When you buy a lens, what do you get for your $$

<p>At what point does one see a real difference between two lenses.</p>

<p>For the sake of discussion, suppose one takes two lenses. One a low cost kit lens and the other a high cost "professional" lens from the same manufacturer. Using the same camera, with both lenses set to the same focal length, take identical shots using the same (correct) exposure parameters and at a focus distance not at either extreme of the range. Use optimal and identical post processing on both images.</p>

<p>I assume that a critical eye could distinguish significant differences in the final "image quality". Would these differences only become apparent at a certain print size? Which qualities of the image would be most frequently affected and most apparently degraded when using the lower quality lens? Lens distortions? Chromatic abberation? Light fall off at image periphery? Other?</p>

<p>I know the specific answer will often depend upon which two lenses one is comparing. I am looking for broad generalization of the improved quality one can expect from paying the big bucks for a top of the line lens. Given the recent improvements in high iso ability, it has to be much more than the larger maximum aperture.</p>

<p>Briefly, a cheap kit lens will give you good results in excellent conditions and maybe no result in extreme conditions. A pro lens will give you good results in all conditions, and keep on doing it for years.<br>

Where you will see the difference between a top of the line pro lens and a cheaper one from the same manufacturer is at wide apertures (f2.8 for pro lens, maybe f4 for cheaper lenses), close focussing, vignetting, distortion (straight lines staying straight), chromatic abberations and you have overlooked focussing speed. There is also sheer built quality, which you can't see through the viewfinder but means your lens keeps on working. Some cheap kit lenses are held together inside with sticky tape - they work well until the first time you drop them.<br />For the sort of conditions you describe (middling focus distance etc) and at around f11 you may not see any difference at all in the actual picture. It depends what you need the lens for. Have a look at some of Bjorn Rorslett's reviews, where the same photographer has used different lenses on the same camera bodies: <br /><a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html">http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html</a><br />Scroll down to get links to lenses, but all the site is worth reading. He tells it like it is and doesn't get paid to do it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Given the recent improvements in high iso ability, it has to be much more than the larger maximum aperture."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A whole lot more, but it's enough all by itself. Gathering light isn't the real reason to shoot wide open - that's a side effect (unless you're a noct-ista). Big apertures are about controlling depth of field, particularly isolating the subject with OOF backgrounds, as well as getting a good aesthetic quality to it (aka bokeh). Cheap lenses just can't do that. It's even obvious to the casual viewer, and the issue comes up fairly regularly in the beginner's forum (Q: how do I get those lovely blurred portrait backgrounds with my new P&S/DSLR w/kit lens? A: you wouldn't believe what that background blur costs...are you sitting down?).</p>

<p> A lot of things determine image quality. With lenses you get what you pay for with lens coatings, quality of construction and lens speed. I am not qualified to make specific statements about the lenses and their weak points. I am sure every lens has a good side to it and limitations also. Over the years I have been very happy with all the Nikon lenses that I have purchased. Thom Hogans does a lot of lens reviews and I believe he does an excellent job. You could read what he has to say about the lenses that he covers. <br>

<a href="http://www.bythom.com/nikon.htm">http://www.bythom.com/nikon.htm</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Then their is the old saying that the best lens is a tripod.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Given the recent improvements in high iso ability, it has to be much more than the larger maximum aperture.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why? A larger maximum aperture allows more options and generally enables faster autofocus ability, as well.</p>

<p>If you're taking pictures of still lifes, there probably isn't much of a difference. If you're taking pictures in low light and especially want faster focusing, that may be the difference between getting the shot or not.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

<p>For the average user, the difference is hardly discernable. For somebody who needs reliability as well as the characteristics described by other respondees, the difference is well worth the money. With many photogs. only viewing and sharing their shots on computers, the differences are definitely not that dramatic, except in low light situations. I think the answer lies in what your expectations are of your own work. Over the years I've moved from being easily satisfied to having a more discriminating eye, and as I've done so, I've experimented with increasingly expensive lenses, especially for special uses, and found that when I compare side-by side results (pro-sumer vs professional), there is a definite skew toward the higher quality lenses. A couple of years ago I had the opportunity to test out 5 Leica lenses (everything manual) of the same focal length, but of different qualities, coatings, and periods of manufacture, at the same shooting aperture, same lighting and same subject, and print the results all on one sheet. I then gave the sheet to several associates without identifying the lenses, for their critical feedback. No, they didn't pick the most expensive nor the newest design, but they all seemed to center about the rendition of one lens in particular as being a favorite for the subject photographed. My take, in the end, was that different lenses will render different subject materials in discernable ways from each other, and it is up to the photographer to understand these nuances get the best out of the lenses he has on hand.</p>

