Lens

[his4ever]

Ok my Dh and I have been debating about lens. He says that the better quality of lens the better color you get. I dont think so. I think it has to do with filters and light and stuff... I do not think that a lens has any effect on it. So who is right? What is the answer??? Thanks

 

[craig]

Not sure what a Dh is. Heavy question and one that I am not qualifeid to answer. None the less I believe that the quality of the glass effects colour and image quality for sure.

 

[his4ever]

oh ok... I guess he wins

(Dh meand Darling Husband... it pops up once and a while in different forums... lot fast to type than the word husband )

 

[Big Mike]

Yes, better lenses can reproduce color better than cheap ones...but there are plenty of other factors for color.

Remember that light is made up of waves...and different colors are different wave lengths. Lenses have to bend or direct the light coming through them...and the different wave lengths may not bend in the same angle. If the light waves do not match up properly on the film or sensor...then the colors may not be accurate or sharp. At least that's how I'm seeing it.

Also, better lenses may have better coatings and elements made of special glass...which will improve IQ (image quality). Contrast is also a factor...better lenses have better contrast...which can make colors look better.

It would probably be plain to see if you compared images...one shot with a very cheap lens and a one with a top of the line lens...all other things being equal.

 

[his4ever]

ok that makes even more sense... but Dh played with an exspensive lense once and he fell in love with it. We have a lense that the camera came (we have a 300D SLR). Could that be a reason why my contrast is sometime a little off? Or is more operator error . (Still working on the whole contrast mystery .)

 

[Big Mike]

There are so many factors...that's one reason why photography is so interesting. The aperture that you take the image at, for example, will have affect the IQ.

The lens that comes with that camera...it gets a lot of bad press...some of which is deserved. It feels like a toy compared to most other lenses. The IQ is OK...but not nearly as good as a top of the line Canon lens. Also, that lens is 'slow'. The maximum aperture is only F3.5-5.6. A lot of top end lenses have bigger maximum apertures...like F2.8. This allows you to get faster shutter speeds which can mean sharper images. It also allows you to get a shallower DOF, which can be nice for portraits etc.

 

[Stevedevil]

I feel that the lens can only be as good as the equipment it is being used with, I recently purchased a Light Meter, as many cameras light meters can be confused by direct and indirect light, which can lead you into a low exposure of which you may blame the lens, most more expensive lenses as said, have better quality glass which can defract an image more crisp and allow a faster light transfer as to allow faster shutter and lower f stop, but this will still be adjusted by the cameras light meter, so both lenses could appear a little under exposed, I always shoot in raw as you have a better chance using a PC package as Photoshop to correct the exposure and colour / white balance before Jpeg conversion, and a light meter can also give better f stop values as to correct exposure. Cheers