70-200 L IS. I'm pretty sure that you'd get better saturation, faster focusing speed and a sharper image with a handheld shot with the IS turned on.

[Michaelmjc]

??? The only way to tell is by doing a comparison of the same shot with a different lens....for example a 70-200 L IS. I'm pretty sure that you'd get better saturation, faster focusing speed and a sharper image with a handheld shot with the IS turned on.

Sure it will probably be a better picture, but the cheapo Sigma lens is not doing so bad.

If you're paying 400-800+ more I would hope it was better.

[Citizensmith]

I agree with your point, but not the phrasing. It's more a case of cheap doesn't always mean crappy. You're saying better, but not actually comparing it to anything.

Love the flower photo, but there is some bad CA on the bird.

I think your photos are more an example that what is behind the camera is more important than what is in front of it.

[lostdoggy]

This from some one who don't Have anyexpensive lenses mine you.

I think you miss th point on what USM and IS on lenses are.

USM: is Ultra Sonic Motor.
There are bsicly three different version of USM w/ ring type being the best. The whole excersize of USM is quiet and fast focusing.

IS: Image stablizing.
This gives you up to three stop before the shakes takes over.

Quality lens will give you less CA and sharper focus from edge to edge, and faster aperature. In order for nyone to truelly make a statement you just made you need to provide proof. You need to show a photo fom an expensive lens to your lens under the same condition. If you do a seach on this site or any other site where the individual do a comparason they will show the comparative lenses.
But if you are happy with what yu are getting out of the lens then that is all that matters. There are people out there that have many expensive quiptment but have no idea how to fully utilize it. What they have is very deep pockets, which I personally don't have.

[Michaelmjc]

I agree with your point, but not the phrasing. It's more a case of cheap doesn't always mean crappy. You're saying better, but not actually comparing it to anything.

Love the flower photo, but there is some bad CA on the bird.

I think your photos are more an example that what is behind the camera is more important than what is in front of it.

I know the lens is not better in any way than say a 70-200 2.8 IS, I will rephrase it.

A cheap lens doesn't always mean a crappy lens... You can still get good shots with a $300 lens.. so a 70-200 2.8 IS would be nice, but you dont need it to get good pictures.

[Michaelmjc]

I think you miss th point on what USM and IS on lenses are.


I know what they mean.

"Sure expensive lenses might have more features, ex.. IS, USM, etc..."

I was just making the point that a lens that has no features on it isn't always a bad lens.

[IanC_UK]

I know the lens is not better in any way than say a 70-200 2.8 IS, I will rephrase it.

A cheap lens doesn't always mean a crappy lens... You can still get good shots with a $300 lens.. so a 70-200 2.8 IS would be nice, but you dont need it to get good pictures.

Thats a much better phrasing ! :)

You only have to look at what the 50 1.8 II produces to know you dont HAVE to have an expensive lens to produce some really good shots ! :D

[blue_max]

You did rather make the comparison yourself.

If you came to the table and said you thought it was pretty good for an inexpensive lens, then you may have got a more positive response. But to say 'why buy an expensive lens when you can do this' rather throws down the gauntlet.

It is clear you are very happy with it, so enjoy it.

Graham

[nitsch]

I like the flower shot a lot. Great colours and use of DOF.

I too have a "cheapo" Sigma zoom - the 70-300 APO, I paid the UK equivalent of about 180USD for it, for the money I think it is nothing short of fantastic and I have a lot of fun using it - however the reality is that there are far better (and generally more expensive!) zoom lenses out there.

For most of us this is a hobby and a hobby is surely about having fun :D, so if you can enjoy the results you get from your kit that's the most important thing in my mind - it doesn't really matter whether you are using a disposable 24 shot film camera or a top end pro digital SLR with a barrage of L lenses.

You've proven you don't have to sell a kidney to enjoy this hobby! I'm glad you're having fun with your Sigma. :D

[Michaelmjc]

'why buy an expensive lens when you can do this' rather throws down the gauntlet.
Graham

I never said that once, where did you get that from?

[tim]

There's a little purple fringing in that picture.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Just curious.. but

..would you be interested to hear what is not good about the bird pic?

Would you be interested in how a better lens.. and perhaps a more expensive lens could help to improve images like your bird pic?

I wholeheartedly agree that there are some phenomenal lenses at very affordable prices :)

[Michaelmjc]

I totally agree the bird picture isn't the best, it was a crappy day outside, so the iso was up (hence the noise and the dull sky) It was the only one I could find right now though.

[Michaelmjc]

I found a better picture than the bird, here is another shot taken at 200mm.

