lens comparison

[Wiggly]

so ill be in the market for lenses soon and beginning my research... just out of curiosity though, does ne1 have a site or some pics to directly compare a "good" lens, vs a "bad" or cheaper lens? I mean, im lookin at some wide angles (a sigma and a nikkor) and the price difference is huge... is the quality difference just as big?

 

[Atlas77]

could you speficy what nikkor and what sigma lens your looking at? That may help the situation.

 

[Dao]

I usually go to the following sites for lenses technical reviews.

Welcome to Photozone!
Digital Camera Reviews and News: Digital Photography Review: Forums, Glossary, FAQ
www.slrgear.com

 

[BuS_RiDeR]

I think it would be easier to explain what makes a "good" lens. I don't have enough knowledge to do this.... But, an explanation of what the jargon means or a link to this info would be helpful.

I mean I'm not a beginner, nor am I a pro, but there are so many different options out there... It makes it hard for a beginner/amateur to explain what he/she is looking for.

Don't get me wrong. I appreciate the opinions given by other photographers, but its easy to ramble off a bunch of numbers... I think that a lense that boasts /f 1.8 vs one that boasts /f 2.4... well, the 1.8 is better because it allows more light into the camera... or am I wrong? What other things should we look for?

After all this is a beginner's forum.

Look at the sticky in this forum... "The Tutorial Thread!"

 

[DScience]

I think it would be easier to explain what makes a "good" lens. I don't have enough knowledge to do this.... But, an explanation of what the jargon means or a link to this info would be helpful.

I mean I'm not a beginner, nor am I a pro, but there are so many different options out there... It makes it hard for a beginner/amateur to explain what he/she is looking for.

Don't get me wrong. I appreciate the opinions given by other photographers, but its easy to ramble off a bunch of numbers... I think that a lense that boasts /f 1.8 vs one that boasts /f 2.4... well, the 1.8 is better because it allows more light into the camera... or am I wrong? What other things should we look for?

After all this is a beginner's forum.

Look at the sticky in this forum... "The Tutorial Thread!"

I'm sorry, but can you repeat that in a coherent manner?

 

[BuS_RiDeR]

What makes a "good" lens?

 

[musicaleCA]

You could certainly be dead wrong in any given situation. Lens properties are different from lens to lens. Qualities that are sought after in lens design are low chromatic aberration, high LW/PH (a measure of resolution, and thus maximum sharpness), good light transmission, low flare, high contrast, good colour rendition, low or entirely negligible distortion, and good quality bokeh. All of these are affected by various parts of the lens design. Practical "good" things include fast focusing, full-time manual focusing, image stabilization, weather sealing, and manageable weight, though the latter is oft ignored in favour of image quality.

So there you go. Simple answer, what makes a good lens is a million and one things coming together to make a good lens.

 

[tjones8611]

Given Im still a noobe, but musicaleca explanations of lens is the best ive seen. Ive ready four books and I wish at least one could have desribed lens in such a manner. I often forget about quality and focus on practical

 

[musicaleCA]

Given Im still a noobe, but musicaleca explanations of lens is the best ive seen. Ive ready four books and I wish at least one could have desribed lens in such a manner. I often forget about quality and focus on practical

Bahahaha. Thanks. I should be a teacher.

 

[Derrel]

A "good lens" usually has a four-digit price tag, like $1299. Or $1399. Or $1799. Or maybe even $2499.

A "cheaper lens",as per your original question, has a lower price tag figure on it than a good lens has. So, if a lens has a three-digit price tag, say from $999 down to 100, it is by definition, a cheaper lens than a "good lens".

A bad lens is usually priced in the two-digit range. eBay is full of bad lenses priced at $10 to $90. Stuff like the Asanuma 28mm f/3.5 M42 mount for $19. A "bad lens" often comes with explanatory notes, like "slight cleaning marks", which might mean it's scratched up to beat he)). Other bad lens notes include, but are not limited to "slight de-cementing visible", "pock mark on rear element", "chipped rear element, coatings worn away", and the always great, "fungus visible", and the oldy-moldy favorite, "severe hazing visible inside."

The above post is meant half seriously,and half in jest. I've taken some good pictures with "cheaper lenses",and some with bad lenses too. And some with good lenses.

 

[NiKOnSLR]

A "good lens" usually has a four-digit price tag, like $1299. Or $1399. Or $1799. Or maybe even $2499.

A "cheaper lens",as per your original question, has a lower price tag figure on it than a good lens has. So, if a lens has a three-digit price tag, say from $999 down to 100, it is by definition, a cheaper lens than a "good lens".

A bad lens is usually priced in the two-digit range. eBay is full of bad lenses priced at $10 to $90. Stuff like the Asanuma 28mm f/3.5 M42 mount for $19. A "bad lens" often comes with explanatory notes, like "slight cleaning marks", which might mean it's scratched up to beat he)). Other bad lens notes include, but are not limited to "slight de-cementing visible", "pock mark on rear element", "chipped rear element, coatings worn away", and the always great, "fungus visible", and the oldy-moldy favorite, "severe hazing visible inside."

The above post is meant half seriously,and half in jest. I've taken some good pictures with "cheaper lenses",and some with bad lenses too. And some with good lenses.

Dont let the price fool you lol