I have discovered the quality matching to the lower f stops. One thing that has become a consideration is also weight. The wider f-stops are also heavier.A lot more weight to carry around. A consideration when walking longer distances. For this the F4 lenses can be helpful
Hi Daniel, you are absolutely correct in saying the "you get what you pay for". I use Canon equipment from film through to digital and I had for a long time a 50mm F1.4 EF lens as my main standard lens. I happened to knock the lens accidentally, it seemed ok but after a while I realised the focussing was not working, it was sticking. I actually took it apart and found the problem was the plastic cam ring which was no longer true. I was doubtful about getting another and decided to get the F1.2L which was treble the price, but the build is superb, weathersealed etc. It's heavy but I don't regret buying it. The rendering is also very nice and I can shoot in adverse conditions without worrying. I don't use it much at full aperture, but it is useful when i am shooting slow film and sometimes with an ND on it in bright light so I can keep it wide open for shallow DOF. Really find your professional tips interesting and helpful, even though I am not a professional!
My Wife says I have a fetish for glass, she is right; however I would always prefer to tip my cash into a lens than keep upgrading my camera. I chase photos, lenses give my photos, the camera just catches what comes through that lens. Complete lens freak (I'm sad, but it pays off). Great and honest opinions Daniel, keep em coming, thank you.
Hi Daniel, hope you are well. Looking at it from a business point of view also is sales volume. The more lenses they sell, the lower the cost per copy. Lens manufactures have to recoup all the research and development they put into new optical and lens technologies. Ultrasonic and stepper motors, gyroscopic stabilization, fluorite lens elements which have to be lab grown and be optically perfect. Things a photographer might take for granted. When I hold a lens in my hand, I don’t just see a piece of glass, I see the thousands of hours it took to design and make, and the sheer volume of people involved in the design and manufacturing process. Love the new podcast.
I generally agree but the quality of the cheaper lenses gets better and better. I see in most of your studio videos you use the Z 24-70 mmf/4, which I also use in the studio. That lens absolutely kills it at f/5.6 - f/11 and not at all bad at f/4. I love that you use that setup when shooting Marissa. “Kit” does not do it justice - it’s a brilliant lens and a great value.
Last night I shot a concert with a 28 1.4, a 58 1.4, and a 135 1.8. Shooting mostly wide-open, it was the difference between shooting at ISO3200 vs. ISO12800 (with an f/2.8 zoom), and that's a visible difference on the Z7. These recent design lenses also produce lovely transitions from the focus plane and surprisingly little chromatic aberration.
Your right most of the time you get what you pay for. There are a few exceptions where cheap works just as good as a more expensive product even a DIY! "Brooklyn Reflector" 😀. About the 50mm plastic lens, I agree it is not made super strong, Its Nickname Fantastic Plastic sums it up but the quality in the final image beats every kit lens! For a new Photographer, I always recommend the cheaper 50mm f1.8 to add to a kit setup or push them to get it asap! The Pros: Best Image Quality for that Price, Lightweight, Cheap, 50mm focal length is very versatile, and Low light photography where flash is prohibited. Cons Plastic and not Sturdy so it's not going to take a beating. Many new Photographer Baby their gear even at $399.99USD price tag for a camera and lens kit. So the cons for the being not sturdy and plastic for a new photographer don't apply. The cheapest new DSLR kits I found in my area gave you a choice of Canon or Nikon for Brands. 100% Buy what you can afford just be aware of the pros and cons! Daniel keep up the videos
first how on earth did someone click dislike when this is an opinion, based on years of experience and knowledge? second, I have zero regrets of investing in pro glass over the years. I am not a pro but I want my images to be done as if I were, I want things that will take to the backcountry of Maine without worrying if it gets a bit tossed around scrambling up a trail or wet from a rain or snow shower. I might shoot in really hot weather or last year I was out in 19 below zero for an image I wanted to capture and I want gear that can take it. Good video!
I believe 1.8 lens is the best compromise between the need for speed versus the price. It is a great value. The faster lens tends to be larger which makes them less portable. I love the tamron 1.8 vc lens trio of 35, 45 and 85 for portraits.
One of the best lenses ever made (in my books) can be had for about 300,- bucks used for a good copy. It is the Leica Summicron R 50 f/2 II (version is important here). It is insanely overbuilt, has a wonderful glow at f/2 and will ask an A7RIII for more resolution at f/4. There is a reason Leica is still selling basically the same lens in M-mount for over two grand. And with all the full frame mirrorless systems these days, manual focus is a joy!
Just upgraded my rebel XTi to a 90d. The kit lens is sharper than any of my older lens’s from Canon. Technology improved the glass as well as the sensor but the lens does great on the old body too. So better glass will equal at least sharper images. And you do get what you pay for.
Yep. When I started, with a 5 year old DSLR (Nikon D50), I used the cheap kit zoom it came with (Nikon 28-80mm f/3.3-5.6G). After about 18 months of use, that lens broke just from my carrying it around in my backpack. I did replace it with another used one, though, because that leans captured some great photos and the used replacement was cheap. (As cheap as the plastic lens housing felt.) Now I have a great camera (a7r3) and 2 quality lenses (Sonnar T* FE 55mm f/1.8 & Sony FE 24-105mm f/4 G OSS), both expensive but I take them all over the place and have no worries. Dropped both of them a couple of times? Sure, but no problems. So yes, use what you have and can afford, but if you can afford to pay for solid quality equipment, it is worth the peace of mind. Cool video, as always.
