Quality of lens

[Yisehaq]

Those of you who have repertoire of lenses, could you please demonstrate the quality of lenses by showing same pictures that are taken with different lenses without any PP. Or any means that will help differenciate the quality of lenses. Does quality lens means less PP?

[Mad Aussie]

I can't say I've ever taken similar photos with a cheap lens and and then a pro lens to seriously compare the differences. It sounds like you are curious as to what real advantages you receive when spending the extra money on expensive lenses over their cheaper counterparts.

I have a lens that's worth about $150 and a lens around the $600 mark and then a couple of Canon L Series (Pro lenses) at around the $2000 mark. I also used to have a couple of other lenses around the $300 mark. So a fair range there.

The extra money in the pro lenses bought me MUCH faster focusing, sharper images, less chromatic aberration, wider apertures in the tele zoom range over the very cheap lenses. All of that is definitely apparent to me.
Also apparently I got less lens distortion although I'm not sure I've really noticed that.
The better quality bought me much more weight too. Significantly more.

When I compare these PRO lenses to the cheap ones I mentioned I can see a marked difference quite often especially in extremes such as low light or when speed is needed.

When I compare those PRO lenses to the $600 lens (pro-consumer level) I have to say I haven't see much difference really. It's not quite as 'fast,' only f3.5 min f-stop (max aperture) compared to f2.8 on a similar Pro lens I have. I would expect that I'd see differences in Chromatic Aberration in a lightning shot or similar I guess, but I'm yet to test that.
As far as landscapes, portraits, still life are concerned I really see no big advantage with the Pro lenses over this mid level lens at all. And it's lighter. On occasion I've seen it be a tad slow to focus in more difficult situations but that's about it. I wouldn't buy another Pro level lens unless I specifically had a good reason to do so or a Pro lens was the only choice I had to get the min f-stop I needed, or to cover the focal range I wanted or something like that.

Does a quality lens mean less PP? Well ... maybe a little and that depends plenty on the situation you are using it for. If it's a low light shot and the better quality lens has a lower f-stop available then perhaps there might be less PP for that reason.
If the better quality lens gets a sharper image then there's no reason to sharpen it later in PP of course.
If you are shooting buildings then possible a better quality lens will get less lens distortion meaning less PP to correct any 'leaning' buildings etc.
Same for Chromatic Aberration. If you get less with e better lens then no PP required perhaps.
There really is an endless list of possibilities here.

Sorry I don't have any photos to really illustrate anything clearly but I hope my take on my lenses helps anyhow.

[Greg_Nuspel]

If you want comparisons look on the web for lens reviews. It's a lot of work trying to compare lenses.

[Yisehaq]

Thanks you Mad Aussie & Greg_Nuspel.
Well one question do these high end lenses provide better color contrast & levels?

"If you want comparisons look on the web for lens reviews"

well I did but the comparisons are for a similar lenses and these are subtle. As mad Aussie rightly put it my aim is

"curious as to what real advantages you receive when spending the extra money on expensive lenses over their cheaper counterparts".

[Mad Aussie]

Thanks you Mad Aussie & Greg_Nuspel.
Well one question do these high end lenses provide better color contrast & levels?

In theory yes I think but I can't say I've noticed this. Again though I haven't tested for it specifically.

[Matthew]

Hi Yisehaq, I went to my local camera store a few weeks ago and tried a 50mm Canon F1.2L then took the pics home (shot on a 5D MKII) and compared them to my 50mm 1.4. The 1.4 is $450 the 1.2 is $1800 (CND).

The contrast is definitely better on the 1.2L lens. I did not keep the photos so I cannot post anything - they were just test shots. The quality of the bokeh on the 1.2 was also nicer. Colour saturation I found as well to be superior.

All that being said I could not justify the outlay of the cost difference. I believe the same goes withe Canon 85 1.4L vs the 85 1.8.

I don't mind the heavier weight as I was use to lugging around and 11x14 view camera where one 42" lens was 12 pounds. The build quality is great on the L lenses as well.

Best regards and good luck.

Matthew

[Yisehaq]

That was exactly what I wanted to know.
Viva photography.ca