I bet you 50 quid even dvtimes could tell the difference between a 200 and 2000 lens.

I'll shoot some tell the difference pics tomorrow if it's sunny.

I am going to post some pics as well...
This is really not true, that you can't see the different.

http://www.cinemaerotique.com/pp/test/A.jpg
A
http://www.cinemaerotique.com/pp/test/B.jpg
B
http://www.cinemaerotique.com/pp/test/C.jpg
C
http://www.cinemaerotique.com/pp/test/D.jpg
D
http://www.cinemaerotique.com/pp/test/E.jpg
E
http://www.cinemaerotique.com/pp/test/F.jpg
F
http://www.cinemaerotique.com/pp/test/G.jpg
G
http://www.cinemaerotique.com/pp/test/H.jpg
H

I posted a mixture of pictures taken with the lenses I had to hand, mostly Nikon, a cheap 50mm F1.8 lens came with a camera, Nikon Zooms, prime lenses with and without multi coating.

Have not photoshoped any thing and the exposure as camera, letting it go for shadows or sky to add some excitement.

Well done cherry, even you must be able to see massive differences between those pics?

Now, are you saying one of those lenses is the nikon equiv of l series - i.e. cost around 2 grand - and the rest are cheap?

The point was to show one professional lens and one cheap lens and see if people could spot the difference, not 8 different shots on all sorts of different lenses to confuse folk! But yes, the difference is massive isn't it! However looks like none of them can cope with the scene, the sky is fucked in all of the pics.

low light conditions do require some photography knowledge, not just point and shoot.

You tell me which is which then. Which lens or lenses are sub standard?

The reason why a lens cost $2000 and another $200 is because they do diferent things not because they are better or worse quality.

List the prices of all the lenses and I will try and match them. Having 7 or 8 is a little over the top though. Because of all the sky blow out I don't think there is a really expensive lens in the set.

Please explain what a $2000 l series 50mm prime does that a $90 50mm doesn't do.

Of course it is about the quality. Lolsome.

A Nikon 85mm f 3.5 lens costs 413 pounds

A Nikon 85mm F1.4 lens cost 1248 pounds


I don't know these lenses and there is the possibility that one is badly designed / manufactured - thats the small print.

But to make F1.4 lens each element has to be twice the area for each stop, so lets say 6 times the area/size of each element, this is harder to manufacture.

The faster the lens the more problems there are with scattered light and problems as you stop down.

All thing being equal the darker lens is more likely to be better. What ever the cost.

If you have to have to f1.4 lens then thats it, but to buy it because its expensive is stupid.

Try the test again when you get a lens that can compare to a l series. Or just put up two pics. The 400 quid one and the 1200 quid one. And see if you can expose the picture properly to at least give us a chance.

I was too busy today, but I'll show you the difference in the week when I get time between l series and kit lens. It's massive.

Again you miss the point I making, lens tests are done with charts, and projectors, photography is done in real life.

The exposure was correct, either for the buildings or for the sky, the focus was correct either for the wall or the bushes, all making radical differences to the way we see the pictures. More radical than any differences in the lenses.

A zoom lens with 10 elements will have more flare than a 4 element prime, but it can zoom.
All lenses have their strengths and weaknesses.

Not going to post just the two I asked then? :)

The reason those lenses are expensive is because that are zoom with large apertures. We do not need lenses like that, our expensive lenses are expensive because they are very wide or very long, 15mm Nikon or 300mm 0r 800mm Nikons.

So you will have to post the super lens / normal lens

Which lenses are you talking about?

You said that l series lenses were expensive because they "do things" the cheap lenses don't do. I asked you what a 1.2 50mm does that a 1.8 50mm doesn't do, aside from cost 10 times the price.

Well if you're not prepared to post just the pics from those two lenses, then yes, I guess I will. Have to wonder why you are worried about posting them though...

Too rainy today though.

there is a major difference in glass. There is no point getting the 5d mk III without top quality Glass...

The F1.2 lens will let in more light and may wiegh more.

Why would I buy an expensive lens I don't need? I don't have a lens of that cost to post.


Here is something I would suggest to the seroius photographer. Check out a optical specialist with a test projector and collimator. Borrow 5 indentical lenses you want to buy from a photographic shop saying you will buy one. Then take it to the specialist to get them tested. Choose the best and get it collimated to your camera.

You would be surprised the difference between indentical lenses and what good collimation will do.

Right. So when you said the expensive lenses do things the cheaper ones don't you were joking!

I see, sorry, missed that.

A lens that is designed to such extremes as a F1.2 lens is not "better" it does somethings better. It lets in a little more light.

And the there is a cost to that, its weight and the difficulty in making it perform as an easier to design F2 lens. Also lens performance at first increases and then decreases as you stop down, so your f1.2 would have the best resolution and contrast at say f2.8 / f4 whereas the f2.8 lens would perform best at f5.6 / f8 a better stop for everyday use.

At f16 or f22 quality may fall of badly (if it has these stops). The using ND filters changes the colour and the back focal distance.

There are very few poor lenses but a lot of poor photographers. As I say there are good photographs and I can't remember saying good photo except for the lens quality.

I believe a few dollars reading the right books will save you a few thousand at the shop.

So here is a very basic quite old Nikon 50mm F1.8 lens.

http://www.cinemaerotique.com/pp/50mmlens.jpg


I took this picture with it an hour ago.

http://www.cinemaerotique.com/pp/peacock.jpg


So I would say that there is no need for expensive lenses to take good photographs.

It is better.

Everything about it is better. The build quality of the housing, the speed, the quality of the glass.

But you carry on with your cheap lenses if they work for you, and laugh at all the idiot professionals with their expensive and totally not needed lenses.

And for the fifth time, no one is disagreeing with that statement.

Wrong, It will be faster because that is what it is built for. You cannot defy the laws of physics. So somethings will be better and others worse. The weight and size for a start.

You think they use different glass?

The sad thing for photographic shops is that the things that improve quality the most are not things that make a lot of money. Correct exposure, Matt box, flagging of lights, correct focus and colimated lenses.

You spend and extra $1000 to get a third of a stop more light when sensors have become more sensitive than before making it of no real benifit.

glass makes enough of a difference to matter ie you get the job or they return your work, ask any magazine art director.
and yes typically you can use the APC glass on full size, typically there is a step down sensor so effectively you only use the APC area of the sensor when using that glass.
Personally i only use Nikon ED glass.
btw, most porn sites want flat shots, without a lot of DOF but thats a different story.

obviously baddog could not use a POS camera, then no-one would take him serious at the shows, you got to look like a pro to get posing time..