Do we really need fancy lenses

[greybeard]

Last night I got a wild hair and decided to test my junky plastic 28-80 f/3.5-5.6 that came as a kit lens for a nikon film camera I had bought back in the 90's. I just set it to 50mm and compared it stop for stop with my (big deal) 24-70 f/2.8. While it wasn't as fast at the apertures they had in common I couldn't see all that much difference other than the bigger lens had better light transmission. Today I put it on my D850 and popped a Raynox 1.5 and took some shots of the stuff I usually like to shoot. Here are the results.

All shot with d850, 28-80 plastic wonder, Ranox 1.5, f/22, D700 flash

The Plastic Wonder

These are about $35 used

 

[photoflyer]

For many applications the answer is no and I think your experiment shows this. But, I've been in the kayak with the Tamron 18-400 and shot Osprey then later regretted not bringing one of the Canon L lenses. The Tamron is just not as sharp and when shooting against a bright background the chromatic aberation is noticable. The Tamron does not sink as fast though ... and as a super zoom it is much more flexible.

 

[Soocom1]

There is far more to the image than glass name.

I have used russian med. Format lenses on my 35's for a couple of decades now.

they are not overly expensive.

I have Quantaray, Tamron, Tokina, promaster and few other off names including the much vaunted Vivitar classics.

 

[photoflyer]

The Tamron does not sink as fast though

Not implying that Tamron does not have Sharp lenses, just that in this instance, given what I gave, the "fancy" lenses would have produced a better result.

For example recently someone asked me for a suggestion regarding what camera to buy. I told her that her current t5i was just fine. And, that she should invest in books that teach the features of the camera and basic photographic techniques. I suggested that armed with that her kit lenses would probably be just fine but that if she wanted to invest in something more suitable for portraits that a nifty fifty for $125 would be an excellent choice.

 

[DarkShadow]

I also have the 28-80 AF-D on the D610 I only shoot it at the wide end for landscape but so far it has impressed with it's rendering.Build quality is laughable but who cares it breaks get another one dirt cheap all day long.

 

[greybeard]

I also have the 28-80 AF-D on the D610 I only shoot it at the wide end for landscape but so far it has impressed with it's rendering.Build quality is laughable but who cares it breaks get another one dirt cheap all day long.

One of the best things about it is the weight. Like a feather and it focuses lightning fast.

 

[mjcmt]

Nice photos. Nikon's kit lenses are pretty good too. For internet photos it's probably less noticeable unless you get into a difficult lighting situation. Also lower resolution and field curvature can have a charming look. But for large prints I'd bet the difference is more dramatic.

Because I'm a necessary cheapskate, I'm getting fine results w/ my 35yr old 20mm 2.8 ais, 35mm f1.4 ais, and 180mm f2.8 edif left from my film days on a D750. But I can see the limitations of these lenses on a 24mp full frame camera in many situations. They may not be resolving good enough for your D850.

BTW, I've been hunting a 24-70mm f2.8G lens on ebay, but they alway sell for more than my budget. Now looking at other options like 24-85mm G, but I'm shooked at what folks ask for them used.

 

[DarkShadow]

I am at the point no buying any expensive lenses unless I am absolutely sure I will use it almost always. When i shot Canon I purchased the 70-200mm f/4L IS 1,300 hundred plus tax glass and it sat in the bag about 95 percent of the time, i was using the sigma 150-500mm for wildlife daily.I am still thinking of a Nikon 24mm prime but the newest generation as i think will be wide enough for some indoor stuff as well on full frame.

 

[TreeofLifeStairs]

I have two “expensive” lenses and have zero regrets. I have the Sony 16-35 F2.8 GM for work, and the Sony 85 F1.4 GM for fun. I’ve been so happy with them I don’t think I’ll go back. A friend bought a new a7iii and it came with the kit lens and it felt so constricting only being able to go down to F3.5.

 

[dxqcanada]

Yes, we do.
They do offer things that we may need for our particular requirements ... not everyone may need a "fancy" lens.

 

[otherprof]

Last night I got a wild hair and decided to test my junky plastic 28-80 f/3.5-5.6 that came as a kit lens for a nikon film camera I had bought back in the 90's. I just set it to 50mm and compared it stop for stop with my (big deal) 24-70 f/2.8. While it wasn't as fast at the apertures they had in common I couldn't see all that much difference other than the bigger lens had better light transmission. Today I put it on my D850 and popped a Raynox 1.5 and took some shots of the stuff I usually like to shoot. Here are the results.

All shot with d850, 28-80 plastic wonder, Ranox 1.5, f/22, D700 flash

The Plastic Wonder

These are about $35 used

Nice shots! I bought that plastic wonder ($36 including shipping) on the advice of two Forum stalwarts and love the lens.

 

[cgw]

Have a heart. Nikon needs the money.

 

[Space Face]

Well, I've just forked out 1,250 of our British pounds (about $1,600) on a lens so to answer your question, yes we need fancy lenses (well, not any more I don't)

 

[compur]

I have one of those AF Nikkor 28-80s too. It's been discussed on other threads here. It looks like a toy but produces great results and is so cheap. There are lots of sleeper gems like that in the world of photo gear. But, be careful talking about them on the web because you might cause the prices to go up.

 

[mrca]

No offense to a 24-70 2.8 that has probably made more money for pros than any other lens, and I keep one for events, weddings etc. but prefer a 35/85 prime combo. It's not the highest quality lens out there, but is a work horse. But put that kit lens up against a great prime and shoot something that shows a foreground, middle and background and you can't miss the difference. You can pick up a 35mm zeiss distagon 2.0 for about $500 and the 3D rendering will make those kit photos look flat as well as the 24-70. The bokeh, sharpness, color rendition are night and day. The microcontrast renders b&w in a way that you should really be able to see the difference. It's not "fancy," its manual focus, but with a 35 mm you can zone focus a specified range and not focus at all. Take a look at some of the images on the flickr page. Or try a nikon 105 dc for less than 600 and it is auto focus. It is amazing.