[condyk]

EDIT: Since posting this, the OP has changed the first shot from a Sparrow to an image of a lens ... how pointless is that ?

The first shot is a really bad advert for any lens, the second is nice enough at best and the third soft and over processed. BUT that's only my opinion and it doesn't mean anyone else won't find them delightful. We're all right and it's just fun.

The difficulty is when someone says x or y is always better, or if you spend £xyz you will get a better lens. What they usually miss out is the shooter. For example, Mr Nitsch above seems to have a unique ability to squeeze every last ounce of performance from his humble 70-300mm APO Sigma. His shots are better than many, 60% AT LEAST, of the 70-200mm f4 shot I have seen posted here.

Doesn't mean he has a better lens? No, he just understands his lens and camera and knows how to use it (or, is very lucky!!!!) Chuck the same lens on many other people's camera and we would no doubt get all kinds of complaints and OOF, front/back focus, DOF style problems reported as well as some truly awful Mr Shakey-Softee style images.

So, I think the OP has a point in that, in his opinion, you don't need to spend mega bucks to get decent results. If only he'd produced some stunning images to back up his assertions it would have been so much easier. We should think in system terms and forget lens, camera, shooter, subject. There is an interaction going on there and all four are necessary for a great or crappy image to appear out the other end.

[Keiffer]

Michael, I kind of agree with you, I believe that on some focal lengths you can actually get a very good picture equal to some more expensive lenses. But like others say, when you kick in IS and other factors thats what you are really paying for, which in turn will help you get a better picture when the other can't due to outside conditions. But I find it hard to believe that a lenses can really be worth SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS! It is made from GLASS/Sand and metal.

[blue_max]

I never said that once, where did you get that from?


I was rather paraphrasing. The title "Expensive not always better" suggests that you can get the same quality by buying a cheaper lens. Sorry if you thought I was directly quoting you. What exactly did you mean by the title?

Graham

[Michaelmjc]

i meant that some lenses that are over $1000 dollars are not better than some that are $500.

A lot of people just have the money factor in their heads "the more it costs, the better it will be"
I'm sure that you know a lot of things that cost more but are not always better than something cheaper.

You could pay 60 dollars for a baseball hat because it said Nike, Or you could get the exact same hat for 20 with nothing on it.

Just trying to get the point across that you dont have to spend mega bucks to get a decent lens.

[Keiffer]

I agree, you tend to pay more for the name, than the actual product.

[blue_max]

i meant that some lenses that are over $1000 dollars are not better than some that are $500.

A lot of people just have the money factor in their heads "the more it costs, the better it will be"
I'm sure that you know a lot of things that cost more but are not always better than something cheaper.

You could pay 60 dollars for a baseball hat because it said Nike, Or you could get the exact same hat for 20 with nothing on it.

Just trying to get the point across that you dont have to spend mega bucks to get a decent lens.

To be clear (because it's quite a claim), you are saying that they are not worth double or are actually worse. If worse, do you have experience of one?
The analogy of the baseball hat for instance, who is to say that the one with the logo is not better to the person that bought it.
To lighten the mood, here is a true story:
I always wanted a football kit when I was quite young. I supported Manchester City who had a sky blue kit. When Christmas came, I opened my present and there it was - an Everton Kit! My mother went into the shop and bought it because it was a 'nicer blue'. Talk about missing the point!!!

Graham

[blinking8s]

- 72dpi 500x300 images dont tell anything about anything. Actually monitors dont do much justice to anything unless you run an compeltely web based photography outfit, you want to get gritty, compare with largest print/quality possible side by side.

- the photographer is limited to tech in many ways, but the photography is still dependent on the photographer using that gear in the end.

- this topic is close to pointless

[grego]

As long as you take advantage of your lens to the fullest, that's all that counts. Do with what you have as best you as you could. As long as you push it to its limits and get its max potential, you are doing well.

But you can't tell me that you can do better with that lens than the 70-200 mm f/2.8L IS. In a low light situation for instance, you can't outdo that lens for instance. But hey, if you aren't making money off of your hobby and you have another job, its no big deal.

It only becomes a big deal when your assignment/job depends on it, and you need those lens. And yes, you pay for what you get when you spend a lot.

[MarkH]

I have a 75-300 f4-5.6 III USM, this is definately a cheapie and is well known for being a rather mediocre lens. It only has the micro USM, not the ring type and I have experienced the focus going off on a 'hunting trip' several times. The contrast and sharpness are lacking somewhat compared to the good lenses.

