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

Hi,
To be more specific with my question...

What makes the Canon 17-40 f4L worth approximately 10x the price of the kit lens? or 1.5x the price of a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8?

Would you agree that, in the hands of a skilled photographer it would be hard to see the difference, if no, what would be the defining factor?

For a bit of grounding, I am a 400D user with a lens kit made up mostly of manual focus lenses + the 18-55mm kit lens. I am looking for a new lens and am considering both 17-50mm Tamron and the 17-40mm canon L.

I look forward to your replies with interest.


Hardy

Build quality, AF speed and sharpness. Makes no difference whether you're a pro or not, there are differences that can clearly be seen. Whether that matters to you is dependant upon just what you do with your images.

I started out with kit lenses (the Nikon 18-55mm and 55-200mm - IMHO the worst lenses I've ever held) and while I got some good images, it was the images I missed that made me upgrade. Now if my images are not sharp or soft in places, I have only myself to blame.

That doesn't mean that all 'cheaper' lenses are crap though, as there are some real gems out there. The Nikon 18-70mm is a great little lens and the Sigma 10-20mm is the dogs gonads.

Edit. I will also add, one of my sharpest lenses is also my cheapest. Get yourself a 50mm prime for as little as £50 - money very well spent.

With lenses you really do get what you pay for....

Although some of what you pay for may be the brand name or a white finish. I use mainly sigma EX lenses, which are substantially cheaper than the canon L equivalents, and where I have done head-to-head comparisons, there has been very little if any difference in image quality. (This was between the 70-200 f2.8 models in the two ranges)
I actually prefer my sigma 28-70 over my canon 24-105L when used over the 28-70 range.

I agree with the above - you gets what you pays for - but even some of the top manufacturers can turn out a dummy - quality control needs to be born in mind. Use a dealer where you can try out the lens on your camera - take a couple of test shots and see its results for yourself. Also remember that some second hand lenses - of discontinued models were the best people could turn out for a decade or more and are still well worth using - eg: Nikon 80-200 f2.8 AF-S replaced by 70-200 F2.8 AF-S VR. If you can find a good one and don't need VR it is still probably one of the best Nikon ever made.

Kit lenses can produce very good results if you stop them down to smaller apertures and avoid using them at the extremes of their zoom ranges. The more you pay for a lens, the less critical this becomes. Kit lens wide open at max zoom (for example) will produce softer, less defined results than a premium lens under the same conditions.

Don't know about the Tammy 17-50 but I have the 17-40 and it is a superb lens IMO.

I used to think that the Sigma EX lenses were right up there with the Canon L's, I owned a 500 f4.5, a 100-300 f4 and a 70-200 f2.8. I got the chance to upgrade my 500 to the Canon (as you know). Initially I didn't think there was much in it, but once I got to grips with the Canon I started to see why it costs so much more. The IQ is noticebly better and it performs better in really testing conditions, in good light there's not much between them.

I then tested my 70-200 f2.8 against the Canon 70-200 f4 and far prefered the Canon - images are that bit sharper and the colours are richer. After that I realised that while cheaper lenses can do the job there really is an advantage to top end glass.

As for the 18-55 kit lens vs the 17-40 f4, there is a world of difference between them - sure both can take got photos, but the 17-40 will do so more consistently, especially when conditions are less than ideal.

Having seen your images with the canon 500 f4 I'm sure you're right about it. (And I expect that applies to other extreme lenses too). I would also agree that 'kit' lenses are a step down from the 'good glass' of top ranges of all brands, both in image quality and build quality.
My experience with the mainstream focal lengths across different brands of 'good glass' suggests the differences are subjective - as you say, colour rendition and contrast for example. One reason I dont like the 24-105 much is that I find it harder to use hyperfocal focussing with it compared to my sigma lenses, so there are familiarity and ease of use issues as well.

Slightly off topic but I was with a guy only last week who was shooting birds with a Sigma 135-400 f5.6 lens and I was using a Canon 400mm f5.6 L. My lens was focusing in a fraction of a second every time but the sigma was forever hunting for focus and sometimes it could not obtain AF at all - this was shooting exactly the same bird at the same time in the same light at the same focal length.

Thanks for all your pointers.

I have come to the conclusion that I want the 17-40mm and am willing to spend that extra. I will finally get my hands on an L lens. I expect not to be disappointed.