As I'm new to photography (bought a Fuji X-T1) my most expensive lens at the moment is the Samyang 12mm F/2.0. Other than that I have a couple Meike lenses and a few vintage lenses. All manual prime lenses. Right now I'm learning and that glass is fine for that purpose. Down the road when I need it I'll get a more expensive lens. I really appreciate your channel. I always have fun and learn.
Photo guru for sure. I’ve been picking up quite a bit from you. Short of having an actual community of photographers to learn from, you and a few other RU-vid channels are my teachers and I have to say that without videos like this I might have floundered and given up long ago. Thank you.
More expensive glass is, generally, sharper glass. That is the way of it. I have the 50mm f/1.8 Nikon and the 35mm DX f/1.8. Both are inexpensive and get the job done. But I'm not lying to myself either about how good they are. With as much wildlife shooting I've been doing lately, I love the DX 70-300mm VR due to being light, but even with my lack of experience I can still see the limitations of that lens, and I already have a lens in mind to buy. I don't do much with portraiture yet, but I'm already sure I'm going to run against the limits of my primes when I do get into it. For now I'm doing more wildlife photography, so I'm looking at a better wildlife lens that won't give my wife reason to kill and divorce me. But again, if you want sharper glass, you've got to pay that premium. That the sharper lenses tend to have wider apertures is a little bit of a bonus, but, as you said, that generally isn't why photographers buy them.
One lense choice for me that surprised me totally was the Tamron line of lenses..specifically the 28-75 2.8:for Sony. It’s plastic body has a weather seal and seems to be of good quality. I also realize that there are higher grades of plastics that can rival metal for there contraction and expansion qualities. Only time will really tell if this was a good deal for me or not. However I’ve learned like you that you get what you pay for and short term satisfaction doesn’t always translate into a good long term investment. Good discussion Daniel I think these talks are necessary to maybe cut through some of the b.s. that’s out there..thanks brother.
Love Tamron. I've got a 3.8 80-250 mm auto Tamron zoom from the 60's that still works beautifully. It weighs 3.2 lbs and actually has it's own rotating tripod mount built in. It's matched with a heavy Nikkorex F. Absolutely do not mind the fact of losing actual pounds off any lenses.
It's like you read my mind… I've not been back into photography for long, but for me it just went without saying that camera manufacturers are going to dump way more R&D into their top glass. I mean DUH. People act like someone typed up a spec sheet and sent it to production. Few people really grasp that lenses take years of painstaking development. What about the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 IS everyone was waiting on for years? They worked and worked and worked on it, and it just never got released because they couldn't get IS in a reasonably-sized body with that focal range on an EF flange distance lens. The first L lens I bought after getting back into photography and taking it seriously was the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 Mark THREE. Not the f/4. Not the Mark Two. The Mark Three. Canon had dumped years more R&D into the next gen, and the same would be said about 4 vs 2.8. They're both L lenses, sure. But the 2.8 is their main consideration when driving the line. The most overlooked budget lens is not the 50 1.8. It's the 24-105mm f/4. So few people even take note of it that I would have never even taken it seriously if not for Lindsay Adler. Lindsay's entire portfolio almost is built off of mostly the 24-105 and partly off of the 70-200 2.8. The 24-105 almost never leaves her camera in the studio. It is blazing sharp edge to edge, and its color is absolutely fantastic. I have the RF since I've gotten into mirrorless, and I am so grateful for the kit combination. I got the camera and lens on Black Friday for $2,200. Huge bargain. From what I can tell, that lens is the cheapest lens I would ever truly trust to build my portfolio at this point. I like my 50mm 1.8 for the odd thing and even my old 24 2.8, both when I want some interesting effect. But I don't crave primes. Lindsay sold me long ago on the combination and quality the 24-105 4 and 70-200 2.8 afford, and I rarely even shoot at f/2.8 on-location. It's not my style. I see people's 1.2 bokeh and love their images and often lust over stuff like the 85 1.2 DS, but when I seek to capture a scene, I want to frame it in a way that leaves some relevance as to where the subject is at versus just a sea of color. I love the beauty of nature and architecture too much to throw it away for the sake of pretty bokeh balls. The way I always see it is why even be on location? Why not just be in the studio in front of a printed backdrop? I feel like fast prime lenses are generally used as an easy out to get out of masterful lighting. More and more people are shooting only natural lighting, and it's a lot harder to get separation without strobe if you're shooting at a smaller aperture. People would rather get creamy, blurry backgrounds instead of setting up lights and lighting a scene. Which is fine by me, because I am fast becoming obsessed with studio lights and modifiers! Gives give me a chance to do something different! 👍🏻
Agreed, it's pretty easy to see that in general there are good reasons why certain brands or specific products within one brand cost more than others. The problem however is that like with all things the law of diminishing returns comes into play and at some point there are products that cost a great deal more than others for little to no benefit for the majority of users. That's not to say there aren't small numbers of people that might be able to take advantage of some of the miniscule differences, but more often than not it's subjective and not objective differences that are often the deciding factor. Sometimes it's the prestige behind owning a certain product name, peer pressure, or idolation of another owner of that product. Sometimes it's a product or brand that formed their reputation in the past and even though their product has been surpassed in many or all measurable ways, the company can demand more because of their reputation they'd built up. So, in my mind the half of the question that asks if there is a reason for some products to cost more than others is irrelevant and the half of the question that asks if the extra cost is worth it is what's important and different for every user. If looked at objectively though, there's likely a middle ground for product cost with photographic gear just as there is with everything that makes the most sense to the most people. Outliers on the higher end of things are rarely superior in objective terms and on the lower end are not usually cheap enough to warrant spending slightly more for a much better product.
