How much difference does a lens really make?

First time poster. Been browsing the forums for a few days now.

I have a Digital Rebel with (what appears to be from this forum) a typical Canon 75-300 zoom lens (three years old) and the new little lens that came with my Digital Rebel. Shooting my sons football games recently (with the 75-300) I began to wonder just how much difference a better lens would make.

Those big "white" 300, 400, 600mm Canon lenses on eBay are sure expensive. Members here indicate Tamron lenses are good budget lenses. I have no idea what "L" lenses are. Sigma seems to have a few supporters here and there.

Does anyone have A/B comparisons (shot with the Digital Rebel) using "budget" and "quality" lenses where newbies like me can actually SEE the difference between lenses and decide whether it's worth the cost for us?

For that matter, does the Digital Rebel even have enough resolution to really show the difference in lenses?

Finally, assuming I can stomach the cost for upgrading lenses, what do you think is the best VALUE for a fixed or zoom lens in the 200-600mm range? I like shooting sports and wildlife.

Thanks for listening.

Ever try using a $1000 stereo with $100 speakers? Same thing-- your system is only as good as its weakest link. A great camera can't overcome the mediocrity caused by a bad lens.

I would take a D30 with a 300mm f/2.8 lens over a 20D with a $75 sigma that produces crap images any day.

ANY DAY!

*EDIT*

It's also worth pointing out that canon and even the third party manu's make a few gems.

Take the 50mm f/1.8, it's $70-$80 and continues to be my favorite lens (i do own one of those medium sized white lenses just for refrence).

But yes, the lens does matter. Very much so infact.

The price of a lens however does not always tell you how good/bad a lens is.

If you want to experiment with not much of an investment to prove how important the lens is, go get the Canon 50mm f/1.8 for around $80. You will never use the 18-55mm kit lens that came with your dRebel again. I didn't.

No offense, but we have a friend with the 75-300mm and we refer to it as the soft lens. The 50mm f/1.8 will blow it away. With digital cameras, the difference in picture quality with cheaper lenses is even more apparent than on a film camera.

You mentioned shooting football with the 75-300mm, so just to give you an idea, I bought this 300mm a few weeks ago for around $1100, and here is a crop of a picture from my 1st time using it. Keep in mind too that this crop was about 1/4 of the entire frame, shot at 300mm handheld (without a monopod).

Welcome,

Good points from other posters.

I would like to know the results of your sons football game. If you are very happy with the results then stick with the equipment that you have and enjoy. But generally you will find that L Lenses tend to focus faster , are sharper and better for low light. These lenses are the pro lenses from Canon (red ring)

Before you go out and buy lenses make sure you do alot of research - by reading the forums and also checking lens test sites -
http://www.photodo.com​/nav/prodindex.html
http://www.photozone.d​e/2Equipment/easytxt.h​tm


You will find that better lenses do help take better pictures. They dont all have to be Canon Lenses.


Rob

Sorry, I forgot to finish up with my 2 cents on the best value in the 200-600mm range, which was the whole point of posting my 300mm pic. I'm not sure what your price range is, but I think my 300mm F/4L is a great values in the $1000 price range. You'd be very happy with it for sports and wildlife photography. The 400mm F/5.6L is also a pretty good value. But, if you absolutely must have a zoom, I've seen good reviews of the Sigma 50-500mm which is a little cheaper than the 300mm and 400mm L primes. I almost bought that lens but decided I needed the IS and would rather have an L lens. If you do get the Sigma, you will most definitely need a tripod at anything 300mm and above.

Another thing to remember, if you decide to go with the 300mm, you can add the 1.4x converter on there for $300 which makes it a 420mm f/5.6, and I think the 2x converter will also work which would give you a 600mm, but you would most likely lose autofocus there (not 100% sure on that).

An excellent wildlife lens is the Sigma 50-500 and you don't need to mortgage your house to buy it ($1000 US). It is big and heavy to carry around (4.10 lbs), but with a monopod or good tripod you can sling it over your shoulder when walking around.

The 75-300 is the cheapest telelens i'd tollerate.It gets pretty good pics at times but.... just
http://members.dodo.ne​t.au/~l8r_ron/

The canon 100-300 is a better all round lens for a few more $. It's not as good as an L lens but it's vaguely close.

Up from there is the fantastic L zoom- the 70-200/4
This lens gives results that you would be genuinely happy with!

The L zooms are VERY good but there are even better lenses! The unbelievably sharp L prime lenses are about as good as it is possible to make a lens .The thing is i don't think you would need anything THAT good.

I'd highly recommend either the 100-300 or (preferably) the 70-200/4 L

Other brand options are-
sigma 100-300/4 EX. Has an excellent reputation,about the same optically as the canon 70-200/4 L(?)
Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX.This one is a pro quality lens but is NOT quite as sharp as the canon lenses when used wide open (2.8)...but still,a very good lens.
I saw some write up's of other brand lenses recently-i'll try to find them.I think tokina make a good 100-300/4

If you want a longer lens than these options than the canon 100-400 IS L is pretty much the obvious choice

A few years ago I had a Minolta camera with two kit lenses: 28-80 and 75-300.

I did a course on photography, and the teacher recommended us to buy a 50mm (fixed focal length) lens to learn more about photography. So I did and I made some photos with the 28-80 at 50mm and my new 50mm lens. The difference in sharpness was enormous! Even in a small 4x6 print, the 50mm lens was clearly much sharper. That was an eye opener for me.

