How much of a difference does a good lens really make?

[Jim_Tardio]

Higher end lenses are better when you're shooting at the extremes, and when you shoot on a daily basis. You would quickly wear out your 18-55 if it was used daily.

<p>

Sharpness and contrast are better with pro glass. But lighting and movement can sometimes skew the results.

<p>

Don't worry about it. Most of the last century's great photographic masterpieces show countless technical flaws that are equipment related.

<p>

Obviously, if you shoot sports, weddings or commercial work you need the best tools available. My comments above are meant for editorial work.

[leicaglow]

I'm surprised at all the answers indifferent between a kit lens and great glass. Personally I've found any of the kit lenses I've somehow acquired to be unacceptable. I can't stand a lens that isn't razor sharp, renders color well, has acceptable contrast and bokeh. Spend $110 and buy a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 and see if you can't tell the difference. While you're renting equipment, try out a Leica and see what you think.

[photo5]

I've not found the 18-70mm or the 16-85mm "kit lenses" to be anything but sharp and contrasty. I have no interest in carrying around the 17-55mm or the 28-70mm as they are too big and too heavy.<P>

 

<center><img src="http://hull534.smugmug.com/photos/329658716_BmXwE-M.jpg"><P>

 

Aboard the lightship Swiftsure, July 5, 2008, Nikon 16-85mm with D300</center><P>

[jerry_schuler]

I do mostly close-up work. Not sweeping landscapes etc... I look good for detail in the photos. It's like day and night from my viewpoint comparing the consumer zoom lenses vs the prime AIs I have. To me, the consumer zoom lenses are just fuzzy and not acceptable for my uses. The 28mm 3.5 AI, and the 55mm 2.8 Micro-nikkor are accepatble to me for sharpness and clairity. Shot's taken with my 18-55mm VR and the 55mm-200mm VR I need to fix up with some image sharping software. It's late, if I get some time tomorrow I'll give you some test shots. Most everybody hates hearing this, but the Coolpix camera beat the pants off the DSLRs lenses in sharpness and clairity of close-up images.

[bruce_margolis]

"I suspect I'm running into the limitations of my camera (d80), not my lens - correct me if I'm wrong though."

 

Aaron, if you are shooting landscapes -- even more so if you use a tripod -- the D80 is a fine camera. I also don't understand why you don't like the image at 20 x 30 unless you are standing too close. Remember, the larger the image, the greater the distance you should be from it for viewing. FWIW, I have some images blown up to 24 x 36 with the D80 and I like them.

 

Every lens ever made involves tradeoffs and compromises. Why buy a "pro" lens? Because of all the things mentioned. However, if you don't need fast lenses, don't buy them. The extra you pay for build/speed/shaprness/contrast/etc will be money down the drain if you are shooting f/8-11.

 

Before buying another lens, ask yourself what you feel your present lens can't do. If it is "sharpness" at f/5.6, then yes there are many lenses better than the kit lens. If you stay in the f/8-11 range and use a tripod, stick with what you have.

[bill_keane2]

"I suspect I'm running into the limitations of my camera (d80), not my lens - correct me if I'm wrong though. "

 

With respect, you're wrong :-) I did a few 20x30 glossy photo prints off my D80 and was bowled over. I used a Sigma 10-20mm zoom at f/5.6 (and I don't know if I have the sharpest copy of that lens!).

 

I now use a D200 (same 10mp sensor as the D80, I believe) and the only problem with 20x30, taken with a host of lenses (Tamron 17-50 f/2.8; Sigma 300 APO f/4) is I don't have the wall space.

 

EL-CO Color Labs in NJ does glossy for $9.95 (if you order two). Unbelievable.

[richard_meyers]

I agree with Kent in SD. Get yourself a big sturdy tripod and ball head.

Buy used if necessary. Use a cable release or self-timer. This will make

ALL your current lenses sharper.

[alex_lofquist]

A lot less than most people think!

[philippartridge]

Well, half you guys are right, I feel; the ones who say the md-range zooms are excellent for almost all cases and that so many other factors intervene on the way to a great image. Re sharpness, they are almost all super sharp at common shooting apertures.

 

I invite readers to visit Photozone to get a somewhat more quantitative take on the subject. It is easily seen that many of Nikon's 'plastic zooms', so offensive to some, do extremely well - e.g. the 16-85 and 70-300, both with image-saving VR.

 

There is a lot of high class technology packed into these modern lenses, and often they also do surprisingly well WRT things like distortion, whereas more fancied lenses like the 17-55/2.8 do not fare any better. And all these three just mentioned are very sharp indeed.

 

It always amazes me how easily swayed are some photographers are by costly, giant, heavy, impractical, so-called 'pro' lenses...any dummy can build an industrial product to be large, costly and heavy; but light, small, elegant and effective are a terrific combination, and it is good to see Nikon get that message. Still need a light, top quality 24-105/4 though.

 

With no- or low-noise sensors making their way into everyman's prime time bodies, soon the 2.8 zooms will look about as useful for general photography as do the US gas guzzler cars in our future, err, present! Just dial up more ISO...with the obvious exceptional need for dof control for certain specialist needs - wildlife, sports, some portraiture.

[josephwalsh]

I'm with you, Phil.

Almost any lens will perform well if carefully focused, stopped down three stops and not allowed move while the

shutter is open.

 

Sloppy focus, wide open apertures and *camera movement* will make any lens perform poorly.

 

Many people think they are good at hand holding slow shutter speeds. They are not. If you have a pulse, you move.

 

Try photographing a bare light bulb in an otherwise dark room. Use a normal lens and various shutter speeds.

Shoot a frame on a tripod.

 

You will be shocked to see how "safe" hand held shutter speeds such as "1/60" and "1/125" are not as sharp as

the tripod version. And that's when you were really concentrating to stay motionless.

 

No, I'm not saying you should shoot everything from a tripod. Simply that IQ limitations lie in the photographer

more than the lens.

 

Great Lens + Poor Technique = Poor IQ

[ilkka_nissila]

If you know what you're doing, the image quality difference will be quite obvious. The clarity of the image, contrast, and

detail will be better when you use good glass. Obviously you need to be using a tripod or fast shutter speeds. If you want to

find out about what good glass can do for you (your subjects & conditions), get the 50/1.8 and experiment. This lens

doesn't cost much, and lenses don't get much better than that.

[Mary Doo]

<b><i>"How much of a difference does a good lens actually make? I've read many times that it's better to invest in good lenses. Are there any side-by-side comparisons of kit lens vs. "good" lenses, using real photographs?"</b></i>

 

<p>Good photography makes much more difference than an ultra expensive lens. Armed with good photographic techniques, artistry, and purpose, a "better" lens <b>may</b> help to deliver that extra edge. Otherwise, there won't be much of any difference. In fact, probably the last thing one wants to see is a big and tack sharp image that is badly composed and improperly exposed with an expensive lens. :)

 

<p>Good luck with your decision,<br>

Mary

[jerry_schuler]

Dear MD, I'm really tired of hearing about "artistry." I think most people don't give a damn about the photographic artists other than the freaks trying impress themselves. When the non-"artist" takes a photo I doubt they say to themselves well it's kind of blurry a little distorted by HEY it's ARTISTIC.

[roger_s]

In my subjective view, it seems that a sharper, more contrasty lens, also provides a sharper, more contrasty

image in the SLR/DSLR view finder. Do any of you agree with that? No one else seems to have mentioned that.

[ilkka_nissila]

<i>Good photography makes much more difference than an ultra expensive lens. </i>

<p>

That is not really relevant to the question, and highly subjective. Most people prefer a crisp photo to a fuzzy one of the same subject. Making a fuzzy image is in some ways easier but much less satisfying. Why would one go through all the trouble of making an interesting photograph, and then record it using a mediocre lens? I would prefer that both content and technical quality are spot on. Otherwise, someone somewhere will have done it better.

[hash]

>> a sharper, more contrasty lens, also provides a sharper, more contrasty image in the SLR/DSLR view finder. Do any of you agree with that? No one else seems to have mentioned that.

 

Well, not always I would think, since we see the image in the viewfinder projected on to a ground glass screen which is grainy. A wider aperture lens will no doubt provide a brighter image though, which will help AF performance.

[josephwalsh]

"Obviously you need to be using a tripod or fast shutter speeds."

 

Thirty years of teaching thousands of college photography majors, viewing tens of thousands of contact prints and enlargements has shown me that it is anything but "obvious."

[ilkka_nissila]

Joe, what I meant is that if you don't have a camera which is steady, then the image quality difference between

mediocre and good lenses is probably not going to be apparent in the final image. Not that you cannot get good

results at slow shutter speeds without a tripod (occasionally).

 

"Fast" as in "fast shutter speeds" is relative to a person's ability to hold the camera steady. If you hand-hold

a lens at 1/4s, then it really won't matter much how good the lens is. Many people shooting hand-held constantly

underestimate the speeds that are needed for sharp pics. 1/FL s with FL in mm may be able to produce adequate

images sometimes, but at that speed the sharpness of the image is not going to allow the consistent

differentiation between good and great lenses [in terms of sharpness]. If you do use high speeds (1/3FL or

faster), or/and a tripod, then the differences will be quite obvious.

[richard_meyers]

There is a simple but effective test for anyone wanting to know what their threshold

is for handheld shooting. Take a piece of black cardboard about 18"x18" (size isn't

too important) and randomly poke a bunch of holes in it with a small brad/nail/pin.

Don't make the holes too big or the results will be hard to judge. About 10

to 20 holes works well. Mount the cardboard on a window and shoot it handheld

while recording the shutter speed/lens FL/etc. Look at the resulting image enlarged. Are

the holes sharp? Probably not. This is also good practice for learning to shoot handheld.

Also, put the camera on a tripod and take a shot for a baseline.

[josephwalsh]

No argument with that, Ilkka. What you say re: lens quality is correct.

 

Like most, I believe that equipment matters.

However, the message that photographers hear from virtually all quarters, directly or by inference, is that it matter "a lot."

I try to convince folks that it only matters "a little."

 

To me, this is a difference that puts the emphasis on technique and picture content and off MTF minutia.

 

It is good not to believe you can go into a camera store and buy something that will make you a good photographer.

It is not good to believe, even subliminally, that you would be creating good work but cannot because you don't have the money for a ______________(whatever)

[clay2]

There is an old adage that says that your photographs are only as good as your

worst piece of glass. I use Nikkor primes on my F2AS, EL-Nikkors on my enlarger,

and wear glasses made from Nikon blanks. My slide projector does not have a

Nikkor lens but a 200mm f/2.8 Hanimex, so you could say that is my 'worst' piece

of glass, but it works fine for me. Don't bother spending the money on the 'best'

lenses unless you can actually see the difference with your own eyes.

My old Minolta HiMatic 7S rangefinder has a rokkor lens and it also does lovely work.

/Clay

[joseph_wisniewski]

RL Potts - "Take the 18-55, set it to 18, stop down all of the way. ... I have no shots made this way, but they were so embarassing, that I deleted them. I have a 20mm prime that is much better."

 

Of course you do. The 18-55mm will stop down to f32. At f32, diffraction will turn the whole image into mush. The 20mm f2.8 Nikkor only stops down to f22, which is an improvement. The 20mm f1.8 Sigma, if memory serves, only stops down to f16, and that's in the ballpark for good pictures. Shoot all three lenses at f11, and you're probably in for quite a surprise.

[bruce_stenman1]

It depends on the lens. A 50mm f1.4 is not that different in IQ compared to the 50mm f1.8. This is less true for the 85mm f1.8 vs 85mm f1.4 lenses, especially shot wide open - which is the reason to get fast lenses in the first place.

 

With zooms where there are more elements and design issues the differences are quite apparent to anyone between the 12-24mm f4 and the 14-24mm f2.8 zoom lenses. You will also see differences in lens speed which affects IQ in a number of ways. Smaller apertures reduce lens resolution so shooting the 18-200 at f8 will not produce as sharp and image as one taken with the Sigma 50-150mm lens at f4. There will be a slower shutter speed (1/4 as fast) required at f8 vs. f4 and this can induce more camera movement or subject motion blur into the image.

There is more DOF at f8 but this not something commonly needed and the f4 lens can still be used at f8 if desired.

 

A lens may be useful through 100% of its focal length range and at all of its apertures and another may be best at the tele end (as with the 24-120mm VR lens) and quite soft at the wide end, and needs to be stopped down to f8 for really sharp images. If you know and understand and are able to shoot within those limitations a less expensive lens will be satisfactory.

 

Where people go wrong in my opinion is in sacrificing image quality to gain the convenience of a single lens. Unless that is a prime lens, or a zoom lens with a moderate 1:2 or 1:3 zoom ratio, they are going to have a noticeable difference in image quality and the larger the print or the more extreme the conditions the more this will be apparent.

[ed farmer - mount laurel,]

Without read through all of the responses to this thread, I would like to throw my two cents into the mix:

 

If you are only looking at images on your computer or small prints (5x7 and maybe a few 8x10's) it won't make much difference in image quality at all. For that matter you could sell your D80 and go buy yourself a few used Fuji S1's. You really only need one or two meg to make great 8x10 pictures (yes, some of you will disagree but I have been there.) If you are making bigger prints, the extra money will be worthwhile.

 

Now, that's only talking about resolution and image quality. If you are talking about fast glass, that's another matter entirely. A 50f1.4 will allow you to take pictures that your kit lens won't allow you to consider. And, you will be able to take the same pictures at lower ISO settings which will also improve quality. The same goes for an 80-200f2.8 over your longer lens.

 

In the end, the answer is different for different photographers. Does the kit shape the style or does the style shape the kit? I prefer to think the latter, but in any case I can't have my lens selection limiting my creativity. But, I didn't start out thinking that way . . .

 

Ed

[richard_knapp]

If you shoot slides, the difference between a kit and pro lens is evident. You'll note more contrast, and less "muddiness".<div></div>