I own 1 Zeiss Milvus lens, the 50 1.4. You lift it up and put it on your camera, and instantly you know all that you need to know about the build quality. And it's a joy to use.
As a proper gear slut and a newbie I fell for a fast lens chase. Fortunately being a pentaxian I can get vintage fast glass fairly cheap no adapters required. I rarely go f1.4 but some of these shallow dof portraits without any effort looks soooo sweet. Not everyone likes them but if you catch the eye sharp and everything else is misty smooth it's just... pretty. Also who does photography regardless to the level doesn't like these huge bokeh balls :) Dan again spot on, to the point video my man. Have a good day.
In my humble opinion, I think that there is a difference in what you use your lenses for. I have a 50mm 1.8 on an 80d body and I go to events with my Bowen’s xmt lights or speedlites where I make portraits by sculpting the light and I make good money. I also used my sigma 17-70 2.8/4.0 for a lifestyle and product shoot and those images are on the clients website and printed media. I don’t think the average consumer/public will see the differences like we do. I think in big companies and brands such as fashion etc or photographers, are the ones that really care about the pixels, warping and other issues that a lens could cause. Don’t get me wrong, I still want L lenses to make the images the best they can but I can’t help think in my area of work, it may be overkill.
Finally, a candid conversation about gear. When I was starting out, I bought basic gear because it was within my budget. As I progressed and had clients, I upgraded to fast lenses and Pro bodies because of the build quality, the brightness of the viewfinder and the options it gives me. I still own an Acute2 kit because it simply works and I can supplement it if I'm traveling and need to rent pieces. If I need or want HSS, I can add or rent a PW Flex6 for my Canon kit.
Thanks for saying that you get what you pay for. Most youtubers go as far as critizing expensive gear or and say that the gear doesn't matter. I'm not saying that better gear is going to make you a better photographer, but gear does matter.
I used to own a Rokinon 85mm f/1.4. Absolutely loved it. Until I borrowed a friends 85mm f/1.4 Sigma, needless to say I saved the money and purchased my own Sigma 85mm 1.4 lens. And there wasn’t t anything wrong with the Rokinon as far as using the photos to post on my social sites, they looked fine. But where I noticed the difference was when I printed a 16x20 print of a photo I did with the Rokinon, I saw a lot of issues with the color rendition and sharpness. So I decided just for shits and giggles to print the same photo but I used the Sigma my friend loaned me , I shot the same subject and same camera settings, but when it came back from print, I could see a difference. That’s what did it for me and I started to believe what I had been hearing for years, that better glass produces better photos.
I shoot DX Nikons and I like to diversify. Sure thing there's a noticeable difference between a kit zoom lens and let's say, The marvelous 17-55, but depending on my current assignment I use them both. A cheaper glass does its job fine when shooting for web stuff or in a dangerous location, but I tend to use the 17-55 shooting for printed press where higher quality is needed. Another downside of cheaper lenses is the uneven quality from one sample to another. A piece of advice for you guys while shopping is to always have a few samples to compare or to order 2 to send 1 back. Pulling from my experience, plastic bayonets have been OK through the years as long as you handle them carefully.
I think this is a sound appraisal. I have both the cheap plastic Canon fifty and the 1.2L. I WANTED to like the 1.8 because it offset the weight of my 1DX II and meant I could maybe lug the big guy around with me more often. But the AF on the 1.8 just isn’t as good or reliable - there are far more shots with focus errors. Nor is the picture quality as good in all kinds of ways you only really appreciate after a lot of shooting. Plus there is the sense of security a good lens gives you that you are using the best kit and so any shortcomings in your work are now squarely down to you. When you pay five grand for a 1DX camera, you know it is built to perform at the absolute highest levels, and the same is true of any kit. That’s important to pros or to any photographer who needs the reassurance their gear won’t let them down.
Very good points. You get what you pay for, and there is more to the manufacturers top of the line lens than that extra half stop. I still use a lot of the 1.8 primes, because in my market, I have to optimize for two factors you have not mentioned: WEIGHT and BULK. I have to fly to at least half of my jobs with hand luggage only. So I embrace small and light, and am spending more on carbon fibre tripod legs, even recently exchanged my peli carry on case for the new lighter model, etc. In theory, I would enjoy to have an assistant fly with my with an extra pro prime lense case, but I have not found a way yet to make my clients pay for that. I guess in the end we all have to adapt to our markets ...
All you comments about build quality, superior glass, and coatings are true, but there’s something else to consider. If you really want to shoot at f/1.4, the f1.2 lens will almost always have better IQ stopped down than the f/1.4 wide open, it’s the same for f/1.8 vs the larger apertures. So, even if you don’t expect to shoot with the razor thin DoF of the f/1.2L, apertures higher than probably about f/5.6 are likely to be noticeably better looking on the bigger glass. Let’s face it, “need” isn’t something you can define without requirements, and if you don’t start by mapping out your photographic goals you’re just buying stuff that may or. may not help you succeed. “Do I ever have to shoot at f/1.2?” Can’t be answered without knowing what you want to accomplish with your camera. Thanks for your enjoyable and well grounded content, Daniel.
