WPF - World Photography Forum
Home Gallery Register FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Welcome to World Photography Forum!
Welcome!

Thank you for finding your way to World Photography Forum, a dedicated community for photographers and enthusiasts. There's a variety of forums, a wonderful gallery, and what's more, we are absolutely FREE. You are very welcome to join, take part in the discussion, and post your pictures!

Click here to go to the forums home page and find out more.
Click here to join.


Go Back   World Photography Forum > Photography Equipment > Lenses


Lenses Discussion of Lenses

What do you get with a lens that costs 10x its cheaper alternative?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #21  
Old 12-12-08, 11:07
robski robski is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Kent UK
Posts: 3,739
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yelvertoft View Post
I agree that the cost/benefit ratio is not linear. Duncan
Probably true of all optics. I think the main benefit of going for better and more expensive optics is the higher percentage of keepers.
__________________
Rob

-----------------------------------------------------
Solar powered Box Brownie Mk2

Captain Sunshine, to be such a man as he, and walk so pure between the earth and the sea.

WPF Gallery
Birdforum Gallery
http://www.robertstocker.co.uk updated
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-12-08, 17:06
Derekb's Avatar
Derekb Derekb is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bradford
Age: 64
Posts: 550
Default

When it comes to lenses I've made mistakes. I hope I've learnt from that.

I've been at events where getting the image(s) was crucial and you may only get once chance at it. I sell my images to magazines, I can't be thinking in the back of my mind that the lens may let me down, or the picture(s) will not be sharp.

I remember it well, I did a shoot in the woods for a cyclo cross race and did not get acceptable pictures. That night my kit lenses went on sale and I bought the Nikon 70-200 f2.8. Now whether you are a Nikon fan or not, this is a true professional sports lens and YOU CAN not only see the difference, it locks on like a guided missile - I only wish I'd known earlier.

If you are taking 'must get' images or if you are a serious photographer, then you just have to buy the serious kit. No excuses, it's not about snobbery, it's about knowing you have done your best and if you've failed it's your own fault - not the kit.

I still have some cracking (non pro) lenses to sell as I will never use them...
__________________
My Website

My New Website
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-12-08, 21:11
walwyn's Avatar
walwyn walwyn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Warwickshire
Age: 68
Posts: 1,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yelvertoft View Post
I don't agree that for day to day use you won't see the difference.

...

If you compare the final images once you start using these lenses at their extremes, wide open, then you most definitely will see differences.
Sorry but using the lenses 'at their extremes' is not day to day use. Sure if what you are commonly doing require using the lens at its extremes then go for it. Most of us don't do that we tend to use the middle range, and the moment to do any PP work, tweaking levels, contrast, or brightness, whatever inherent superiority there was in the optics is gone.

We can all invent a reason for buying top of the range gear, but it is seldom justified.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-12-08, 21:55
Roy C's Avatar
Roy C Roy C is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Barnstaple, North Devon
Posts: 2,543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by walwyn View Post
Sorry but using the lenses 'at their extremes' is not day to day use. Sure if what you are commonly doing require using the lens at its extremes then go for it. Most of us don't do that we tend to use the middle range, and the moment to do any PP work, tweaking levels, contrast, or brightness, whatever inherent superiority there was in the optics is gone.
.
Not so with bird photography, there are distinct advantages to using a telephoto wide open. e.g. shutter speed and background blur.
I use my 400mm f5.6 wide open almost all the time and the quality is superb. Some of the lesser lenses have to be stopped down to get acceptable results which is a distinct disadvantage.

For other types of photography I would agree with you.
__________________
Roy

MY WEB SITE
MY PHOTOSTREAM
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-12-08, 22:39
walwyn's Avatar
walwyn walwyn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Warwickshire
Age: 68
Posts: 1,066
Default

I'm can see I'm going to have to get out with the fz30 and tcon17.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 13-12-08, 00:05
Derekb's Avatar
Derekb Derekb is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bradford
Age: 64
Posts: 550
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by walwyn View Post
We can all invent a reason for buying top of the range gear, but it is seldom justified.
When you can show me acceptable pictures of cyclists travelling at 15+ mph in covered (aka dark) woodland then I'll know my 70-200 f2.8 wasn't needed.
__________________
My Website

My New Website
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 13-12-08, 01:23
walwyn's Avatar
walwyn walwyn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Warwickshire
Age: 68
Posts: 1,066
Default

Exactly how many photos did you get last year for your £1100+ that you absolutely wouldn't have got with say a 1 stop slower lens?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 13-12-08, 11:46
Derekb's Avatar
Derekb Derekb is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bradford
Age: 64
Posts: 550
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by walwyn View Post
Exactly how many photos did you get last year for your £1100+ that you absolutely wouldn't have got with say a 1 stop slower lens?
I asked first!

OK put it another way, as I know you wouldn't be photographing cyclists. I've taken a good look at your work, on this site and others. Some very nice pictures but what stands out a mile is that you don't take pictures of fast moving subjects or in very low light. Enough said.

Oh and to answer the question above, here is my scenario. A magazine asks me to go along to a race and get a good shot of Nicole Cook coming over the finish line. It's pouring with rain and the sky is leaden. She and others will be traveling at over 30 mph across that line. Now do I shoot with my 70-200 or risk it with a 55-200 kit lens. The answer to your question is that one shot missed is one shot too many for me.
__________________
My Website

My New Website

Last edited by Derekb; 13-12-08 at 11:51.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 13-12-08, 14:18
walwyn's Avatar
walwyn walwyn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Warwickshire
Age: 68
Posts: 1,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Derekb View Post
I asked first!

OK put it another way, as I know you wouldn't be photographing cyclists. I've taken a good look at your work, on this site and others. Some very nice pictures but what stands out a mile is that you don't take pictures of fast moving subjects or in very low light. Enough said.
Well my little old P&S gets a bit noisey above 200 ASA so you'd have 3 stops on me with your low light 1600 ASA camera, but the wife's TZ3 does 1600 ASA and has produced some quite striking photos in very low light conditions when set to intelligent ISO mode.

I don't usually take photos at sports events, mostly because that isn't where my interest lies. However, for a first time event, my little old Panasonic shooting through a TCON17 under floodlights can give OK results nevertheless:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/overton...57606615455836
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 13-12-08, 14:45
Derekb's Avatar
Derekb Derekb is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bradford
Age: 64
Posts: 550
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by walwyn View Post
I don't usually take photos at sports events, mostly because that isn't where my interest lies. However, for a first time event, my little old Panasonic shooting through a TCON17 under floodlights can give OK results nevertheless:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/overton...57606615455836
And the above picture (not the thumbnail) shows perfectly what I have been saying. It is neither in focus or sharp.

Lets just agree to disagree...
__________________
My Website

My New Website
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 14:17.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.