*REAL* need for pro glass?

[66217]

I guess it's time to put my money where my mouth is. Here is an image I took while on a trip to Hawaii. I was walking around our hotel with my wife with my D300 and 18-200 lens on the camera. For this image, shutter speed 1/125, aperture f/5.6, ISO 400.

http://gallery.mac.com/bkimble#100037/DSC_0537&bgcolor=black

Even at f/5.6, the frond isn't totally in focus. At larger apertures, the image would actually look worse. What's more, the leaf was around 2 to 3 feet away from me. So if I had a 80-200 f/2.8 mounted, I w . ouldn't have been able to take the shot at all since the pro zoom can't focus that close.

How about comparing that to the real pro lenses that are used for that kind of photography? Like the 200mm Micro or the 105mm Micro. I have the latter, and believe me, the sharpness, bokeh and the very close focus distance it has, makes it a wonderful lens for this kind of shots.

There is no point in comparing a do-it-all lens vs a dedicated pro lens. The pro lens would always beat hands-down the cheaper lens.

Now, I agree that many times for a hobbyist it would be more than enough to have the consumer lenses, but if you have the possibility to get a pro lens, then it would surely give you better results.

BTW, I think your photo of the whale is great!

 

[Zeiss]

pro lenses

get a prime lens, not a zoom lens - you will definitely notice a huge difference. I have a 24-70 2.8L series canon lens that is rubbish. Sure shooting at 2.8 is nice, but i would rather a sharp lens, or at least one with better tone and colour separation. The 85USM prime that i have is much better.

 

[Digital Skunk]

get a prime lens, not a zoom lens - you will definitely notice a huge difference. I have a 24-70 2.8L series canon lens that is rubbish. Sure shooting at 2.8 is nice, but i would rather a sharp lens, or at least one with better tone and colour separation. The 85USM prime that i have is much better.

Indeed prime lenses are the way to go for optimum IQ from what I have seen. Zooms tend loose IQ one way or another across the zoom length.

 

[compuwar]

get a prime lens, not a zoom lens - you will definitely notice a huge difference. I have a 24-70 2.8L series canon lens that is rubbish. Sure shooting at 2.8 is nice, but i would rather a sharp lens, or at least one with better tone and colour separation. The 85USM prime that i have is much better.

Like all blanket statements, it's neither "definite" nor always correct. For instance, the Nikkor 17-35mm zoom at 18mm beats the 18mm f/2.8 prime, and the 20-35mm zoom at 24mm beats the 24mm f/2.8 prime according to many people. The Sigma 120-300/2.8 is said to be slightly sharper than the Sigma 300mm/2.8 prime. Canon's 24mm prime doesn't seem to bowl over a lot of L zooms at 24mm either.

I'm not sure what you mean by "colour separation" in a lens, since that's usually a printing term dealing with CMYK printing. Perhaps you mean "rendition?"

 

[Abstract]

Third party lenses are typically not even close to 96% quality of pro lenses. Typical third party lense have slow focusing among other things that pros find problematic.

Bad Sigma lenses are as bad as bad Nikon lenses, while great Sigma lenses are as good as great Nikon lenses.

I don't think the great Sigma lenses tend to overlap with the great Nikon lenses, and when they do (eg: Sigma 105 mm macro vs Nikon's 105 mm macro pre-VR, Sigma 70-200 mm and Nikon 80-200 (photozone.de review), Sigma 24-70 mm vs Nikon's 28-70 mm (at the time when I chose the Sigma over the Nikon), Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 vs Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 (current from photozone.de)), I don't see the problem with going with a 3rd party vendor like Sigma. Tamron has also produced some real winners.

 

[compuwar]

Bad Sigma lenses are as bad as bad Nikon lenses, while great Sigma lenses are as good as great Nikon lenses.

If you'd said "almost as good as great Nikon lenses" I'd have agreed. Sigma doesn't have the contrast or flare resistance of the top-of-the-line Nikkors. That doesn't make them bad, or bad choices, but it doesn't make them on-par.