Some great points you bring up Daniel. So many get hung up on specs as opposed to looking at things for the long run. Effort to reward as well as "value." Which can be subjective from person to person. I guess the only other points I would think, is when you came from film days, a wider aperture made manual focus a little easier as the screen was brighter. A mostly moot point in digital. The other would be that if you start wider, and then stop down a few to where most lenses perform their best, you still wind up with a slightly faster lens.
Aperture is important, with aperture you control the depth of the image and that means you introduce third dimension in the picture, create 3D look. This is very important in telling a story through the pictures or making making a viewer feel like he is standing there with the person in focus. Blurring background in a flower shot is one thing, blurring background in portraiture or street photography or documentary is another thing. And yes 1.2f lens will give you different look. Everything else is just cheating one self, faster lens will give you more options does not matter how you look at it. The price difference is another topic, if you cant afford it you dont buy it, on the other hand if you cant afford it you probably do not need it, because if you really wanted to have it you would be able to save that money no matter what. Today there are a lot of options for a fair price, 1,2f lenses can cost less than 200$ although not the current generation ones, but even an old 50mm 1.2f is a pretty descent lens for portraits or street shots.
Thanks Daniel. "You get what you pay for." the single most honest bit of truth there is. I cant afford the Top end glass, but i get what i can afford, or save up. I have 4 lenses, which I get good results from. I would rather have these 4 lenses than say 6 not so good lenses and suffer image quality.
my first response was "dam it' as I look at the lens that are around $150 range, but saving up for a more expensive lens will stop me from shooting, which I love. thanks
The other thing to think about is DOF. on FF 85mm at f/1.2 does you no good if you want more than the eyes (or one eye if the head is turned) in focus for a head and shoulders portrait. Having f/1.2 won't help you at all in low light if f/1.2 does not give you the DOF you need. If 99% of your shooting is such that you are going to be stopping down for DOF lugging a huge f/1.2 or f/1.4 lens around doesn't make a lot of sense. This is why I wish more manufactures would start making high quialty f/2.0-f/2.8 modren primes with just as good optics as the faster lenses. But the current market almost fetishizes fast glass so that probably won't happen.
I think they only have room in their lens lineup for one “pro“ lens of that focal length so I doubt you’ll see super fast and then slow that are also the same level so to speak
For SLRs, lens speed may matter, mainly because of the brightness of what you see in the viewfinder. For mirrorless cameras this is not nearly as important because in the viewfinder you see the brightness as rendered by the sensor. For photography itself it doesn't matter either. Lenses are generally not meant to be shot wide open, except by disciples of the fuzzy ear portrait, a fad that will probably and hopefully disappear in due time. For all other applications, the sensors' applied gain is almost always able to make up for a half to one stop difference in maximum aperture by means of applied gain (ISO). The main question in my mind will therefore always be: how does it render? And the second question will always be: how well is it made?
I have three 50mm lenses. A Nikon 50mm F1.8 Pre D lens autofocus, Nikon 50 F 1.8 E Series AIS, and a 50mm F1.4 AIS lenses. All are very good fast lenses. Th E series was considered the affordable in the late 1970s and early 1980s. By todays standard, this is an awesome lens that would have been expensive. The 50mm F1.4 is a great lens and I have used it for night photography in Black and White photography. The Nikon 50mm F1.2 would be an overkill with its expensive price tag. At F1.2, it would be great for bokeh photography. Its a pretty heavy lens too for its focal length. Peace!
Hi Daniel I do think you are so right in your statement you get what you pay for. But should be get the best you can afford. I know when I have gone for none OEM lens they may have been OK just but after a short time I alway find there limits and then go and buy the OEM lens so what was saving me ends up costing more. So I now just save for longer. But this is also though on every think I now buy...
Its like compairing a Rolls Royce or Lamborgini with that of a ford. It depends on the use and what you need it for. They all do a simular job its quality that is the difference.
Its great that you talk about this matter! For many years(even in the days of film)people will want to get the most expensive whatever just to say they own it. Like you mentioned, "do you really need it?". It depends if you are someone who takes pictures every so often versus an advance amateur. I have to point out that even with phone cameras the image over all quality compared to the days of point & shoot film cameras its quite decent. Also how fast the lens may be or not its somewhat irrelevant because like you stated you hardly shoot at F1.8, but the amount of element components on the lens is more important. Thanks for always sharing such great information through your channel Daniel Norton!
Thanks for the video, Daniel. I get my lenses from Adorama too. Five months ago I bought my first constant f/2.8 aperture lens (Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 ED IF) there for a DX camera I used to work with, and that's when I saw the quality difference: you're not just paying for lower f/stops, but for better performing glass which captures more light and better colors. I ended up upgrading from a DX camera to a Nikon D750 because, based on the kind of photography I produce, it's important for me to get the best results in low light while shooting handheld. Also, I traded in the Nikkor lens I just mentioned (DX) for the new full frame Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2 with vibration compensation. Again, more expensive than the Nikkor, but man, the sharpness, color reproduction, light transmission, and the vibration reduction is incredible! As you said, you get what you paid for. But to me the point is, you need to know what your photography needs are, and that guides you on what kind of glass you really need. The D750+super fast 24-70 lens combo works for me because it fits my photographic style. On the other hand, for example, I rarely ever shoot subjects or objects at a distance, so a super fast 70-200mm f/2.8 (especially the expensive Nikon model) would be a waste of money for me. So, in my case, I can see myself buying a telephoto like the Nikon AF-P 70-200mm f/4.something for FX cameras, which is a great telephoto for much less than the top-of-the-line. This way, knowing well what my photography needs are, I can spend more money on wide-zoom f/2.8 lenses instead. If I was a studio photographer like you, or a nature photographer shooting wildlife, well, the story would be different: I'd need to spend on better glass 70mm and higher, not lower. Again, it's very important to understand what equipment fits one's photography needs (and can actually enhance the quality of one's work,) and for what gear would "mid-range" do just fine for us.
