Camera Lens

[JackSilb]

Hello,

I know we all get excited about mega pixels and features.
But how about lens quality. Do you check for it when getting a camera?
Are all the big boys lens about the same these days in terms of quality? e.g. Nikon, Canon, others.

What is a "high quality" lens vs. normal quality?

-JACK

[MrS]

Leica ??

[MrS]

Here is one more. Zeiss
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9?Open

[GoodTimes]

Are you talking about the compact point and shoot cameras, or the dSLRs (with interchangeable lenses)?

[JackSilb]

GT,

I was talking about both, but this is probably more relevant to the dSLRs since these can have different lenses.

Just o fun. Assuming two mfgs have comparable simple point and shoot cameras, would you take a look on what lens on use vs. the other? Would that make you buy one camera vs. the other?

dSLR, would you pay more for a higher grade camera? Better optics, more light aperture, etc.


-JACK

[GoodTimes]

I don't know a whole lot about the current point and shoot cameras. I do know they are all getting quite good with the software and optics....body construction varies a lot though. Plus only a few will shoot in RAW. If I were to buy one, I would want RAW....I like having the extra post-processing control. It helps make up for my lack of ability. As for the optics of these....I'm not sure how you would compare them, unless you rented a camera and looked at the image quality. Of course, I guess this would apply to dSLRs as well.

There are a number of places that rent camera gear...which is probably a good idea if you are considering spending a lot of money on some photo gear. It is also a great option if you need a piece of gear for a short period of time, and don't want/can't afford to buy it.

[cruiser guy]

dSLR, would you pay more for a higher grade camera? Better optics, more light aperture, etc.

I tend to go for the manufacturers lenses, in my case I've had Nikon for many years. I've noticed that the older dSLR's, at least my D1, are not great for low light so I'd be making sure that the low light recording ability of a dSLR was decent (not too much "noise"). I think that the need for faster lenses is not as critical with the digital as it was with film since you can change the digital ISO settings from one picture to the next which was impossible with the film cameras. When I had the old manual focus lenses I had the fastest ones I could afford like a 35mm 1.4 but I don't worry about that with the digital.
You'd also like to have a camera with as short as possible delay in shooting. I find that the point and shoot cameras are WAY too slow. By the time the camera takes the picture the scene has changed!! Sometimes you can speed it up by partly holding down the shutter if you can anticipate the action. If you can't anticipate the action the point and shoot cameras are terrible.

[GoodTimes]

I think that the need for faster lenses is not as critical with the digital as it was with film since you can change the digital ISO settings from one picture to the next

With my Canon, I find that I get a lot of noise as I increase the ISO. Even ISO 400 brings in so much noise that the images are generally....uh....not so nice. Even with the aperture at f/4, I run into long exposure times, which is problematic with long focal lengths and hand holding. For trade shows, f/2.8 is as slow as I would want, particularly with the previously mentioned high ISO/noise issue. Again, another reason for RAW. :smilewinkgrin:

[cruiser guy]

I looked at pictures my daughters boyfriend made with his D80 of fireworks on New Years and there is very little noise (I won't say none because I haven't examined them that closely but certainly very little). My D1 is very "noisy" with long exposures and not great at higher ISO's.

You can see the fireworks picture taken with the D80 on our website. It's the header under "Current News". http://www.wirrell.com/news

As for camera shake, the lens I bought after selling off my manual focus lenses incorporate the Nikon VR vibration reduction technology to reduce camera shake at low shutter speeds.

[GoodTimes]

I still need (want) a better "all around" lens. I am currently using a Canon EF 18 - 55 f/4.0 (for my 90% lens)....which does not have the best reputation. It is OK if I keep the aperture around 9.0, but if I wander to far from that, the images get soft. As for the noise, I believe it is the sensor which is the problem with the dRebel, as I have it with each of my lenses. It is not a problem if I keep the ISO down (100 or 200), but that means longer exposures.

I will likely end up with IS on the next lens. Something like the 24 - 105 L series with IS would be really nice...but I just can't swallow the >$1000 price tag.

[WhiteThaiGer]

....point and shoot cameras. .....Plus only a few will shoot in RAW. If I were to buy one, I would want RAW....

I didn't even think about RAW in connection with the point and shoots. Our's needs to be replaced, so this will be something to look for. Do you have any models handy that do RAW?