Unfortunately, generally you get what you pay for in terms of lenses - more expensive lenses are better than cheaper ones. There are exceptions, such as the Canon EF 50 f/1.8 II - that's a fixed focal length 50mm lens, just like the one I bought for my Minolta camera a few years ago. It's very small, light, and cheap (about $70 in the USA) but it produces very good and sharp pictures. So go to a shop and get it, and try it out to see what the difference is with your 18-55 lens.

The Canon EOS Beginners' FAQ has a lot of interesting information and a section on lenses that gives you an overview of the different categories of Canon lenses available.

I don't have one, but many people give the canon EF 70-200 f/4.0 L rave reviews. I do plan on buying the pricier f/2.8 version in the near future. Anyways, for the f/4.0 version at just under $600, it is one of the better values out there for a pro lens. It's on the bottom end of the focal length range you want, but may be something to check out. You could add the 1.4x teleconverter on it for a few hundred dollars more to get a 98-280 f/5.6

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …ails&Q=&sku=183​198&is=USA
http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …ails&Q=&sku=220​456&is=USA

All the differnece in the world 8)

Lets forget digital for a second and go back 6-10 years to when really only Film SLRs were in circulation to any extent.

Some 35mm SLRs cost about $150.00 US.. others were as much as $1,950.00... or even more if you consider the esoteric German 35mm cameras.

Features and functions and speeds were what differentiated one 35mm body from another.. but they could all use the same film.. and they could use the lens systems (within the brand's range of course)

Image quality wise on any measurable scale.. this meant that the $150.00 camera was GUARANTEED to get the same image quality as the $2K model provided the same film and lens was used. (and technique etc...)

The ONLY ingredients that effected image were the film.. and the LENS. back then photographers pretty much all understood that the camera was just a box for film... (even f they did covet there neighbors Leica)

So what differentiated the image quality was allways the quality of the lens!

Digital has altered a lot of peoples perception of this fundamental truth.

We now have cameras that offer diferentiated image quality. The BFC-2000SUX has 26 million pixels.. while the PiperJr. .04 has only 4MP

Suddenly.. becuase these digital specs keep changing and modern tech is running at leaps and bounds.. the consumer is blinded by the numbers, the tech,. the megapixel race.....

We forget the importance that was allways paramount.

The LENS.

An oversimplification maybe...

But.. yes Virginia.. It is the lens that really makes the big difference

I look at photography in a very primitive way.

90% photographer, 5% camera, 5% lens.

Think of it this way, the lens gathers all the light, the sensor proccesses the light. The better your lens, the better quality of the light it feeds the sensor. The better the sensor, the more amount of info is turned into usefull data rather then junk.

Everything else is just gravy.

I'm with Persian-Rice. Sharpness as the end all and be all mark of great images is overrated. Anybody can buy high end lenses and take tack sharp pictures, but only a few have the great gift of the artist's eye.

... I say as I sip my sherry, puff on a Monte Carlo and pet the poodle

It really it all depends on what you are looking to achieve. If you're just a proud dad out photographing the kids then it would probably be a waste to drop a mint on top end lenses. Put the money in the kid's college fund instead.

But if you are thinking about selling your images or services as a photographer, then yes, you will want to invest in better lenses. But you still don't have to break the bank.

A number of people rave about the Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L USM IS which can be purchased for around $1400 US.

But then again, you may be very happy with the Tamron 28-300 f/3.5-6.3 Ultra Zoom XR LD, a great, solid consumer lens which you can buy for under $400. I know a lot of guys who love the Tamron super zooms, and they are quite popular with travel photographers - a bag of lenses around the neck is just begging to be stolen.

Go down to a good local photography store, and bring your 300D. Take some test pictures with a few lenses, then bring your camera home and view the pictures on the computer. That might help you decide

I agree too, but an artist is limited to what their tools can do. Imagine if all Da Vinci had was some dyes and a cave wall? Sure the works this fictional Da Vinci would have made on his cave wall may have been good, but would they compare to what is hanging on the walls of the Louvre?

A bad photographer with an expensive piece of glass is just that. A good photographer with an expensive piece of glass has more room to work with in their artistic ability. Amateurs buying professional quality lenses may be a bit overkill... but that's why we call it a hobby, we love to toss all sorts of money at it

I'll put my two UK pennies worth in before I have to rush off to the race circuit for a day's work.

You have to view your investment in camera equipment as being in the lenses. Lens designs and models rarely change, sometimes for as long as 10 years. Digital cameras on the other hand change too often, unlike their film counterparts.

If your photography is art rather than either technical or a detailed record of events, then features like pin-point sharpness and absolute detail may not matter. For example, the requirement to shoot street scenes is very different from that required to shoot wildlife. You have to decide what is acceptable to you and buy what meets that criteria.

Simply write down the most important features you must have out of your camera equipment - ablility to shoot in low light, very wide angles, ultra long very sharp telephoto, etc. and then see what fits each requirement. You may find that you have to buy an expensive L lens to meet one or more of the requirements, or that a couple of budget third party lenses will do the job just fine.

Field sports does not need the same level of detail the wildlife does, but both would benefit from a wide aperture lens as neither can guarantee good lighting. This will take you into the upper price bracket whether you like it or not IMHO.

Is it all down to the photographer? Well, the worlds best photog can't work miracles if the equipment can't physically take the shot required, nor can a poor photographer produce excellent work because he has the best equipment.

I can absolutely prove that my 100-400L outperforms my wife's Sigma 50-500, but only for my requirements which is motorsport, 99% of it in daylight conditions. The fact that the Sigma lies about its aperture to the camera is only one factor effecting the difference. I can also prove the the Sigma 120-300 outperforms the 100-400L under low light conditions, but this is nearly as expensive as an L lens. It is a balancing act at the end of the day, with your ideal in one hand and your budget in the other.