I agree mostly. After using the canon 85mm 1.4 for a while I upgraded to the 85mm 1.4 IS L version and the later is just pure magic. Nothing in my kit compares to what that lens can give me. However, the latest Tamron and Sigma lenses I own are incredible too (Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 g2 and Sigma 14-24mm 2.8). It also depends on your needs.
In photography equipment you have the same divide as construction tools..... Of course the higher priced tools are better quality and are built to take a beating.... but if you're a "Harry Home Owner", the Harbor Freight brands will work just fine.... and thanks for addressing this very common question... what's the difference of the "plastic fantastic" 50mm 1.8 and the "L" 50mm 1.2 offered by Canon? Hold them, that should answer the question, it's build quality.
One thing you don’t hear a lot of talk about is variability in quality by manufacturer. Nikon, as an example, has tighter manufacturing tolerances than say Mitakon. You might get a great Mitakon 50mm/0.95 or a not so great one. The guys at LensRentals have some interesting articles on this topic.
Thanks for doing this video! I have said things similar to this for awhile now. Weather sealing is a feature of "pro Lenses" and a must have for me. Sony tells everyone that the focus is faster on the GM lenses along with other things.
My first prime was a Sigma 30mm f1.4. It's a nice lens, but I've purchased more over time. Diversity is a good thing. Building my collection of glass has actually been a journey filled with exploration, learning all the way through and still haven't come close to the end of the trip. Now I'm considering looking into mirrorless, but I may want to get the Nikon Z6 with the FTZ adapter so I can use the glass I have. Thanks for the video Daniel. Much appreciated.
Fuji X system is a bit different here in that they couple quality to aperture lesstha. Other brands. For instance, the XF50mm f2 is by many regarded as sharper, better autofocus and better buils than thr XF56mm f1.2. Or thr XF35 f2 is more contrasty than the f1.4. It’s the only brand where I see people also raving about the lower aperture lenses. I wish more brands made high quality glass at different aperture values (I suppose Leica also does this). Grantrd Fuji lenses are more expensive compared to oher lenses, but I think it’s worth it. It’s nice to be able tohave a small, compact, yet still high quality optic.
Thanks Daniel, I also find that there are some people who are actively scornful of the more expensive iterations of equipment like they're some form of conspiracy to fleece the gullible.
Great video as always, Daniel! I'll add to your list of advantages of a pro lens another factor that I feel most reviews and websites omit, maybe because it's somewhat subjective: focus accuracy and consistency, especially in low light and low contrast conditions. I've made some great images with my 50 1.8, sharp and contrasty and with great colours etc, but I'd never trust it with once in a lifetime shots at a wedding, because it'll miss focus a fair amount of the time. For me it's more of a novelty lens than one that I have to have, so no point in upgrading to the 50 1.2, and my 24-70 does a great job covering 50 anyway with far superior focus and accuracy, but a different aesthetic and limited to 2.8. If I shoot the 50 it's at 2.0 or 2.2 usually. Doesn't take up any noticeable space or weight in my bag so I take it everywhere, and if it broke I'd just buy another one or ten before the 50 1.2 would make any sense. Of course, you can't shoot with it in the rain.
That's just like Leica and the Red dot, they are expensive and their lenses cost more than others by a wide margin. But when you look at a picture shot by a Leica it shows. Good video Daniel.
I scout swap meets, estate sales, etc. for vintage lenses. I got a 50mm Nikon 1.4 for $35 this past weekend. It’s metal and super clean. I just can’t afford a fast new lens, so this is how I can get one.
I have some Canon lenses with plastic (probably polycarbonate) lens mounts, but none is current. I don't know about modern Canon kit lenses for APS-C cameras, other than the one I have and that has a metal mount. The Canon 50mm F1.8 II lens has a plastic lens mount, but made Canon's list of lenses suitable for the 5Ds. The 17-40L F4 did not. I have seen comparisons of Canon's (then) current 50mm lenses, and this one compared pretty well, once stopped down a little. It's true that they break easily, I have seen photos of them with distressed owners wondering about having them fixed. I have also heard that landscape photographers like them, and even carry a spare in case of unfortunate accidents. I dropped mine, it didn't smash as others have, but I bought its successor, 50mm F1.8 STM. It's quieter, focusses faster and has a metal mount. I have seen a lot of cameras, professional cameras, on eBay, according to the sellers they've hardly fired a shot. I bought one, a 5Ds, with about 17,000 clicks, To my mind, pressing a cheap but not terrible camera, and a cheap but not terrible lens into the hands of a new photographer is good. In he case of Canon users, I reckon this is a no brainer. When and if they become serious about photography, then is a good time to think about serious gear. I'd still push this 50mm lens into your hands though, unless you can explain why a only a faster, heavier and more expensive lens would do the job.
If an image looks beautiful and it moves you it’s a great image. Expensive glass won’t make you a great photographer. Look at the images that effect you most and think about why they engage you.