I don't think the great Sigma lenses tend to overlap with the great Nikon lenses, and when they do (eg: Sigma 105 mm macro vs Nikon's 105 mm macro pre-VR, Sigma 70-200 mm and Nikon 80-200 (photozone.de review),

I think comparing the pre-VR Nikkor and the ancient 80-200 instead of the current models illustrates a point- the current Nikkors are better- going back a generation on one side isn't an even comparison. The nano-coating on the new 105mm is one of the most significant advantages you can have in terms of flare and ghosting resistance- you really can't dismiss it if you shoot in conditions where flare may be an issue. The Nikkor 70-200 beats the 80-200 quite handily (I've been looking a lot recently.)

I've got Sigma lenses, and I've got Sigma lenses that work better than some of Nikon's offerings- but Nikon's top shelf Nikkors are rarely equaled by 3rd party lenses- even the Zeiss ZF lenses don't always flat-out win side-by-side comparisons.

 

[ChrisA]

If you use flash, the "power" of the flash is controlled by the Aperture. Lets say you want to shoot outdoors on a bright sunny day with blue sky within two hours of noon. In terms of exposure alone you'd think the f/5.6 lens might be enough but. As it happens bright sunlight is the worst kind of light for many subjects. It makes for very high contract, not flattering at all for people shots.

So, you deside to add some fill flash the lighten of the shadows. You think "I want the fill to be one stop below ambient." Well that is "photographer speeak" for says "I want my flash to be half as bright as the sun." That is asking a lot of the flash. The sun is bright.

What you find is that if you shot at a wide aperture and short short exposure you can balance the flash and the sun to give you the lighting ratio that you want. This is why in-lens leaf shutters on (say) Hasselblads were so popular with event photographers. Those shutters would flash sync at 1/500 second.

This is another one of those cases where if you have to ask the question you don't need the expensive glass. If you don't know how to set up a fllash to balance out sunlight you don't need the equipment. But now days the cameras all will have some kind of automatic mode where it does the calculation for you, but even with automatic TTL flash metering you still have to have the Aperture and fast sync speed to allow the automation to work

And then there is the much simpler case of using flash indoors, there aperture gives you flash more power

And of course the view through the viewfinder is much brighter and because the camera autofocuses wide open because of the added light and smaller DOF the AF sensor has a much easier time. THis has nothing to do with image quality but just makes shooting easer.

 

[slinky0390]

It's not a matter of weather or not you're a "pro" or "amateur" or even "hobbyist", The justification in purchasing a pro quality lens is all in how much you are willing to spend. I have a wide variety of lenses ranging from EF primes to EF-L telephotos and I am by no means a "pro". Pro lenses do have advantages such as higher build quality, superior glass, and a nicer feel over all. But quite honestly, if it wasn't for EXIF, I wouldn't be able to tell which pictures were taken with my L lenses as opposed to my regular EF lenses.

 

[RaceTripper]

...But quite honestly, if it wasn't for EXIF, I wouldn't be able to tell which pictures were taken with my L lenses as opposed to my regular EF lenses.

For me that's not the case...

Last year I went to Road America in August to shoot races. I was using my consumer lenses. After that I sold all my lenses and purchased my pro 70-200/2.8 VR. Then in October I went to Road Atlanta to shoot races. I've been going over those two sets of pictures recently, and the difference in quality is pretty big. Sharpness and focus improved vastly between the two races, so I really benefited a lot going to a pro lens. I doubt my skill changed that much between August and October.

 

[slinky0390]

For me that's not the case...

Last year I went to Road America in August to shoot races. I was using my consumer lenses. After that I sold all my lenses and purchased my pro 70-200/2.8 VR. Then in October I went to Road Atlanta to shoot races. I've been going over those two sets of pictures recently, and the difference in quality is pretty big. Sharpness and focus improved vastly between the two races, so I really benefited a lot going to a pro lens. I doubt my skill changed that much between August and October.

The sharpness can vary between two of the same lenses though, my friend has the same Canon EF 70-200 f/4.0L telephoto lens and my copy produces significantly sharper images than his. On the other hand, my EF 50mm f/1.4 prime is just as sharp as my other L series lenses. The only thing I've noticed is that the bokeh is much more creamier with my L glass than my normal EF glass.

 

[RaceTripper]

The sharpness can vary between two of the same lenses though, ...

If I weren't getting great sharpness and autofocus performance from my Nikkor pro lens, it would be going to Nikon for repair.

 

[OreoCookie]

@OP
You're still mixing so many things: you write that a 1.8/50 is a pro lens
While I don't think anyone would say it's a bad lens, it's certainly not a pro lens. Neither are Tamron's or Sigma's 2.8/17/18-50 lenses.