BUT: I have taken some excellent shots with it! Until I can afford the lens I really want (70-200 f2.8L IS) this is my only longer lens (my 28-135 has less than half the focal length). The good shots that I have taken have been at f8 or narrower and have been in good daylight, I have also taken bad shots where the lenses limitations have made themselves quite obvious.

Personally, I think that the better lenses are usually the dearer lenses, but it depends on what features you need on a lens as to how much you need to spend. Many lenses are dearer because of the wide aperture, so if you are always shooting in good light or using a tripod then you may not need to pay for an f2.8 zoom with IS. Everything that I have read on the 70-200 zooms would suggest that the 70-200 f4L will give photos that are just as good as from the dearer versions - provided you exclude any at wider than f4 from the dearer versions, and that you are only talking about shots with enough light or with a tripod.

When I get a 70-200 f2.8L IS lens, I could post a good pic taken at 200mm, 1/20 sec, f2.8, handheld - then we could see if anyone could take the same pic at the same settings with a cheaper lens. Clearly in extreme shooting situations it can be easy for a better lens to really shine over all the lesser lenses, unlike in ideal shooting situations where almost any lens can produce good results.

[ron chappel]

I'm definitely one who likes to dabble with cheap lenses;) .There's a certain (stingy?)satisfaction to it ,lol

I've found with cheap tele lenses that there is a certain image quality level that i'm happy with .This tends to be about what the best consumer zoomsgive.I'll use the really cheap lenses but it does get annoying after awhile because of the number of shots i have to take to get a few keepers

[wibbly]

I've read quite a few times that an "expensive lens" is soo much better than a cheap lens. Well I dont believe that. Sure expensive lenses might have more features, ex.. IS, USM, etc... But the image quality is not always that much better.

...

I just wanted to let people know that expensive isn't always better, sometimes the cheap lenses are just as good.


Depends how you define 'better' and 'just as good'. As you spend more I think you generally do get a better absolute results in terms or sharpness, bokeh, saturation, focus speed, build quality, etc etc. But you also pay for a name when you buy Canon. So buying Canon L lenses you're certainly into the law of diminishing returns (have to pay a lot more to get a little better).

So I think expensive lenses are indeed better as a rule in absolote terms, but for many the lower cost lenses are much better VALUE. And if you're not going to print or crop in a way that's going to make a big deal of the differences, then your viewers will often be none the wiser.


Even when sticking to Canon, I own a 24-70L as my only lens currently. I had a play with a 28-135 IS, bought via EBay by its owner. Slower, less sharp, etc, than my lens but the reach is further, & IS is sure nice to use. And a world of difference from the kit lens supplied with her 350! For her, it it was absolutely the right value choice. 1/3 of the price of my lens (even when new).

John

[ssim]

Michael, I kind of agree with you, I believe that on some focal lengths you can actually get a very good picture equal to some more expensive lenses. But like others say, when you kick in IS and other factors thats what you are really paying for, which in turn will help you get a better picture when the other can't due to outside conditions. But I find it hard to believe that a lenses can really be worth SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS! It is made from GLASS/Sand and metal.

If they are all just sand and metal thrown together then shouldn't all lenses be equal. Of course in reality they are not. A lens is worth 6000.00 if the photograhic community buys it. If it didn't yield superb images it would not sell for that price. They are made for a smaller segment of the photographic community and that is reflected in the price.

I think that CDS said it best that there are some very reasonably priced lenses out there that provide some very spectacular images. The Tamron 28-75 comes to mind. I have seen some great stuff with this lens and it is midrange priced.

[RodBarker]

The first shot is a really bad advert for any lens

Unless he has two of those lenses the photo of the lens is taken with something else .

Rod

[Keiffer]

You missed my point, Yes ofcourse there's more to it than just sand and metal but they're not made out of gold and still can't see buying a SIX THOUSAND DOLLAR lense unless ofcourse I was part of the Paparzzi making a fortune off my shots. If they are all just sand and metal thrown together then shouldn't all lenses be equal. Of course in reality they are not. A lens is worth 6000.00 if the photograhic community buys it. If it didn't yield superb images it would not sell for that price. They are made for a smaller segment of the photographic community and that is reflected in the price.

I think that CDS said it best that there are some very reasonably priced lenses out there that provide some very spectacular images. The Tamron 28-75 comes to mind. I have seen some great stuff with this lens and it is midrange priced.

[Sean-Mcr]

They're not made out of gold nor are airplanes, the space shuttle ect. But what they are highly engineered pieces of precision equipment, and much more complex then producing gold

[ssim]

still can't see buying a SIX THOUSAND DOLLAR lense unless ofcourse I was part of the Paparzzi making a fortune off my shots.