Two 50mm's walk in to a bar,... Wait, I got sidetracked. Two 50's, one a $200 f4, the second a $2000 f1.7,.. stop down the f1.7 to f4, and it'll be the sharper of the two, because everything else about it will be better :) We don't 'need' the 1.7 part of it, but we sure as heck can use the extra sharpness at f4. And that Plastic Fantastic, aka Canon's Nifty Fifty kit lens,.. for new Cinematographers just getting to grips with an APSc DSLR for filming, that lens teaches good habits, and forces people to be more patient, take their time, and then suddenly they'll appreciate and understand why different features on manual lenses are useful. It's a very good 'my first prime' lens.
Thanks! Interesting topic 👍😉 Amateur here and as mentioned, I use the 1.8 because I could not justify a 1.4 (nikon)... Also love using an old 105mm 2.5 ais lens....
I have an old Canon 28-80, I forget what the aperture is but probably around f4-f5.6, it has more plastic than a 1960s Lego set. Not only does it rattle but it also has a visible wobble. I think it was the first EF fit kit lens. Now are you telling me a Canon L 50mm f1.2 is a better lens? Anyone who thinks the 'plastic fantastic' is as good as the f1.2 is a clown, though I am doing an analogue 365 project using the PF lens on a very cheap SLR with other restrictions for the challenge. I think as amateurs budgeting is a greater element of the choices we make than as a pro. Here in the UK professionals can effectively wipe off such expenses against tax, though you have to be making the money to pay tax in the first place. That lens, and the differences it makes can be the difference between getting a job and not getting it. For pros it has to be a different mentality and a different standard. I know if I was looking at a wedding photographer's CV and there was a massive lens flare on the family 8mages taken outside I wouldn’t employ that photographer no matter how good the other parts of the composition, or how good the package was. I usually try to go for the best I can afford and I certainly won’t go into debt for any hobby, if what I can afford is rubbish then I'll wait. A great video from one of the most respected photographers on RU-vid.
As a counter argument from someone who chased gear for a long time buying the better gear will never improve your skill or work. There is a huge diminishing return when it comes to consumer vs pro gear. Yes pro gear is slightly better but it may not be noticeable unless you are pixel peeping. Your audience in most instances can't tell the difference.
Thanks Daniel 🙂 I agree with you, we often forget all the various things we are paying for, again, I think, because we mostly are relating too superficially to what we are doing. I'm considering an 85mm lens. Since I shoot Canon I basically - based on my own preferences and experiences - have three choices, the 85mm f/1.8, the Tamron SP 85mm f/1.8 DI VC USD (the newest one, easier to get), or the 85mm f/1.4 IS L lens. I don't use Sigma because of bad experiences (and for any sigma fan, those are subjective experiences, if you love Sigma, good for you), and the f/1.2 canon lens is just not worth it in my opinion. I don't need f/1.2, it's heavy, doesn't have IS, and has a slow focus. The f/1.8 Canon has a great price point, and I don't really need anything wider than f/1.8, but the CA on that lens is just horrible. Everybody says that lightroom easily removes CA, but I've never had great success with the CA caused by this lens, so even though I actually do like the lens, it just isn't an option for me. The Tamron gives more or less the same as the Canon f/1.4, but cheaper and being less wide. I would love the Canon lens, but I'm not sure that I would get that much more for the extra money. Between the Tamron and the Canon f/1.4, the Tamron just seems to be the better buy. But the f-stop is the last thing which makes me consider this. It all comes down to the IS (or VC on the Tamron lens), image quality, and focus precision. My experiences with other Tamron lenses in the same line have been very positive, so while I'll still be testing both of the lenses, I'm strongly leaning towards the Tamron lens. Had I been shooting only in black and white I wouldn't have cared about the CA, and would have gone for the Canon f/1.8, and hadn't I needed a lens for lowlight situations, I would have stuck with my 70-200mm f/4. But because I don't only shoot in black and white, and I often shoot in lowlight situations, I need a lens with image, a wide aperture, and no CA that can't be fixed. The cheapest lens available to me doesn't offer me two of those things, so I need to look at better and more expensive options.
There is a problem with RU-vid videos in that most of them are only for pro photographers. Yes, expensive lenses are better for pro work, but what about the person taking photos for personal use only. Those of us that want a record of travel etc., where are the videos for the rest of us. We need content geared for us. Too many pro photographers act like everyone wants to be a pro like them. There are millions of people out there who just want to take better photos.
The advice is still the same no matter your goals - pro or otherwise. Think about the equipment holistically and not just focus on a single feature when you make your purchases
*Pong Shirt.... awesome!! Love it!! **#Atari** (yes, I'm older...lol)* ,..... Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX - Paid $150 for this thing and use it all the godamm time!! Now that is a value lens indeed.!
Good video. I use to run behind f/1.4 (Canon 85mm, etc...) and spend a lot although it's not necessary for my photography. Then eventually I stopped buying them and start going for f/2 on aps-c and f/2.8 and above on MF (well.... there ain't much of f/4, if they are at the expected focal length I want, I would have gone for it) if it's FF, my target would be f/2 and above. The reason is that I never shot at f/1.4 (I was shooting at f/2.2 in that lens) because I am not a fan of extreme background separation. Plus, when I shoot group and events, f/1.4 makes it hard to get the group. These days you can crank up the ISO to 3200 with no noise and hence anything less than f/2 is not really a need. Took a while and many investments to realize that.