All of them have a larger initial aperture without being `pro lenses.' Again, I'm not saying they're bad lenses, not at all.

You list quite a lot of things why you don't seem to need large initial apertures and all of the reasons were about low light. I remember when I've first replaced a kit lens with a 2.8/28-70 zoom (back in 2002, long, long time ago), the difference in the way I would shoot was remarkable. Even now, I'm bugged by the kit lens that I have now (I chose to get a 2.8/80-200 zoom instead of replacing the kit lens).

So lenses with larger aperture (i) don't need to be very expensive, (ii) don't need to be `pro lenses' and (iii) don't just allow you to shoot with faster shutter speeds and/or lower ISO.

 

[RaceTripper]

@OP
You're still mixing so many things: you write that a 1.8/50 is a pro lens ...

I'm just just curious. Why you designate lenses the opposite of what they are? e.g. 2.8/200 instead of the f-stop ratio 200/2.8

 

[OreoCookie]

I'm just just curious. Why you designate lenses the opposite of what they are? e.g. 2.8/200 instead of the f-stop ratio 200/2.8

Because that's the way I'm used to from literature and tests. First the f-stop, then the focal length.

 

[slinky0390]

If I weren't getting great sharpness and autofocus performance from my Nikkor pro lens, it would be going to Nikon for repair.

Luckily I have been pleased with the sharpness of my L lenses and even that of my EF's. I have heard stories from people who have sent lenses back due to sharpness related issues and every time they got it back it wasn't much better. I haven't had to worry about it though.

 

[RaceTripper]

Because that's the way I'm used to from literature and tests. First the f-stop, then the focal length.

OK. I've never seen that in any literature and it doesn't make sense to me. Do you have an example of that use I can see on the web.

F-stop is a ratio such that the focal length divided by the f-stop gives you the aperture. The 'f' in f/2.8 is focal length, and a 50mm lens with a 1.4 f-stop would have a aperture 35.7 mm in diameter, thus the ratio 50/1.4. What is the logic behind stating it as a reciprocal value, 1.4/50?

 

[OreoCookie]

OK. I've never seen that in any literature and it doesn't make sense to me. Do you have an example of that use I can see on the web.

Sure, how about here, here and here.

F-stop is a ratio such that the focal length divided by the f-stop gives you the aperture. The 'f' in f/2.8 is focal length, and a 50mm lens with a 1.4 f-stop would have a aperture 35.7 mm in diameter, thus the ratio 50/1.4. What is the logic behind stating it as a reciprocal value, 1.4/50?

For one, it's shorter when you talk about zoom lenses and it seems to be one accustomed way to do this. Perhaps it's a local (German) thing, because my dad's first camera's lens had 2,8/50 mm written on it (a Zeiss Ikon Contessa LK, still works perfectly). Also, I guess, nobody I know actually `calculates' the actual size of the aperture, so it's not as important whether you start or finish with the aperture.

So could be a German thing, I've even dug up some old photomags and they all use this way to denote aperture and focal length (except for ads and exact model names) …*

 

[RaceTripper]

Sure, how about here, here and here.

For one, it's shorter when you talk about zoom lenses and it seems to be one accustomed way to do this. Perhaps it's a local (German) thing, because my dad's first camera's lens had 2,8/50 mm written on it (a Zeiss Ikon Contessa LK, still works perfectly). Also, I guess, nobody I know actually `calculates' the actual size of the aperture, so it's not as important whether you start or finish with the aperture.

So could be a German thing, I've even dug up some old photomags and they all use this way to denote aperture and focal length (except for ads and exact model names) …*

I guess it is a German thing (I'm actually a German born immigrant & drive two German cars). It seems very odd to me, especially from the mathematical perspective since it is a ratio. I've never seen any English literature (other than the Zeiss in your links) that designate it that way. I agree that nobody calculates the aperture size, but that is what the designation means. It's to help one understand that for a given focal length lower f-stop means more aperture.

I'm not seeing how it's shorter when talking about zooms? 2.8/70-200 vs. 70-200/2.8

 

[OreoCookie]

I guess it is a German thing (I'm actually a German born immigrant).

To be honest, I've never paid any attention to that. Just when I searched for examples, I realized that pretty much all of them were either connected to a German manufacturer or linking to German sites.