I still need (want) a better "all around" lens. I am currently using a Canon EF 18 - 55 f/4.0 (for my 90% lens)....which does not have the best reputation. It is OK if I keep the aperture around 9.0, but if I wander to far from that, the images get soft. As for the noise, I believe it is the sensor which is the problem with the dRebel, as I have it with each of my lenses. It is not a problem if I keep the ISO down (100 or 200), but that means longer exposures.

I will likely end up with IS on the next lens. Something like the 24 - 105 L series with IS would be really nice...but I just can't swallow the >$1000 price tag.

That's pretty much the situation here. Srisuda is also looking for better glass. She also uses the 18-55 most of the time. I wonder if the step to 24 from 18 would be restricting?

[cruiser guy]

I will likely end up with IS on the next lens. Something like the 24 - 105 L series with IS would be really nice...but I just can't swallow the >$1000 price tag.

That's where Ebay comes in handy!! I've been able to get mine for less than retail that way by watching carefully.

Why is a 24-105 so much? My Nikkor 24-120 VR was about $300.

[GoodTimes]

That's where Ebay comes in handy!! I've been able to get mine for less than retail that way by watching carefully.

Why is a 24-105 so much? My Nikkor 24-120 VR was about $300.

The Canon L series are all expensive. It is their "professional" line. I don't know if there is a great deal of difference in the optics, but the build quality is much better. The L lenses put up with a lot of abuse, which I really need since my camera goes backpacking, kayaking, rides in a jeep with no top through the desert, etc.

Uwe, Scott Brady recently bought a Leica D-lux 3 (http://expeditionportal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6111), he seems quite happy with it, but it is outside of my price range right now (I'm in the middle of a office remodel which has spun out of control). I know there are a couple others out there, but have not done a ton of research into them. I need to do more now that I am starting to use the BMW more for travel.

[WhiteThaiGer]

Yeah, I saw that Leica. A bit much for us also. The camera will be mainly used for snap shots and the DSLR will be used for the more serious stuff. I'm still working on our specs for a new point and shoot:

1) <$300
2) Allow manual settings
3) run on regular batteries (this if for cases like traveling in Laos for a week where it's not guaranteed that we'd have a place to charge, a few AA's can be found more easily)
4) RAW would be nice

[cruiser guy]

The Canon L series are all expensive. It is their "professional" line. I don't know if there is a great deal of difference in the optics, but the build quality is much better. The L lenses put up with a lot of abuse, which I really need since my camera goes backpacking, kayaking, rides in a jeep with no top through the desert, etc.

I don't know if anyone can say that Nikon is "amateur" quality! I'm sure some of the lenses are more directed to the amateur market but the VR lenses are not. There is a similar lens which costs 1/2 of mine that could be considered "amateur".

I've never had any issues with the Nikon manual focus lenses. Time will tell if the newer auto-focus lenses are as good. I know they are not all metal construction like the old lenses were.

[GoodTimes]

I don't know if anyone can say that Nikon is "amateur" quality!

Canon (from what I have seen), markets the L glass to professionals, and the EF glass to everyone. The build quality is the big difference. Well, that and the price....

I don't think Nikon has two different lens lines like Canon does......?

[cruiser guy]

I don't think Nikon has two different lens lines like Canon does......?

No, Nikon doesn't have two lens lines but there are different lenses with similar specs. Take the following: http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=1971 a 28-105 zoom directed to the amateur market
and this one
http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2145 a 24-120 zoom directed to the advanced amateur/professional

While these are not different lines they are directed to different segments of the population since the specs are not significantly different but the price is. There are lens pairs like this all through the lens lineup. Different lenses with similar specs directed to different market segments but not different lens lines.

[GoodTimes]

OK, that is similar to the offerings from Canon....Canon just gives them a different name ("L-series"). There are lenses that are similar in specs to the L series, but with lower cost and lower build quality, etc.

[darmbruster]

28-105 zoom directed to the amateur market

and

a 24-120 zoom directed to the advanced amateur/professional

While these are not different lines they are directed to different segments of the population since the specs are not significantly different but the price is.

These two lenses are not quite equal. The 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-D that preceded the current one is a better comparison build-wise to the 28-105. The new 24-120mm is an ED and VR lenses, too. I have the older 24-120mm and it is an OK lens, definitely not a pro lens, though. Of all three of these lenses, I would say the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 has the best reputation for image quality, but none of them are pro lenses. Maybe you are thinking about the 28-70 f/2.8 ED-IF? That is a pro level lens, awesome reputation and a price to reflect it.

Nikon does have two lines. The pro lenses are typically fixed aperture and metal bodies. Two examples are the 17-35mm f/2.8 and the 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5. The 17-35 is about 3 times the cost, has 1 to 2 stop of extra speed, weighs about twice as much and has a metal body. Both optically are pretty close, the 17-35 being obviously better at the wide end. But in terms of build quality, there is no comparison, the 17-35 is built to a much better standard.

To Jack's original question, modern lenses are quite good top to bottom. But I personally think you buy into a camera system for the lenses mainly. The bodies (particularly for film) don't add anything to the image itself and the only difference being how good the meter is. The rest is fluff that makes using it easier, but two photographers, one with a F5 and the other with a FM-10 will take the same photo on film with the same lens. The digital bodies have the sensor and so a D2 will presumably have a better sensor than a D30, but the difference between the D2 and D30 with the same lens will be much less than you'd think. The difference is that the D2 will take a beating that a pro can dish out, where the D30 is very lightly built.

So I think you pick a system based on the quality of the lenses. My feeling is Nikon, Pentax, Olympus and Canon make top notch lenses. Leica is outstanding. Don't know much about Minolta/Konica/Sony, but they have in the past made excellent lenses. I got the chance to use one of those Zeiss lenses recently. Nice feel, very professional. All metal body, solidly built. It is one of the only lenses that I would buy besides Nikkor for my collection.

[GoodTimes]

The difference is that the D2 will take a beating that a pro can dish out, where the D30 is very lightly built.

I think a rookie photo-geek with a 4wd can dish out enough abuse to make a pro cringe. :blush:

[darmbruster]

I think a rookie photo-geek with a 4wd can dish out enough abuse to make a pro cringe. :blush:
Oh yeah. I've actually seen a F3/MD4 get run over. Lens mount wasn't happy (lens was ruined) and the prism was pretty toasted, but the camera did survive and worked. A used prism and replaced mount and last I heard it was still in service!

[JackSilb]

Thanks for all the feedback.
My hero is BajaTaco. For the longest time, before he got famous, he had small canon cameras. Still his pictures were amazing. Talent is probably no 1.

Nice discussion. Originally I has in mind if lens should be a concern on the ~ $250 cameras. And on DSLRs, how much is too much on lens. In particular, when taking pictures of volleyball games, even at ISO 1600 I can take pictures at 1/250. The gyms are not that good for it. I believe I have the same lens as GT. I wonder how much would cost a better lens (better aperture). I see some action pictures that are very nice from the pros working on the same gym.

Take care.
-JACK

[cruiser guy]

I wonder how much would cost a better lens (better aperture). I see some action pictures that are very nice from the pros working on the same gym.

Take care.
-JACK

Gaining a stop or two could easily double the lens cost (at least it did back when I had my manual focus Nikkor lenses)!

[GoodTimes]

I don't have good luck shooting at ISO that high Jack. I get a lot of noise in the pictures. I usually shoot at ISO 100, but will step up to ISO 200 when the light dims. At ISO 400 I get more noise than I like, so I avoid it. I also tend to favor aperture settings around f/9. This is where my lenses are the sharpest. But I will open it up to get more light long before I step up the ISO.

A good f/2.8 lens is quite an expensive investment, but if you are shooting action shots inside, it may be worth it because it will let you keep the ISO low and shutter speed fast. Since I rarely shoot inside, the added cost was not worth it to me...yet anyway.

Which camera are you using now?

[JackSilb]

I also tend to favor aperture settings around f/9. This is where my lenses are the sharpest.How do you know that?

I don't have an option. Indoor, players hinting the ball, ball moving fast ...


A good f/2.8 lens is quite an expensive investmentI will check on this.

Which camera are you using now?Canon Rebel Xt

Can you give me a pointer to a tele or zoom that would have this kind of aperture?

-Jack

[JackSilb]

By Canon, Outch! (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/425812-USA/Canon_1242B002_EF_S_17_55mm_f_2_8_IS.html)

~ 1K.?!

By Sigma (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/419582-REG/Sigma_669101_17_70mm_f_2_8_4_5_DC_Macro.html)

~ $400


-Jack