Agree with what you say 100% because the simple fact is with a few excepts, such as Leica and Zeiss, most companies don't have the same level of quality across their lens lines. Of course one might ask how much of a market is there for multiple pro quality primes lenses, example if Canon put out a series of f/1.8 L primes example say 35/50/85 how would that impact sells of their current L lenses in those focal lengths? Would there be a large enough market to support both old f1.2/f1.4 lenses or would people go with the lighter, smaller and less expensive f1.8 series if they didn't have give up anything along the lines of build and image quality especially consider that an f 1.8 lens designed and produced at the same quality level would likely end providing better image quality than the f1.2/f1.4 version.
awesome video ! I just love the common sense approach ..I'm not a stupid person but when you mentioned that there are many differences between 2 lenses and the aperture not being the only factor , a light bulb moment for me...how did I not think of that myself ? thanks Daniel..great stuff
The thing is that you pay for a different look and different results. You choose if you want to pay money for it or if you dont... That is all there is. If you aim to get unique look, you will have to invest money and get things others do not posses.
Great video yet again..love your practical standpoint and how you always take into account that others may have a different and equally valid standpoint. I own only 1 prime (Sony Zeiss T* FE 55mm f/1.8) and 1 zoom (Sony FE 24-105mm f/4 G OSS). When I bought the 55mm, I also considered the newer and more expensive Sony Zeiss FE Planar T✻ 50mm f/1.4. The older 55mm is itself an expensive mini-tank with a history of superb reviews and although several comparison reviews of the 2 lenses gave the 50mm a slight edge, the 55mm seemed the right choice. For me. Well, after 6 months of use that included a 20 day vacation in Spain, I am extremely happy with the Sony Zeiss 55mm. It, along with my zoom; are both perfect for the kind of photography I enjoy doing.
Love your channel, thanks for the great articles! I would like to add that whichever lens you buy, know it's characteristics. Such as, is the lens sharp across all focus points wide open or only sharp in the centre? If the lens isn't sharp at the outer focus points don't expect the eye that you have an outer focus point locked on to be sharp, ever. Fine if all your compositions are centric. Know how much you have to stop down before it becomes sharp across the lens. Know what is the smallest aperture before the lens loses sharpness due to diffraction. Seems like a lot of technical learning in a world of auto photography. Will save you time wondering why your photos aren't sharp with this very expensive lens and camera later on though. Don't blindly expect the lens to give better image quality because of build or price. The very well built and expensive Nikon 24-70 VR taught me this. Great at 24, not so great at 70mm F2.8 away from the centre.
Ken Rockwell has quite a lot to say on this subject. Not to say he is always ‘right’. There’s still some bargains out there. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Its nice using good glass and important for me to have something that has a better quality build, My L lenses have been dropped and abused but still keep going.
Great stuff as always! I'm like a lot of folks here it looks like, I mostly shoot with the mid-level Canon lenses, the 50 1.4 and the 80 1.8. I can't remember the last time I shot either one of them wide open, but they are so much sharper than the kit lens even at the apertures I shoot. I look forward to getting even better lenses, but at this point these make sense for me, and make pictures I enjoy. Now if I could just find the cash to retire my 70-300 kit lens, AKA the chromatic aberration monster.
If I had to reaping to that question, I would say it depends on what your looking to do if it is a work flow issue and low light capabilities really matter ,and can it be justified in a budget ,the skill level of the photograph .With out all the details of the photo shoot or the photographer it's a hard question. Personally I love higher quality lenses but uses both the hardly get used are kit lenses but I do have a few canon L lenses
Hey Daniel, dear respected and learned colleague and YT friend, I do not wholeheartedly agree with you. "Fast" lenses primarily were designed to facilitate 35mm single-lens-reflex (SLR) users. In an SLR camera, the mirror and pentaprism between the lens and the viewfinder eyepiece take away considerable amount of light and in order to be able to focus and shoot in darker circumstances, you need a fast lens. With an old Leica or a modern mirrorless, this is totally different. Second, fast lenses have larger diameter lens elements that have more curvature towards the edge of the element and hence (e.g.) have more chromatic aberration. To correct optical errors from one element, another is introduced to correct the former - fast lenses have more elements. The end result is, the "fast" lens is bigger, heavier and may have more residual optical flaws than the less fast lens. If you look at DxO data for, say, 85mm lenses, you'll see that the difference in quality between 1.8 and 1.4/1.2 is marginal and actually the 1.8 could be a bit better. As an owner of both, I can also confirm that issues like chromatic aberration and total reflection in the sensor's optical filter layer are much less with the slower lenses. Then I moved to DML (digital mirror-less). I bought primes in the 1.8 class - my manufacturer is still building a lens portfolio. For the DML, I do not need a "fast" lens. When I compare my primes with the "fast" zoomlenses in use with most other photographers, then my primes are a) faster and b) have more detail resolution and even less flare. The problem with the "fast" lenses is their much bigger size and weight, their requirement for stronger AF motors and generally stronger housing with more attention to e.g. bearings. My first DML prime is a 1.8 wide angle, it is a lot sharper than my older (recent) 1.4 DSLR lens and gives faster AF. Some people felt this very recent 1.4 had something special in its rendering. I never saw it and sold it. Between 1.4 and 1.8 is about 0.5 F-stop. Very happy with the slow 1.8; for which the vendor has no fast alternative yet and I do not think the world needs that - not for the viewfinder (it is electronically amplified to exposure level) and not in order to help work around ISO not being high enough. These are broad generalizations and personal experience and opinions. And it is brand specific. Each lens manufacturer has had a couple "magical" lenses in their company history of the film days: (Asahi) Pentax, Konica, Minolta - even when they were B brands commercially, had their incidental strokes of genius when Nikon was professionally used by 80% of photo journalists and Leica was above any suspicion. The whole idea of "fast" lenses never took over the world of large format and was less important to medium format. You get what yo pay for? If we deduct the "brand value" that one brand has over another and next deduct the "fast" penalty, then we may conclude that the fast lens is in the exponential range of the Law of Diminishing returns where 2 times better on 1 specification means 4 or more times higher price. Even when other specifications actually get a bit worse.