It seems very odd to me, especially from the mathematical perspective since it is a ratio. I've never seen any English literature (other than the Zeiss in your links) that designate it that way.

You're right, but there are plenty of strange customs all around us, though -- especially when it comes to measurements.

I agree that nobody calculates the aperture size, but that is what the designation means. It's to help one understand that for a given focal length lower f-stop means more aperture.

Yes, exactly, I guess that's why I have never thought about it. Since it's the ratio and not the size which determines what shutter speed leads to correct exposure.

Thanks, I've learnt something today

 

[RaceTripper]

Thanks, I've learnt something today

Yes, me too.
Now if I had access to all the great motorsports you all have in Germany I'd be in heaven.

 

[ButtUglyJeff]

F-stop is a ratio such that the focal length divided by the f-stop gives you the aperture. The 'f' in f/2.8 is focal length, and a 50mm lens with a 1.4 f-stop would have a aperture 35.7 mm in diameter, thus the ratio 50/1.4. What is the logic behind stating it as a reciprocal value, 1.4/50?

It might be a Europe/Germany thing................


Anyways, I do like glass "upgrades", but you will never see me go to "pro" glass. Everything I own if f/2.8 or better, but put it all together, and I doubt I spent equal to one "pro"............

I like having multiple lenses, it allows me to explore more. I'd most likely get sick of shooting, if I only had one way to look at a subject. Even if that one view is through that new Canon 200mm f/2 IS USM that requires $5000 for the pleasure.

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=153&modelid=16357

 

[kallisti]

I need to apologize for this thread. I had several issues on my mind at the time and they didn't end up forming a cohesive whole.

My initial impetus for posting this was a thread by a beginning photographer with near-limitless resources who was asking advice about body/lens combos for a summer trip to Europe. The poster specifically stated that he wanted "good" pictures in a convenient package. Money wasn't an object. Many of the responses involved various pro-zoom combos. For this particular poster, my personal feeling was that a D40 body with an 18-200 lens was by far the best option for him. A do-it-all consumer lens would have served him much better than any "pro" combo regardless of price. Largely because the pro-combos would have been much heavier/less convenient and at his apparent photography level he wouldn't have seen a benefit from professional lenses.

There was also a subtext to my original post which was very "me" centric. I shoot with a D300 body, Tokina 12-24 wideangle, 50mm f/1.4 prime, 105 2.8 micro (the original one), and an 18-200 VR. I've been debating where to upgrade, especially on the telephoto side. Is the 70-200 VR worth it? Is the speed/sharpness of the lens that big of an upgrade over the 18-200? Would the 80-400 be a better choice? I'm a hobbiest (a serious hobbiest, but a hobbiest nonetheless). Convenience actually is important to me. Most of my shooting happens while I am walking around--carrying every lens in existence is NOT an option for me. It's about finding a happy medium between quality and convenience. There is a critical point where I will simply not bother carrying around any camera gear. Testing the limits of this boundary is where I am currently at. It may change over time.

These questions were running through my head when I made my initial post. No way for any of you to know this, like I said it was subtext. I was *really* posting about offering lens advice to beginning photographers but I have to admit that my personal dilemma affected what I wrote.

So I apologize for the eclectic nature of the thread. It's only in hindsight that I realize the lack of focus in my initial post. Thanks for all the replies though. I have actually gone ahead and ordered a 70-200. I'm now debating which teleconverter will help me the most as a compliment to it. 1.4x vs 1.7x vs 2x. Decisions, decisions....

 

[RaceTripper]

...I'm now debating which teleconverter will help me the most as a compliment to it. 1.4x vs 1.7x vs 2x...

The TC20e does not work so well. It's a bit soft and autofocus will hunt. It's really better with the fast tele primes like the 200/2, 300/2.8, etc.

The TC14e and TC17e work fine. I use the TC14e and have tried the TC17e.

The 70-200/2.8 VR is a great lens. Enjoy...
(wish I could get a D300)

 

[66217]

Nice acquisition. Make sure to show us your photos with that gem of a lens.

BTW, I completely understand your point. But I think there is something within photographers that we always seek the best gear. Most of my friends think I am nuts spending soo much in a camera, but then, what can you expect of friends who say they can take the same photo with a cell-phone camera. They just don't get it.