Well that is where you and I differ then. I don't have to be earning a living or even partial with my equipment to justify it to myself. I don't mind paying a premium for something that I know is going to give me those sharp images. There is obviously much more to it than just the lens but if it has the capabilities to surrender top quality shots then it is up to the photographer to extract them.

[Michaelmjc]

Unless he has two of those lenses the photo of the lens is taken with something else .

Rod

I didn't even take that shot, just grabbed it off the net.

[Rob612]

Surely cheap lenses can give quite interesting results, no doubt. IMHO, for the little is worth, I see a custom use of those I own. Beside letting the wife use them whenever she wants to (just because she does not like big white ones to carry) I use them everytime I go shooting in critical environments, unless the good, expensive glass is absolutely needed. I snap the XT and the three cheap lenses I have (see sig) in the bag and I'm ready to rock. Whatever happens to camera and lenses (insurance here is out of question, basically it will cost me enough to get an L lens per year) the damage will be relatively small (better than loosing for example the 20D, 70-200 2.8IS and 100-400 -the latter coming in the next few days). In safer conditions of course I'll sport the big stuff. Sometimes I just go out with the little Ixus :)

[dispatchermike21]

Biggers better more is best. I was taught and I beleave you get what you pay for ( yes it can be inflated at times but thats were research comes in ) odds are I will be using and still getting good sharp images from my 100-400 Is USM L long after your ( umm sorry forgot what it is ) is dead and trashed.

[Hellashot]

All lenses will give a good look at the size of the image you posted, even a poor quality lens.

[grego]

You missed my point, Yes ofcourse there's more to it than just sand and metal but they're not made out of gold and still can't see buying a SIX THOUSAND DOLLAR lense unless ofcourse I was part of the Paparzzi making a fortune off my shots.

Well its not as common of a lens. That's supply and demand for you. Not many who are in the photography business pursue lens at that focal lenght and speed. So what do you expect? But no one is forcing anyone to buy it. So there you go. The market price seems to work. If it didn't they'd adjust. They haven't, why, because the market has set the price where it belongs.

[sixshot]

Grego, you beat me to it. I read down and was thinking supply and demand, and there you go and say it!! I agree that cheap lenses can take good shots, but in my opinion, with the right skills, a more expensive lens can usually take it better.

And as for the cap example, this is different as you are talking about just adding a logo to make it better, but with lenses there is a lot more to it than that.

[sixshot]

And why was the first image changed?

[Citizensmith]

I was at a wedding a couple of weeks ago (attending, not as photographer) and the photographer had Nikon digital with a fairly long looking lens (possibly 70-200ish) a Canon 20D with a 28-135IS and (this entertained me most) a Canon 1Ds with a 28-105 on it!

I'm not dissin on the 28-105, I had one and really liked it, I just wondered why a pro would do the spend all your money on bodies and have nothing left for lenses thing. It's a 1Ds, I'd expect L or prime on that. I was also kind of disappointed he wouldn't trade it for my RebelD, but ah well.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Have you ever seen a good image from a $250.00 600mm lens??

[lkorell]

I think there is the basis of a discussion here on quality of image vs. quality of equipment.
A good shot is a good shot. Remember, most all of the most revered shots in photographic history were made with much less technically sophisticated gear as we have today. But they are still used to compare quality of image. If you can make a compelling photograph with a cheaper camera or lens, people will still be moved by the image.
I know this is a Canon forum, but my film experience was mostly a Nikon one. So, for example, take the Nikon FM2 and 105mm f2.5 lens. This little setup can still be purchase used today for way under $500. both pieces are legendary and have produced some of the best photographs in history.
So, my point, give a good photographer any camera, and you'll get a good picture. Would Itzhak Perleman play badly if he did not use a Stradivarius? Doubt it.

Lou

[Keiffer]

Sheldon, After looking at your pics, I will shut up! They are fantastic and truly show the difference between a good lense/Photographer( this defintely being you) and a cheap lense. I was cranky and suffering from Lense envy for the fact that I personally can't afford one of these expensive lenses. And yes I know like the last poster pointed out about the great Photographic shots of our time were taken with less technological cameras/lenses than we have today. And yes you can give a great photographer a cheap lense and he would be able to get a good shot, but not a great one. Than again, Thank god for PS:-) And again Sheldon you have a wonderful portfolio there!*Well that is where you and I differ then. I don't have to be earning a living or even partial with my equipment to justify it to myself. I don't mind paying a premium for something that I know is going to give me those sharp images. There is obviously much more to it than just the lens but if it has the capabilities to surrender top quality shots then it is up to the photographer to extract them.