PS. If you have anything else to add, please do.

In these discussions I never see the Sigma 17-70 f2.8 mentioned. I have one it is a great lens fast focusing close focus which has to be seen to be believed and reasonable price. It is streets ahead of the Sony 18-70 kit lens which came with my A350.

I did consider it very early in my search, but very quickly discounted it largely because I decided I wanted a constant aperature, the longer focal length could be helpful but i doesnt make up for the negatives.

Sigma 17-70
 

I didn't mention in my previous post it is a very sharp lens. My logic is that at 17mm the f2.8 is good for viewing brightness but at longer focal lengths the DOF is too shallow to be a real asset. It just surprises me that less is heard of the lens, if it was no good I could understand it but it is a very good lens.

What Derek said.
J

I also think that sample variation is more of an issue in cheaper lenses - I know someone who had the Sigma 28-70 f2.8 and hated it, he changed to the Canon 24-105 and is much happer. Persumably you have a much better copy of the Sigma lens than he did.

I know when I owned the Sigma 500 f4.5 I tested it against other copies of the same lens and found mine to be a very good/sharp copy. For me the lens is the most important bit of kit (I think the lens you use has more effect on your photos than the camera), but it's still not as important as the person behind it. I've seen stunning shots taken with cheap lenses, and total rubbish taken with very expensive gear.

Yes - I think you're right there. Sigma has certainly had a reputation for dodgy quality control in the past, and I guess I have been lucky with my lenses. (If my first sigma Ex had been a duff one, I probably wouldnt have persisted with them!)
And it is definately the photographer that makes the biggest difference, despite all that the adverts would have us believe!

I'm a big fan of Sigma lenses now, as I was Tamron a while ago. Yes, build quality isn't quite as robust as Camera manufacturers equivalent, but it's not too bad.
Would echo what has already been said about getting what you pay for. Sometimes though, that price difference is a little much to stomach. Sometimes in the case of specialist lenses the choice is already made.... looking at a v fast wide (the sigma 20mm 1.8) for example.

Hmmm I seriously doubt that spending 10x more on a lens will get you a 10x better photo.

Whilst you'll see a difference in test shots where the scene is designed to show up a particular flaw in the optics, for day to day use you'll see none of it. At best you'll get a warm cosy feeling in having spent 10x more than the next guy. Mind you he's probably got a warm cosy feeling at having spent 10x less than you.

I agree that the cost/benefit ratio is not linear. Your picture will not be 10x better, it's the person pressing the button that makes that level of difference.

I don't agree that for day to day use you won't see the difference. If your pictures are all taken at say f/11 and 30mm then I agree that the differences in the final images between kit lens and one at 10x price will probably not be that that great. If that's the argument you are making, then I agree.

If you compare the final images once you start using these lenses at their extremes, wide open, then you most definitely will see differences. Whether these differences are worth 10x the cost is an entirely subjective decision that only the individual can take.

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.

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...

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.

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.

I'm can see I'm going to have to get out with the fz30 and tcon17.

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. :p

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! :p

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.

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

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... :)

That is probably down to the fact that the numpty behind the lens, taking the shots hand held in the middle of a crowd in the stands, had never photographed a motosport event before. Are you seriously saying that a first timer with a lens weighing 1.5kg would have done better? You might also want to factor in that the shot above was taken at around 600mm equivalent. IOW that 70-200mm zoom wouldn't have got the shot it in any case. I believe a 600mm Nikon cost well over £5,000 the Panasonic and TCON about £400.

After much contemplation I went for the 17-40. I havent been able to test its capabilities properly yet, but I expect, I wont be dissappointed.

Thanks for all your input

That's a nice lens H4RDY.
I'm sure you wont be dissapointed.
That Canon optic has become a bit of a legend in itself.


walwyn & derekb

you both have valid points regarding lenses. my 80-200mm and 300mm both 2.8 are very heavily used.
HOWEVER, just got a lightweight 28-300mm 5.6 It's ok, but I only use during daylight hours for snap and transmit jobs. Great for convenience, but I lack other options with this lens, as others have already said.
I have no illusions that this is gonna replace any bigger glass. It does a job...it's ok, that's it.
Sometimes there is no option but to use 2.8 glass........and it's more often than you'd think.
...and there's no substitute for getting the best position you can, regardless of lens used
Using both options on a regular basis also helps validate losses and gains for each option.