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
  #1  
Old 09-12-08, 20:42
H4RDY H4RDY is offline  
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London, UK
Posts: 14
Default 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
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-12-08, 21:14
Derekb's Avatar
Derekb Derekb is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bradford
Age: 64
Posts: 550
Default

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.
__________________
My Website

My New Website

Last edited by Derekb; 09-12-08 at 21:20.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-12-08, 21:25
Canis Vulpes's Avatar
Canis Vulpes Canis Vulpes is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 51
Posts: 4,398
Default

With lenses you really do get what you pay for....
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-12-08, 21:38
gordon g gordon g is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Barnsley
Posts: 2,766
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canis Vulpes View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-12-08, 21:44
andy153's Avatar
andy153 andy153 is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bodelwyddan Denbighshire
Age: 78
Posts: 5,271
Default

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.
__________________
"I take pictures of what I like - if someone else likes them - that's a bonus" Andy M.

http://www.pbase.com/andy153

http://andy153.smugmug.com/

Equipment: Nikon - More than enough !!!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-12-08, 22:14
yelvertoft's Avatar
yelvertoft yelvertoft is offline  
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Essex, UK
Age: 59
Posts: 8,486
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-12-08, 08:58
Roy C's Avatar
Roy C Roy C is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Barnstaple, North Devon
Posts: 2,543
Default

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

MY WEB SITE
MY PHOTOSTREAM
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-12-08, 10:31
postcardcv's Avatar
postcardcv postcardcv is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Norfolk
Age: 48
Posts: 1,856
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gordon g View Post
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 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.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-12-08, 13:59
gordon g gordon g is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Barnsley
Posts: 2,766
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by postcardcv View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-12-08, 14:15
Roy C's Avatar
Roy C Roy C is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Barnstaple, North Devon
Posts: 2,543
Default

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.
__________________
Roy

MY WEB SITE
MY PHOTOSTREAM
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 20:36.


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