How much difference does a lens really make?

On the same camera body, I would agree. BUT - with Digital, all bodies are not equal. Things like autofocus accuracy, white balance control, shooting frames/sec, etc all can make a difference to the overall quality of the picture.

Alan

Autofocus makes a difference but then the lenses make a difference to that too. As an example. On my 10D autofocus become fairly poor using the EF 100-400L in light levels which require it to be near wide open. On the other hand with my Sigma 120-300mm the 10D maintains AF accuracy to a much lower light level. In fact I can shoot it wide open quite happily and be confident of the AF function.

White balance can be easily fixed in post processing, and I can't see how frames/sec affects image quality.

Here's my $.02.


Every manufacturer makes some good lenses, some awesome lenses, and some forgettable lenses. As you go from manufacturer to manufacturer, that "quality scale" slides some in one direction or the other.

The problem is that quality is subjective.

Therefore, some will say that only Canon lenses will do... Some will say that Sigma (or some other manufacturer) is great, some will say they suck, some will say that they have a great lens - the _______ (insert lens here).

Here's what I do:

Decide what focal length(s) I need for a given task. Let's say that I want a good zoom for sports, topping out at say 400mm. I would check reviews and opinions for THAT STYLE LENS ONLY. After a while, I'd likely conclude that the Canon 100-400 L IS lens is the best choice.

However, for another task, perhaps a Sigma or Tamron lens has high ratings from end users and a much lower price... That would factor in as well. I would also consider if I want/need image stabilization (IS) on anything beyond 200mm (generally, unless you will tripod everythng, the answer is YES).

I bought a Tamron 19-35 lens for a few hundred dollars. Later, in a fit of passion for L glass, I bought the Canon 16-35L. Know what? There's no tremendous difference in image quality. There's some, yes. And since I intend to use it for professional stock images, that difference might mean something. But if I were shooting for fun, trust me, I'd keep the Tamron and pocket ~$1000.00.

The bottom line here? Use your head, know what you need, and try to be objective (and consider only objective reviews) in selecting your lenses. You'll be much happier at the end of the day.


- Joe

Here's a straight comparison if it's of interest.

First is a 75-300 1:4-5.6 II
second is the 70-200 F4L

both at 200mm and F8

100% crop on a 20D
Both sharpened to the same degree in PS (only as I have in camera sharpening set to low)

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

I must add, that even though you are what makes the photograph not your equipment, if you have better equipment, you usually get a better variation of your creation.

A good photographer can take a disposable film camera and take something that looks great, which is what our prof is making us do, getting down to the bare bones. If you can consistently take great shots with a disposable, imagine what you can do with "top of the line" equipment.

I try to own all the best lenses I can possibly afford, but I don't let that change my perception that my lenses are what will make my images look stunning. It sort of like F1, if you have 900 hp, thats great, if you have 950 hp even better, but it will only take .100 of your lap time, but the car wont steer itself...............

Cheers

WOW - a wealth of info!!! You guys rock! Here's my goals...

Some of you ask a good question that I neglected to mention. Why I photograph and what I like to see. I also like the point about having a good 'eye' for the right shot.

I am a print designer by trade; specifically corporate identity, advertising, and marketing collateral, with a smattering of Internet work thrown in more and more often. As a designer (and artist) I pay very close attention to composition, color, and content - so I like to think I have a good 'eye' overall.

I have three principle photography roles:

1. Tabletop product photography for my clients. I use the 18-55 that came with my 300D for that. These shots go to print so sharpness and resolution is very important.
2. Sports photography for my children. My daughter rides horses, my son plays ball sports. I use the 75-300 for that. These shots get printed out on a 4x6 Epson photo printer or shared online.
3. I'm the default photographer at all family events. That includes portraits, group shots, and whatever else relatives want.

It sounds like I need a really good 50mm prime (?) lens for my product shots. The "sports" lens is a bigger question. I really like tack sharp, frozen motion photos with blurry backgrounds. (Though compressed space shots always fascinate me too.)