This “mirrorless doesn’t need light” trend is so off base I will simply say, if that is your experience then you should move forward with the knowledge you have and continue to shoot because that’s what’s important
Good video Change fast lens into cheap medium format and run it again. - Walks into Adorama Store and wants to buy a 1.8 lens. Adorama Sales rep: Sir we have a great 1.2 lens in your brand and focal length, bit more expensive but 1.2 is so fast..... Customer: Daniel Norton said we don't need those wide apertures ! Hehehehehehe
I own the Sigma ART series 35, 50, and 85 f/1.4 lenses. I never shoot them in the studio at 1.4. When I do location work, f/1.4 is all I use. I have Flashpoint RL600B's that I use for high speed sync. I bought the Sigma lenses specifically for the build quality as well. Being a Sony shooter, there's nothing better, in my opinion, than eye auto focus and being able to shoot at f/1.4. UV filters, yes or no on lenses? Enjoy your work and videos!
I’ve got a 6d with an L zoom on it, and a 450d with the kit lenses - I can tell the difference between them in build quality and image quality definitely. The trade off for me is the weight difference which means if we travel I take the ‘worse’ kit as it means I carry it everywhere, which I wouldn’t with the better one, so I actually take more photos by going down a quality level. I’ve got the classic Canon £100 nifty fifty too, but I find I shoot it so infrequently that buying a better one would have been a costly mistake. 😂
I love to purchase fast lens, if I can afford, if not or less requirement, prefer to use the medium level lenses. Nikon 18-105 3.5-5.6 Ed and nikon 70-300 Ed gave me good results.
Nowadays you go to YT and check some valuable review (not paid or sponsored one) - like Chris Frost. You can check what are capabilities of the lens you need and then chose the one which is enough for you. I've seen better photos shot with kit lenses than other shot with top FF models with G-Masters or L-lenses. Of course for studio work you do, good lens gonna pay, but generally it's good to check honest reviews and based on that buy the lens you need. It's even better if you can go and try that lens in the shop or rent it. If you buy on assumption that more expensive lens is better (better glass, faster, APO, less flares) you might be surprised the bad way.
Your more expensive lens is likely to have more or curved aperture blades, so it will have a smoother out of focus look when stopped down as well. There are caveats of course, the cheaper Fujifilm 60mm 2.4 (not really a)macro looks better stopped down than their more expensive 56mm 1.2 to my eyes.
Most are paying for build quality and optical quality of elements. Not convinced too many would pay four figures for a current production lens that didn't tick both boxes, regardless of max aperture. Wide apertures just tend to require better optical clarity/higher quality optics to produce desirable image quality. Probably not too many people paying a king's ransom for a set of fast lenses just so they can shoot everything wide open, but everyone has their priorities.
This is my method for buying lenses; I buy lenses at the price range of the camera I have or the next camera I am going to buy. I am a generalist photographer and do not need special use lenses. If ever I do need a special lense I borrow it or rent it. I also buy cheaper smaller lenses too, so I do not stand out as one of those "creepy intrusive photo bugs". Something new I am working on; getting lense adaptors for my cameras and buying vintage used hi quality lenses. I was raised on 'old school' cameras and have an edge on manual shooting and focusing. Along with camera focus peaking it is a breeze. Happy shooting everyone! P.S. I love prime lenses
Good point. I buy vintage Nikkor glass like the 50mm 1.2 w/manual focus. That way I get pro glass at a bargain - I could never afford new glass with that quality. Also notice that one stop faster doubles the amount of light that the glass collects so the relationship is not linear. Remember to study the T-stop specs - the light loss from front to back says a lot about your glass.
I had the Fujinon 56mm f1.2 and a 23mm f1.4 and messed up more shots with too shallower depth than I gained by having access to the very occasional need for using them wide open. I really needed a lock on them to prevent me opening them past f2.8 unless I really, really needed it. Plus I had to lump around these big chunks of glass that didn't handle very well with smaller camera bodies. Even on an APS-C sensor I don't reckon I need faster than f2. With Fujinon lenses I've found most of them are really good, even the slower zooms - certainly compared to the Nikon "kit" lenses I've had in the past where I would definitely go for the expensive "pro" models (e.g. fixed f2.8 zooms or older primes). But Fujinon lenses are relatively expensive by comparison to a lot of equivalents so I guess that fits your argument. There seems to be a fetish for wafer thin depth of field out there. It comes from pixel peaking. Depth of field is dependent on angle subtended at the eye by the *final image*. Being able to blow a 40+ megapixel image up 1:1 on a retina screen and talk about how many eyelashes are in focus will always sell more cameras and lenses. Still not sure whether an eye being in focus means the glint off the cornea or the iris itself FFS!
Thank you for your great insight. I would highly appreciate your insight on this specific lens, the 2470GM. Currently I own 24GM, 35Distagon and 55ZA, the 85GM and 135Batis. I am just starting to be a commercial photographer, just like your other video, about jumping in to Photography and those lenses are heavy 🤭 My plan was to exchange the: 1. 24/35/55 with 2470GM 2. 135 with 90M Thank you again for the great insights 🙏🙏🙏
