How much of an impact do better lenses make?

Skidder

Skidder

Skidder

Man of Honour
Joined
28 Nov 2007
Posts
12,750
Hello, I have a 400d with the basic kit lens ef-s 18-55 and i have a second had ef 75-300 f4-5.6. I also have a 430ex flash. For the most part I'm happy with the results but not sure what the impact of a lens upgrade would be.

(as an aside I am hoping santa claus will be dropping an EF 50mm 1.8 prime lens in my stocking.)

How much difference would i see in buying a better quality everyday lens? (something in the 17-50 ish range perhaps)

I photograph animals, landscapes, some macro, sport (snowboarding and wakeboarding) and people shots but just learning.
 
good glass is probably one of if not THE main factor in getting good quality images.

edit - have a look at my post in the 20D->40D upgrade thread for examples of images using fast 2.8 glass.
 
well no, obviously its not going to turn you into a pro overnight but good optics is a must. imo anyway.
 
high end lenses usually make a great difference to the image quality produced, ie sharper shots, higher resolving power for more detail, better build quality, sometimes weather sealed , etc

they won't help composure or suddenly turn all your shots into perfection though :p
 
I had a 75-300 and it was truly awful. Newer 70-300 (mins is the IS) much better.

But yeah, try out the £50 50mm f/1.8 to see what good glass can do
 
D.P. said:
Lens quality is more important than camera.
Click to expand...
I'd second that too.

With the exception of the added image capturing speed (moving from something like a 350D to a 30D for example) i generally found the IQ to be very similar in comparison. Certainly when you consider the difference in price.

All my best upgrades have been lens purchases.

gt
 
Still if you are unsure if you need a new lens or not then you may be disapointed with the purchase of lenses of the same focal group.
sure these are advantages
control of flare
sharpness
less CA
faster AF
wider F
build quality
faster/silent motors

If I was going to purchase a lens it would mainly be due to having it perform better with faster AF and wider F ranges (which are going to up the price a lot)
If you're printing work then you're probably going to want to use good glass but if its nothing more than a snappy happy trooper It could end up being money spent where it was not really needed.

Look in your photographs and highlight where you are disappionted and see if that is down to lens qualities. look for spots you want improvement and base your lens upgrade on those.
 
Thanks for the replies! I will see how I go with the EF50 prime and then may be treat myself to a better everyday lens in the new year. Interesting comment about printing, I print a lot of images so if i would see the benefit there, may well be worthwhile.
 
The nifty fifty is a fantastic lens. For £50 you can't really go wrong - upgrading your lens or not, I personally think this is a lens that most photographers should have :)
 
Better lenses will obviously help you obtain results not possible with lower spec'd lenses, and certain lenses do perform better overall than others.. Lower apertures etc.

But the majority of the difference is down to skill and always will be. Sharpness is 20% lens, 80% technique, same goes for focusing skills. Especially with regards to sharpness, understanding how light, contrast etc and *how* exactly your lens is focusing at different apertures all make far more difference to sharpness than replacing lenses.

Replacing a 17-55mm 3.5-5.6 with a £1000 17-55mm f/2.8 isn't going to suddenly make all your photos amazing. It will let yuu take photos with less light, but they're not going to be twice as sharp just because that lens is on your camera. The kit lens on a 6mp D40 for example is more than capable of producing crystal clear A4+ prints. Sticking a £1000 lens won't change that.
 
Skidder said:
How much difference would i see in buying a better quality everyday lens?
Click to expand...

The difference is measurable. The spec of the lens will tell you how much more light it will let in. You can do some research and find out exactly what it will do to depth of field, how good it is at resolving detail etc...

But there is also an unmeasureable difference. Good glass is a joy to work with. The best lenses I have used are the 85mm f1.2L and the 200mm f1.8L. It is a pleasure simply to look at the world through them. The colours are rich, the DoF is thin, the focus is razor sharp. They just encourage you to taake more and better pictures.

Spend your money on lenses. Your camera is disposable, it will be old junk in 3 years. Glass is an investment.

Andrew
 
Crap lens = crap picture. like having a good stereo and £2.99 speakers, its all good if everything is good, soon as one part lets the system down the whole thing suffers.

Good glass is always worth it in my view.
 
colinuk said:
Crap lens = crap picture
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but that has got to be the worst piece of advice I've seen posted on here.

The Canon kit lens can and does take some very good photos. Just because it's 'crap' compared to say the 17-40L does not mean the pictures it will produce will be crap.
 
Compare the 'kit lens' witha good bit of kit, then tell me im wrong.

Ive used both, thought i could get away with it in weddings, i was wrong. When you see what a good lens can do, compared to a 'starter' lens, you wont go back to it.
 
colinuk said:
Compare the 'kit lens' witha good bit of kit, then tell me im wrong.

Ive used both, thought i could get away with it in weddings, i was wrong. When you see what a good lens can do, compared to a 'starter' lens, you wont go back to it.
Click to expand...

Doesn't mean if you use a crap lens it will be a crap picture though does it?
 
ok, ill change the wording a little. A good composed picture will look a lot better with good bit of glass instead of using a badly made lens that isnt as sharp/clear as it could be.

If you are using £19.99 lenses, dont expect to get the same result as a £500 lens, there is a reason why its more, that normaly is due to the refinement of the lens, the way it handles light, the sharpness, the quickness of it ect, so yes, if you have a crap lens, you will get more crap pictures than you would with a decent to good lens.

Am i the only one who thinks this? or has seen this? do you all use starter lenses??
 
I upgraded my kit lens on the 400d within a month to many fancy things but I agree with some points that it wont help with the composition

sid
 
No what you mean is if you broke into the image and stripped it down. its technicals will be crap compared.
Sharpness not as great
contrast weak
colors dull
etc etc

I have taken a few nice pictures with the kit lens.

There is a hidden skill with using lenses. You just get the best out of any lens when you understand the elements and limitations of the product.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom