]]> http://photo.blogoverflow.com/2012/08/the-true-quality-of-top-shelf-glass-a-birders-perspective/#comment-299039 Mon, 12 Jan 2015 14:50:20 +0000 http://photo.blogoverflow.com/?p=792#comment-299039 I have a 300mm zoom lens, and I’m thinking about getting a 400mm, but I’m wondering if it’s worth the cost. Could you send me side-by-side photos…one taken with a 300mm lens and the other with a 400mm lens, so that I can compare the difference? Thank you.

]]> http://photo.blogoverflow.com/2012/08/the-true-quality-of-top-shelf-glass-a-birders-perspective/#comment-1675 Sun, 16 Sep 2012 18:33:57 +0000 http://photo.blogoverflow.com/?p=792#comment-1675 Well, perhaps I had a bad several copies, I’m not sure. My first 18-55 was a terrible lens. It produced some horrid CA at the periphery, and there was even CA present in the middle. That one broke, and I got another one off a friend. Theirs had the same CA problem, and a lot of my landscape shots were very soft, even when focused perfectly with 10x Live View and a high aperture (usually around f/11-f/16, straddling the DLA of the sensor on my 450D).

Friend needed their lens back, so I got another. Lot of CA was still present around the periphery, not so much in the center. Again, the lens was soft even when perfectly focused. It should be noted that I purchased my first L-series lens the same year I purchased my 450D, the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II. The difference between that lens and any 18-55mm lens I’ve had is night and day, always has been. Barely any CA, razor sharp photos, cleaner boke. I had plenty of experience with both lenses within months of buying my 450D to be able to confidently say that the 18-55mm lens that was current at the time I purchased my 450D was a rather poor quality lens. Its been replaced now with a newer model that seems to correct most of the previous model’s deficiencies, namely the CA. How well it stands up to the 16-35 L I can’t say as I’ve never directly compared the two.

Now, its entirely possible I just got three lenses that weren’t aligned well with my camera body…my body may have had an (acceptable, but still non-ideal) manufacturing error in placement of the sensor. That could account for the softness, and the lack of any kind of AFMA on that body prevented me from addressing it. However CA is not the result of poor focus…its simply the result of cheaper lens design. Wouldn’t matter how well matched the body was to the lens, CA is still going to burn through every shot adding a cyan and magenta haze around every sharp edge.

I should also note that my argument is not that good photos can’t be shot with a cheap lens. Sure they can. I think anyone who has used one knows that. My argument is they are a limiting factor. They are simply not as good as an L-series lens (or the counterpart from your preferred brand). They limit resolution, their aberrations are not as well controlled. If you are intent on producing high quality photos, and you run into a wall in terms of IQ, and you know your doing everything else right…well, time to get a better lens!

The difference in quality between my 100-400 and the 300 is huge, and all I had to do was pick up the 300mm lens and use it. That’s not a difference in skill…my skill did not immediately expand simply by the act of touching the 300mm lens. I already had the skill, and something else…my old lens…was holding me back. Its no surprise, given that the 100-400mm lens is a design about 14 years old, and the 300mm II lens is less than a year old. That is an eon’s worth of technological improvement, and I have no doubt that the IQ of the 100-400mm lens is a bit wanting by today’s standards. Back in 1998 we had cameras with only a few megapixels…and each pixel was huge, larger than 10 microns. Today we have cameras with dozens of megapixels, where each pixel is a tiny fraction of what we had in 1998. Cameras simply demand more today, and in my opinion…having used the 100-400mm lens extensively on a very demanding sensor…it is a critical limiting factor.

I started on a 400D – with the 18-55mm kit lens, then got the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 lens… later the 5D MK II with the 24-70 f2.8. Yes, the kit lens wasn’t a great lens, but it definitely wasn’t that bad. (Even though I later destroyed it completely having a look at every part out of curiosity.)

Standard zooms are fairly easy to build and even the lower priced ones aren’t a catastrophe. In fact, I got a very sharp image from Sheffield with my kit lens which might actually be amongst the sharpest images I have ever taken! (Single pixel line pattern on sandstone on a building.) Where a cheap lens will show significant shortcomings is at the more extreme ends of the focal lengths, especially on “long lenses” where tiny flaws are amplified and hence more expensive glass has more merit than on the more standard focal lengths. Someone who starts out with photography is perfectly fine with a kit lens and definitely does not need an L lens. Now if one knows one wants to stay in photography, and L lens is definitely a good investments in terms of future proofing equipment, but very good photos can be shot with a kit lens as well.

I think what you have fallen victim to is just additional experience rather than such a huge difference in lens quality. (Unless you got a really bad copy of the kit lens.) If you were to start out with two cameras to chose from and no experience, identical except for the lens, I am reasonably certain you would not see the difference – at least not immediately. Only once you know what to look for (colour reproduction, colour fringing) will you become more critical – but then most colour fringes are removed perfectly with the click of a button. (And even lenses coasting several thousands aren’t immune to colour fringing.)