Will a Casual Photographer benefit from better glass?

I've been reading lots of posts in the last month or so regarding the different telephoto lenses available, in particular the 70-200 f/4 IS USM, 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS and the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM. When I review the photos in the gallery I can usually see the difference with the 70-200 versus the others, but I don't know if this is more the photographer than the lens.

So, will a casual photographer be able to get better images with the 70-200 than the others? Or should I save my money for now and go with a less expensive one until my skill catches up with my eye?

My husband and I take between two and three travel vacations per year and I take lots of landscape shots plus general photo shooting.

Thanks for your thoughts.
Mickey
(now back to lurking......)

Hi Mickey!
In my opinion the 70-200 f/4 is excellent-- I have the non IS version and love it--- it is light weight and travels well. For business I use the 2.8 IS and it is heavy. I keep the f/4 for personal use and travel--- works good.
You will enjoy your purchase of the f/4--- fantastic lens!

Difficult question to answer and there's two sides to the argument. Better glass will usually make a difference to results independent of the photographer's skill, but it's the photographer's skill that allows one to maximise the ability of a lens (or camera for that matter) and be able to demonstrate its strengths.

If a photographer with poor technique uses extremely good glass, then the results may well be ruined by camera shake, or photos can be crisp but otherwise out of focus or lacking in a main subject.

On the other hand a skilled photographer with the softest lens in the world can make a great shot composition, lighting wise, but if their intention was to capture a shot and show off its detail, he/ she will be limited in that vision because of the sharpness of the lens, or because of other aberrations such as CA etc.

Ultimately, if you will be traveling often and think you'll be more serious with photography as time rolls on, buy a better lens if budget allows.

My answer, in general, without regard to the lenses you mention = no. Work your way up to better glass. As your skills improve and you begin to notice "problems" in the results, you might consider moving up the ladder, lens wise. Proceed slowly. Not everyone needs the best lenses, or would be able to use them to their full potential - get their monies worth from them. Here I am assuming that you do buy good lenses on the way up and not some "junk."

Mickey, I really think you have been here a long time and only posted 4 times in 2 years to not have a ton of gear already, but I stray.

I think the 70-200 f4 is an excellent lens for outdoor work. I can't believe how wonderful the sharpness and color come through on that lens. For $600 or so, it's a bargain. For the casual photographer, don't get sucked into spending a ton of money like many here in the forum. I really have no complaints about any of the lenses I have, but you get what you pay for. I actually like to buy gear that makes my life easier. If you can afford it, get the lens you want. Save up for it, otherwise. I know that some people can afford to buy everything and then only keep a few items. I'm the one saving to get exactly what I need, but then again, I'm not just a casual photographer anymore. Just remember that you get what you pay for.

MickeyCT wrote in post #6964661
My husband and I take between two and three travel vacations per year and I take lots of landscape shots plus general photo shooting.

I'd say invest in a good UWA since you mentioned you "take lots of landscape shots" and a UWA will be more useful for a bulk of your shots.

The photographer is still the key element. A more experienced photographer will take a great shot with a mediocre lens, but a poor photographer will more often than not produce a poor image even with the best equipment.

The reason you may notice that the 70-200 image archive samplesa re better may be b/c more as ppl get more serious about their work (and usually better photographers overall) they will invest more in lenses. Whereas a beginner will most likely still be using consumer grade lenses. So the difference in IQ may be caused by this as well.

All things equal (body, photographer, lighting), higher quality glass will usually yield better results.

gasrocks wrote in post #6964722
My answer, in general, without regard to the lenses you mention = no. Work your way up to better glass. As your skills improve and you begin to notice "problems" in the results, you might consider moving up the ladder, lens wise. Proceed slowly. Not everyone needs the best lenses, or would be able to use them to their full potential - get their monies worth form them.

I think this is good and bad advice for people. Depends on the person. For me, I regret all the inferior products that I bought. I would have rather gotten the right/best equipment from the get go. On the other hand, some people will never maximize their abilities in order to take advantage of higher quality lenses and/or they will never notice the difference so they are monetarily better off for not "wasting" money on equipment that provides them with little to no benefit.

I guess what I'm saying is that the OP needs to decide which camp their in. Do you know you'll continue with photography or is this just a passing fancy or are you not sure yet?

gasrocks wrote in post #6964722
My answer, in general, without regard to the lenses you mention = no. Work your way up to better glass. As your skills improve and you begin to notice "problems" in the results, you might consider moving up the ladder, lens wise. Proceed slowly. Not everyone needs the best lenses, or would be able to use them to their full potential - get their monies worth form them.

I couldn't agree more. After 5 years I just started upgrading my lenses (and body) this year.

I started with the 18-55 non IS and a 28-105 (first gen). Then a 70-200 f4 (non-IS) and a TC. After about a year I got a 100-400 and traded the 28-105 in for a 28-135 and it remained that way up until about 7 months ago when I decided to upgrading what I had based on what I needed and what I was doing now as that has remained fairly consistent for the last 2-3 years. This year my 18-55 and 28-135 went in favour of a 10-22 and a 24-105L. The 70-200 f4 became the 70-200 2.8 IS and so on.

Use what you got for a while and then decide what your best purchase would be. If you planning on sticking with photography its very well worth it to plan your purchases carefully so they last for years to come.

nw85887 wrote in post #6964735
I'd say invest in a good UWA since you mentioned you "take lots of landscape shots" and a UWA will be more useful for a bulk of your shots.

The photographer is still the key element. A more experienced photographer will take a great shot with a mediocre lens, but a poor photographer will more often than not produce a poor image even with the best equipment.

The reason you may notice that the 70-200 image archive samplesa re better may be b/c more as ppl get more serious about their work (and usually better photographers overall) they will invest more in lenses. Whereas a beginner will most likely still be using consumer grade lenses. So the difference in IQ may be caused by this as well.

All things equal (body, photographer, lighting), higher quality glass will usually yield better results.

I take many landscape shots and few are with an ultra-wide-angle lens. Most are with a telephoto. Of course this has a lot to do with my preferences and subjects but I'm just saying that telephotos can be used for landscape work.

gooble wrote in post #6964809
I take many landscape shots and few are with an ultra-wide-angle lens. Most are with a telephoto. Of course this has a lot to do with my preferences and subjects but I'm just saying that telephotos can be used for landscape work.

I suppose it just depends on what your definition of "landscape shot" is.

Most landscape work is done in the range of wide to short telephoto. For some reason this forum equates 'landscape' with 'ultra wide', but most of the time this really isn't the case. It is difficult to create good landscape shots with ultra wide angle lenses, and when a lot of newbies get them they start trying to use it to 'get it all in' which ends up generating shots that are all sky.

I agree with this. Most of the people active in this forum are a lot more enthusiastic than the average photographer. These people may look back at all the less than optimal gear they went through as a waste of money and time. But that's an easy view looking back.

From the other end of the path it can be hard to tell. You might get really into photography and getting the better gear will make sense. Or it might all be on E-bay in 8 months. Hard to say.

^^^^I agree with this too, if your looking at it from this perspective. I think the best way to move up the ladder is from rung #1 to the top rung in all one step, but thats not always financially feasible. Smart purchases are the key here I think.

Hello Mickey,

I need more info on what you want to do! What lenses do you have right now? You say you've been looking at tele-photo lenses but it seems you want to do landscape and what you call 'general photo shooting' which I presume is related to your travelling activities. If it's the case, I would go for a wider lens. Something like 17mm to 55mm/85mm. If you already have this type of lens, you could take a look at the 10-22mm which is an incredible lens (creativity).

Are you going to get better images out of a 70-200 f/4L IS compared to a 55-250? It depends! Do you need to shoot at f/4? You want to blur backgrounds like for shooting portrait. In that case, the answer is yes. Shooting both lenses at 100mm, f/5.6, most of the time you will hardly see any difference.

If I look at how I've been improving over the years, I would say that the equipment was not that important beside getting good lens versatility that cover a wide focal range.

JeffreyG wrote in post #6964844
Most landscape work is done in the range of wide to short telephoto. For some reason this forum equates 'landscape' with 'ultra wide', but most of the time this really isn't the case. It is difficult to create good landscape shots with ultra wide angle lenses, and when a lot of newbies get them they start trying to use it to 'get it all in' which ends up generating shots that are all sky.

I agree with this. Most of the people active in this forum are a lot more enthusiastic than the average photographer. These people may look back at all the less than optimal gear they went through as a waste of money and time. But that's an easy view looking back.

From the other end of the path it can be hard to tell. You might get really into photography and getting the better gear will make sense. Or it might all be on E-bay in 8 months. Hard to say.

A lot of my landscapes are taken at 200mm plus one big exception being The Grand Canyon. It'd be hard to get much in with anything but UWA lenses (I did use a telephoto there too for detail though).

After several years of watching my photographs improve, and updating my equipment in the process (I don't own, only rent, L lenses) is that you need any 2 of the 3 following elements to get "decent" pics. Of course, the more/better of all 3 you have, the better the pics you'll have...

1. Good equipment (body, lens, light)
2. Good technique
3. Good post-processing sw/skills