I know this is kind of a noob question, one I should know the answer to by now, but what is the difference between a good lens and a crappy lens? I know that some lenses offer more zoom and wider apertures, but what else do better lenses have to offer, and why should I get one? Will it make my pictures look clearer? Better? I am deciding whether I should save up for a better lens for my D40 or stick with my 18-55mm kit lens.
I would recommend not buying a lens better than you are. It'll slow your learning down quite a bit. If you use $100 lenses and find no issues with them, then stick to those for now. If you buy an amazing lens its going to give you a lot more leeway to make mistakes. I'm a big fan of learning via failure. I also happen to be rather spectacular at failure, so I suppose that's a good thing. :lol:
I swear it's made of plastic, and if I shake it,
Psssst....
It is. ;)
picture quality is all about the glass. Aspherical lenses tend to be much better at reducing chromatic aberration, which reduces the number of elements needed in a lens. However, aspherical lenses cost more (I know this first hand, I polish aspherical lenses). Spherical lenses have been made for many many years, the process is pretty cut and dry. Aspheres are a whole different animal.
Lens build quality is another factor. seems a lot of newer lenses are plastic. Plastic is great, for grocery bags. Of course lens manufacturers realize some people just wont pay more for a better lens, so they offer cheaper quality lenses, that for most of us, do a fine job. Im no pro, the kit lens with my Sony A200 does a pretty nice job when I do things right :)
if you can save up money, even only a little here and there, buy a better lens. Its too bad you dont have the higher-end Nikon that has an autofocus motor built into the camera body, you could then buy one of the millions of older, better quality lenses out there. You still can, you just wont have autofocus. In your position I would at least buy a 50-200mm or equivilent...Tamron and Sigma make GREAT lenses these days. The extra zoom will really expand your photographic horizons! Me n this crazy little thing called Polyamory [Archive] - Beastie ::
at the environment of our ancestors as focused through the lens of reproduction. Convergent evolution vs. phylogenetic inertia.
http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/archive/index.php/t-62331.htmlHOME |
Is a 50mm lens a good lens, even though it lacks an AF motor and a zoom? In terms of clarity?
The main difference will be Image Quality, like sharpness- you have to consider sharpness in the center and sharpness at the corners, also sharpness varies through the zoom range. Cheap lenses often have huge variations in quality throughout the range. Higher quality lenses minimize this, but that takes a lot of research, engineering, development, and testing, hence the large price tag. Very good zooms often have a large maximum aperture like f/2.8, and it stays at 2.8 throughout the zoom range.
Will better lenses make your pictures better? the short answer is YES, but there are many other factor to consider. A lens is only a tool, It's really how you use the tool that matters. When you find that you are reaching the limits of your tool set, then absolutely, better tools will help you create better results.
This is one of those things that falls into the category of "When you try it for yourself, then you will know".
Alan Colmes Liberaland Blog Archive This Blog::
I know this is a cheap blog. might have been better to have kept this are many of us who are growing very weary of partisan politics and the coke vs.
http://www.alan.com/2007/11/25/this-blog/HOME |
DEVA TALK::
our efforts to improve many aspects of the whole process, better quality with it and the benifits it can offer? Is it an uphill battle initially? Do >
http://www.coffeysound.com/gems/Deva Talk.htmHOME |
:thumbsup: +1
Has anyone mentioned that pro glass will keep very near to it's retail value throughout it's life?
I am asking because I am thinking of getting a new lens. I have a fairly tight budget, around $100, and I think a 50mm may be for me. But, I can go to $200 if there is something a lot better about another lens. So, a 50mm will definitely be the best for my D40 (I don't care about autofocus)? Which one? Does Sigma and Tamaron make any good 50mms in that price range for the D40?
Build
Color that "jumps out at you".
Image Quality
Those are the three qualities that you can touch/see difference when you use a "better lens" - for me it is. I'm thinking Canon "L".
AT&T posts iPhone 3G information - The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)::
And what the cost and cost benifits will be? -- J. Reply. report. 69 at a fairly cheap price would win the hearts of millions, from wat im concerned.
http://www.tuaw.com/2008/07/01/atandt-posts-iphone-3g-information/4HOME |
Not saying that you will not get those qualities in a "lower priced" lens, but more difficult to find all three qualities in same lens.
Never touched a Nikon 50mm (f/1.8?). The Canon one has good IQ, decent color, but horrible build. I swear it's made of plastic, and if I shake it, I can imagine the glass/plastic rattling around. My daughter's Mattel toddler camera feels sturdier.
This is one of those things that falls into the category of "When you try it for yourself, then you will know".
If you're referring to the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8, I've heard nothing but good about it, and it may well be my own next lens purchase. It is purported to be extremely sharp, and very well made.
There are also the less tangible benefits; that of better quality construction, metal vs. plastic barrel, one which won't creep out of focus, etc. A good lens should be a lifetime investment.
but what else do better lenses have to offer, and why should I get one? Will it make my pictures look clearer? Better?
There no reason for you (or anyone else) to have another lens or change lens until you change the shooting habit. For an example if now you decide to do bird shooting than the telephoto is necessity. A sport photography needs fast telephoto etc.
Will it make my pictures look clearer? Better?
I don't think so. Your kit lens is a good lens for general purpose and it produces great photos with the right setting.
I remember I came accross a website that seeling photos, great photos. Yet they all taken with D40 with it's lowly kitlens, just like yours and my kitlens. I forgot that website though.
Example is CANON not Nikon...but basically the same thing :P (when referring to examples)
Well based solely on a focal length, a lens isnt sharp or soft. That doesn't decide it. Ex: 50mm
What does decide it is the glass pieces inside called elements, better glass...layers on the glass.... Better lenses have less "Chromatic Aberrations" for instance...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration
Edit:
Also, better lenses often have a bigger aperture.. (Smaller F/number)
A bigger aperture also means it probably needs more glass (wider)
Example:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.2-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
There are 3 (three) canon EF 50mm lenses. The difference besides quality is the aperture number...
Left to right:
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II
Canon EF 50mm F/1.4 USM
Canon EF 50mm F/1.2L USM
You can see a size difference... The F/1.8 cost about what < $100?
The F/1.4 is like $300
The F/1.2L is > $1,000
In USD
But ya....better lenses are better! You get what you pay for...
Other stuff too like faster/quieter focusing etc... Sharp images, better build quality...
Top end lenses also, generally have a much better physical build quality, better and faster auto focus, are bigger and heavier. Now size and weight could be a pro or con, depending on the use, I personally like bigger and heavier cameras and lenses(to a point) I find them easier to grip hold, adjust and balance.
OOH! and some of them are WHITE!
So kiddies:
Better chromatic aberration control
Better sharpness
Wider apertures
Constant apertures
Better build quality
Better focus motors
Quieter focusing
Faster focusing
Image stabilization
 Nortel Unveils Vision, Strategy for Israeli High-Performance Net
 Busy Friday Leads to Strong Close for Net Stocks
|
PRINT
Add to favorites