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
  #11  
Old 10-12-08, 23:02
H4RDY H4RDY is offline  
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London, UK
Posts: 14
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-12-08, 00:02
carman's Avatar
carman carman is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 166
Default

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.
__________________
The older I get the better I used to be.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-12-08, 16:46
H4RDY H4RDY is offline  
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London, UK
Posts: 14
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-12-08, 17:22
carman's Avatar
carman carman is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 166
Default 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.
__________________
The older I get the better I used to be.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-12-08, 18:03
jamieZ740's Avatar
jamieZ740 jamieZ740 is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Barrow-in-Furness - UK
Age: 37
Posts: 1,296
Default

What Derek said.
J
__________________
2 cameras, 5 lenses, 3 flashes, some filters. No clue.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-12-08, 18:23
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
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-12-08, 21:28
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 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!
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-12-08, 00:14
Joe's Avatar
Joe Joe is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Age: 51
Posts: 1,586
Default

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.
__________________
primarily using Nikon film and digi kit, and some micro 4/3rds gear for experimenting with old lenses
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-12-08, 01:39
walwyn's Avatar
walwyn walwyn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Warwickshire
Age: 68
Posts: 1,066
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-12-08, 09:30
yelvertoft's Avatar
yelvertoft yelvertoft is offline  
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Essex, UK
Age: 59
Posts: 8,486
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by walwyn View Post
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
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 08:44.


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