<p>Amongst many other things, a good lens will produce sharp images at the plane of focus, be

more resistant to flare, have better contrast, not give color casts to the images, have minimal light

fall-off (<i>aka</i> “vignetting”), be (almost) as sharp at the edges of the frame as in

the center, and have minimal (or no) distortion (barrel or pincushion, mostly).</p><p>For starters….</p><p>It may or may not have a fast maximum aperture. Canon The 300 f/4L isn’t particularly

fast, nor the 180 macro, nor any of the tilt / shift lenses. But all are excellent.</p><p>For that matter, the most expensive lens ($120,000.00) — and perhaps the one with the best image quality — Canon ever made, the 1200mm, is also the slowest, with a maximum aperture of only f/5.6.</p><p>Cheers</p><p>b&</p>

<p>All else being equal, half a stop of underexposure will do more to compromise image quality than almost any variation from expensive to inexpensive lens.</p>

<p>Henry Posner<br /> <strong>B&H Photo-Video</strong></p>

<p>I think the most important variation from expensive to inexpensive is reliability. I have manual focus primes which will last for many decades. On the other hand, I got two kit lenses with a D80 a couple of years ago. Even though the kit lenses were used the least, they have been kaput for a while. I have no use for fast lenses and I almost never use my slow ones wide open. Fast lenses are too big and too expensive. My advice is to buy old lenses.</p>

<p>Breadth of performance, relative to the description of the lens. The very cheapest equipment will work within some narrowly defined tolerances relative to the description. Normal or higher quality lenses will have a greater integrity of design. This can be seen in scrutiny like, How cheap does this thing have to be before it totally fails?</p>

<p>Like, take plastic add-on, filter-style lenses for example. There are many of those for fisheye or close ups. A $17 piece of plastic that you clip on the front of a normal lens is simply not going to work as well as a lens assembly designed for that purpose. Meanwhile, that cheap add on will work, within some narrowly defined tolerances.</p>

<p>Oftentimes, those super-cheap tolerances are so narrow, that the absolute cheapest may be so cumbersome as to be unusable.</p>

<p>Normal or higher quality lenses have usually already been built to standards that surpass those design problems. Among them, there is little practical difference. I'd categorize the typical kit lens as normal quality. I haven't seen one that I thought was a gross failure. Maybe someone will make a lemon, but evidently, most of them are working.</p>

<p>There is so much other stuff that can be influential on the overall success of photographic communication, that I'm soundly in the "equipment doesn't matter" camp. Once you get into the normal "it works" range, the influence of equipment refinement is small.</p>

<p>We're surrounded by a lush marketplace of well working equipment options. It's far harder to find a client, or build the story, or meet a bunch of project tasks and desired features than it is to find a good, working lens. You can place an order for a functioning lens in less than fifteen minutes, with the Internet. The other aspects of photography overshadow the influence of equipment, I think.</p>

<p>If it works, it works. Drive on with the photos.</p>

<p>That, How cheap can we make it, is one of the pressures on manufacturers. There's another one: How rich can we make it before we lose our shirts on this deal?</p>

<p>Some folks will lean towards the cheap end, others toward the rich, most in the middle. How wide a net the companies cast, this translates into their hypothetical customer base. They're capitalists. They're going to want the money. There's nothing wrong with that; got to stay in business.</p>

<p>So, if you're seeing a push for the rich end that doesn't look like it makes sense; it may make more business sense in a big, competitive marketplace more than it makes sense for the photos.</p>

<p>The camera companies are fishing with about five kinds of bait on the hook.</p>

<p>Fishing lures are designed more to catch fishermen than they are to catch fish. </p>

<p>Thanks to all for your responses.</p>

<p>I was most interested in those differences in image quality that one can discern only by looking at the print. I was well aware of (and took for granted) differences in construction quality, reliability, adaptability to different shooting conditions, control of dof, etc. And these are all very good reasons to dig deeper into your wallet, if you can afford to do so.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Fishing lures are designed more to catch fishermen than they are to catch fish.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Being an old fisherman, I really had a good chuckle at that.</p>

<p>Mike,</p>

<p>I don't know if you're aware of this but Jack Howard & Mason Resnick have been doing a series of podcasts where they answer reader/customer questions about how to take pictures, gear questions, etc etc.<br>

Here's their most recent podcast...<br>

<a href="http://www.adorama.com/alc/blogarticle/Ask-Adorama-6">http://www.adorama.com/alc/blogarticle/Ask-Adorama-6</a> <br>

You can send queries to Ask@adorama.com: any Questioners selected for the podcast receive a small participation gift: eg a small camera bag, a book, a small gift cert, etc.</p>

<p > </p>

 

<p>Wow.</p>

<p>Productive thread! I just subscribed to Ask Adorama — great companion piece to The Nikonians, the podcast which currently accompanies me in the truck to locations.</p>

<p>And I now have actual hoary-headed cynical advice about lens purchase to steal and place in my own curmudgeonly repetoire of pithy advice :<br>

* The camera companies are fishing with about five kinds of bait on the hook.<br>

* Fishing lures are designed more to catch fishermen than they are to catch fish.</p>