I've shot some decent pics IM(very)HO with my 75-300. I actually took it out on the lake and shot the children skiing and tubing. I was amazed at how good SOME of the shots came out - considering it is not an image stabilizing lens and I was bouncing around in a ski boat, holding the camera by hand.

Since I don't really know what I'm doing, I shoot a lot of frames. (I filled up a 256meg and 128meg card with images at medium resolution setting.) Reviewing them on-screen the next day, I deleted about 80% of the images. But the good ones were pretty cool.

A pro sports photographer had set up my camera the day before (at another football game) to shoot at F8, ISO800, some other setting of 800, 1200, 1600, and 2000. He said F8 is a little forgiving with about 6-8ft of in focus range when zoomed in above 200mm. (Don't know if this is right or wrong but it seemed to work out about that way.) I kept switching that big number around (was that the shutter speed?) and managed to freeze some action with water droplets splashing everywhere - stuff like that.

Point is I like my shots, but I don't know what I'm NOT getting by using this old(er) 75-300 lens. And I'm scared to drop a bundle (anything over $500 is a big bundle to me!) on lenses if I really wont be able to tell much difference. Or worse, that a better lens will actually reveal my LACK of skill as a photographer - in essence giving me the potential for better shots, but making it harder for me to actually get those better shots.

So here's the question for me: Is there any consensus on the two best lenses in the 50mm-ish and 300mm-400mm zoom categories for a $500 total budget, $750 total budget, and $1000 total budget. (I just can't justify spending more than that on lenses at this point in my shooting career.)

Thanks again - you folks rock!

klynam

Ps. Of course if I had my 'druthers', I'd buy the worlds best 200-1200 zoom lens and a camera that captures 12meg images at 10 per second, for 10 seconds. Add a 200gig microdrive for storage, and I'd almost certainly get the shots I want. Of course it would take $20,000 to do, and 4 days to cull out all the bad images. (Maybe I should just concentrate on being a better photographer to begin with!)

Pss. Next week, I'll ask the next terrible question: how do you use external flash lighting with this camera?

There are three Canon 50mm availble.. all of which are amazing.

The best "standard" 50mm is the f/1.4 with USM motor. But the 50mm f/1.8 @ a mere $75.00 is a great lens too.

The other 50mm is a Macro @ f/2.8 so it is a different beast alltogether.


As for sports "zooms" there are really only two options in my opinion that meet most of your criteria (fast with nice blurred backgrounds etc)

The short one is a 70-200mm f/2.8 (priced from about $700.00 - $1,700.00 depending on model and manufacture)

The longer one is a Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 .. (about $2K now) which is the fastest long telephoto zoom in existance... and an amazing lens.

The only other sports oriented lenses in the 300-400mm range are the big primes which cost many thousands of dollars.

Not much !

Way too much importance is put into the lens! Is it Canon,
is it "L", don't use that length for portrait, don't use another
brand, it's too short (oops, that's my wife's complaint), will
it look good on my equipment list (sad but true), is it "white
with a red stripe" etc, etc, etc.....

The "user" is WAY more important. If you are getting the shots
and effects you want with the lens you are using, THAT's THE
RIGHT LENS for you !

Like Nike says: "Just do it . . ." Don't follow protocall.

JMHO, Thanks, Rod

malum wrote:
Here's a straight comparison if it's of interest.

First is a 75-300 1:4-5.6 II
second is the 70-200 F4L

both at 200mm and F8

100% crop on a 20D
Both sharpened to the same degree in PS (only as I have in camera sharpening set to low)

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

sorry the crops aren't exactly the same size. I wasn't paying attention

I only have a Sigma 18-125 - which comes out at 200mm in 35mm size. So, nto as big. But this was taken at 125/200 and then cropped as yours is. It seems to be much better focussed. Why the difference?

Image size is 216 x 196

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE