Is It As Important Anymore???

[mikelaportfolio]

Well, im planning on getting a digital camera in the future (im on a

budget, so probably a D30 or somthing like that). Well, my question

is... is lens quality as important? Photoshop, psp and a variety of

other programs can fix up pictures, enhance contrast, saturation,

sharpness and so on. I was thinking about gettin a 70-200mm f4 L ...

But it seems like all the benefits of this lens are things that i can

compensate for on my computer while using a much cheaper 75-300mm

lens. So , any feedback from digital camera users out there would be

great. Thanks!

 

ps. What is your opinion on the D30 (aside from its not so great AF

system)

[fotografz]

Hi Mike, what are you going to use the camera for?

 

I started digital with a D-30 and it was a good experience for the

most part. It's a very user friendly camera, especially for

someone new to digital photography.

 

But if you are going expect certain things from it there are

limitations. That's why I asked what you planned on shooting.

 

While I agree that PhotoShop is a wonderful tool, it's even better

when you start out with a better digital file.

 

As far as lenses, there is little to compare between the two

lenses you mentioned...the L lens is better in every way except

price and size.

[jonathan_bundick]

You can't compensate for a soft image by sharpening in PS. In other words, you can put information in that was not recorded in the first place. Buy the best you can and employ good technique.

[catchlight]

You post a couple of good questions, Mike.<p>

 

Regarding the D30, it is a very capable camera, as long as you're aware of the low-light AF limitations, as you seem to be. In reasonable light, it <a href="http://www.rainbowtheatre.com/charliebrown">yields pleasing results</a> (to me, at least).

<p>

About lens quality, here is a page of photos <a href="http://ronbridge.com/wedding_page3/index.htm">shot with the Canon 70-200mm f/4L</a>. I don't think they would have the same characteristics, assuming you find them pleasing, if shot with the 75-300mm.<p>

 

I've found the D30 works best with fast primes, such as the 50mm f/1.4, if those lenses suit your indended subjects.

[mikelaportfolio]

thanks for all of the informative answers so far.

 

I would be using the camera for portraits, occasional landscapes and skiing! I like the idea of a digital camera because photography in freeskiing takes a LOT of bad shots to get a good one, and with a digital camera, you can review and delete pictures. Also, lots of my pictures will be put on the internet, so a digital makes that easier, and faster.

 

The thing is..i am only 16, and dont have a large sum of money at my disposal. So, im trying to see if the savings of a 75-300 is worth the big loss in quality.

[rob de la selva]

Your question raises the common misconception that photoshop can fix anything! It is NO substitute for initial good technique and equipment.

 

Lens quality is typically going to be MORE important on a 1.6 FOV crop DSLR like the D30 (you're only using the centre of the lens, and you're magnifying it). Maybe slightly less so than the D60/10D, but only because the resolution is poor by 2003 standards.

 

See if you can stretch at least to a D60.

 

If you can't afford L glass (and the 70-200/4 you mention is a sweet lens for sure), a cheap prime lens will do these DSLRs justice.

 

Hasta luego,

 

Roberto

[j._d._mcgee]

I am two years older than you and I still can't afford a D30. I don't own any L glass except a 200 f/2.8L II which I aquired used. The L glass is nice but I also own a 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 USM, this is a *better* lens than the 75-300 (which I also own) and it only costs a little bit more.

 

The 100-300 is better optically and it has an internal focusing system that focuses much faster than the 75-300. The internal focusing also means that the end of the lens doesn't rotate during focusing so you can use polarizers without worrying about the polarizer turning on you and thus changing its effect, and for you I would think you might be using polarizers on that snow.

 

I would save your money get a D60 instead or maybe even a 10D and buy a 100-300 and a $70 50mm f/1.8 II, that way you get to good prosumer lenses that will do the hi-res cameras justice and you would be much better off than you would be with a 75-300. You might even be better off than you would be with a D30 and a 70-200 f4L. The L is nice but not essiential, for you the difference is not at all worth the price.

 

Buy accessories and bigger cards and even a newer body before buying L glass at our age that is the only reasonable approach. And for what you intend to do with it the 100-300 will do well. Also check out the 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 which has similar features as the 100-300 such as the USM motor and internal focusing and it has a nice wide® in for use with the digitals.

 

Enjoy shooting - J.D.

[PuppyDigs]

I've used both the EF 70-200 4L USM and EF 75-300 4.0-5.6 IS USM (basically the same optically as the EF 75-300 4.0-5.6 USM) on my EOS 10D. Of course, the EF 70-200 4L USM is better in every way. The 75-300 feels cheap, focuses extremely slow and misses AF often. It's no good for fast action sports. Save up for a better lens if you want to shoot skaters and snowboarders. The EF 70-200 4L USM has sure footed AF that rips and is better sealed (plenty 'o dust around skaters).

 

With that said, the D30/50/10D only uses the center of the image circle, the sharpest part, and EF 75-300 4.0-5.6 IS USM images are surprisingly good compared to full frame cameras. If you're on a tight budget, look for a used EF 70-210 3.5-4.5 USM. It's optically better than the 75-300 zooms and sports ring-USM and internal focus making for a fast focusing rig.

[rob de la selva]

Yes, all lenses can make good pictures, but that doesn't mean that good lenses aren't as important. They have traditionally been considered to be the MOST important part of the gear.

 

This hasn't changed with the newer DLSRs. These are considered to be if anything more demanding of lens quality than the film based camera. Thus to answer the initial question, I believe lens quality is more important than ever.

 

 

I own the 100-300/f4.5-5.6. It's an old and faithful friend, but I just don't think it does the 10D justice, so I replaced it as soon as I bought the 10D. Now I may just be stupid, but that at least lets you know how I'm thinking - buy a decent DSLR, buy the best glass you can afford (you can sell your kidney for $20,000 on EBay if necessary).

 

If you're a bit too sqeamish for the kidney thing, the 50mm f/1.8 will work great on the D60/10D.

 

Cheers,

 

Roberto

[witolda_maruszewska]

It is important to get a good lens with a DSLR - it isn't just image quality, but also speed of focus:

 

I've just recently bought a used D60 (ex-demo camera) because the budget wouldn't stretch to a 10D and used it for the first time in anger at the Goodwood Festival of Speed. In general terms the camera performed quite well, though I did come across one particular issue.

 

I know some people malign the focus speed of the D60 (and the D30 for that matter), particular for fast action / motorsports photography, but when the camera was hooked up to my 100-400L, the focus speed in AI Servo mode was pretty well much what I was used to with my EOS 5. With the D60 & 100-400L I didn't get many binned shots and the results didn't need much editing in Photoshop bar a little sharpening and the occasional exposure tweak.

 

However, with my Sigma 28-105 (which I am still using pending finding a suitable replacement) the auto focus was considerably slower and had trouble picking up the cars and maintaining focus through a sequence of frames in AI Servo mode. For static displays and shots, the slow focus of the 28-105 wasn't so much of an issue. Even so, the shots I took needed a fair bit of faffing in Photoshop to get a good result.

 

I still own a 75-300 which I haven't used on the D60 since it has been gathering dust after I bought the 100-400L, so I can't comment on that specifically. I would assume however, that the focus speed won't be stunning on a DSLR given that it isn't brilliant on the EOS 5 anyway; I tended to manual pre-focus on the track when taking motorsports shots with this lens.

 

The 75-300 isn't a bad bit of glass if you're on a budget - I used one for nearly two years and produced some good results with it. But if you are interested in doing action photography and need reliable autofocus, you are probably better off getting a better quality lens. Try and find a good secondhand buy if money is an issue.

[jim_larson1]

What everyone else said!

 

But to emphasize: A good lens is MORE important for a dSLR than a film camera.

 

Why? Because every shot is examined in closeup detail and you are FAR more likely to aggressively crop and magnify the images.

 

The dSLRs are brutal to bad lenses because of this fact.

 

If you are tight on cash, a D30 with a 70-200/F4 should produce better pictures than a 10D with a 75-300. Also, the useful life of the lens (either lens) is longer than the useful life of the body.

 

A few things to note:

 

1) The 75-300 is notoriously soft beyond 200mm.

 

2) The 200 can't go beyond 200! (doh!) unless you invest in a 1.4 TC (and the TC costs more than the 75-300. . .. )

[yakim_peled1]

>> "is lens quality as important?"

 

Yes.

 

>> "I was thinking about gettin a 70-200mm f4"

 

Get it.

[andrew robertson]

Personally, I use my larger lenses much MUCH more often than my smaller ones. The

exception is my cheap but nice 50mm f/1.8 II. I would recommend this lens to

anyone, as it is just a beauty. Lately I have been shooting with this and the 70-200

F/4L on my 10D and love it. The 50 is capable of stunning close-up shots as well.<div></div>

[steve_simons]

I'm kind of in the same boat as Mike except he's a much better photographer than me :P

 

Anyways, I'm 16, and have a small budget also. Not to mention I'm using Canadian currency and so is he. So when the Canadian dollar is down it's not good for us.

 

Anyways. I use manual focus all the time (since my camera doesn't have auto) but the only action I've done is at soccer games and a Downhill Mountain Bike Comp. At the soccer games I was using a 80-200mm lens with a 2x tele converter and manual focus wasn't a trouble, but unfortunately I can't see how my shots turned out since my roll ripped in half inside the camera :'(

 

Anyways... what I'm getting at is, where can I find a good price on one of these cameras, new or used, and... how much do you think the average price will drop when they introduce the new Canon DSLRs?

 

If all goes well, by the September I should have $1800 Canadian and I have until October or November depending on when the snow hits, so I'll be needing to get the camera fairly soon after or before the snow hits.