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

[robski]

Originally Posted by yelvertoft

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.

[Derekb]

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...

[walwyn]

Originally Posted by yelvertoft

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.

[Roy C]

Originally Posted by walwyn

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.

[walwyn]

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

[Derekb]

Originally Posted by walwyn

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.

[walwyn]

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?

[Derekb]

Originally Posted by walwyn

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.

[walwyn]

Originally Posted by Derekb

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

[Derekb]

Originally Posted by walwyn

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...