Lenses - Quality vs Price: I saw this on YouTube last night during a discussion about lenses. I have heard similar comparisons about other things. There are three considerations when...

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I saw this on YouTube last night during a discussion about lenses. I have heard similar comparisons about other things.

There are three considerations when buying a lens: Good, Cheap, Fast. You can have only two of those qualities in a lens. If it's Good and Fast, it won't be cheap. If it's Good and Cheap, it won't be Fast. Etc. What we have to do is look for the best compromise - unless money is no object.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

jerryc41 wrote:

I saw this on YouTube last night during a discussion about lenses. I have heard similar comparisons about other things.

There are three considerations when buying a lens: Good, Cheap, Fast. You can have only two of those qualities in a lens. If it's Good and Fast, it won't be cheap. If it's Good and Cheap, it won't be Fast. Etc. What we have to do is look for the best compromise - unless money is no object.

A lot of the price for "professional" lenses is the durability, not image quality. Stronger (metal vs plastic) and internal gaskets to protect against dust and moisture, dust being a new bugaboo to mirrorless cameras. There are numerous examples in the Canon line-up ('were' now that they're being discontinued) where the image quality is just as good as the version 5x or 10x more expensive, but the cheaper lens isn't built for every weather situation.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

CHG_CANON wrote:

A lot of the price for "professional" lenses is the durability, not image quality. Stronger (metal vs plastic) and internal gaskets to protect against dust and moisture, dust being a new bugaboo to mirrorless cameras. There are numerous examples in the Canon line-up ('were' now that they're being discontinued) where the image quality is just as good as the version 5x or 10x more expensive, but the cheaper lens isn't built for every weather situation.

Exactly.
My little 10-18mm seems to do quite well.
But I have not pixel peeped at it either as that is NOT how I view photos a pixel at a time.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Architect1776 wrote:

Exactly.
My little 10-18mm seems to do quite well.
But I have not pixel peeped at it either as that is NOT how I view photos a pixel at a time.

Right. Pixel peeping is like Googling a potential girlfriend online. Don't go out of your way to find every flaw. Just enjoy what you have.

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

CHG_CANON wrote:

A lot of the price for "professional" lenses is the durability, not image quality. Stronger (metal vs plastic) and internal gaskets to protect against dust and moisture, dust being a new bugaboo to mirrorless cameras. There are numerous examples in the Canon line-up ('were' now that they're being discontinued) where the image quality is just as good as the version 5x or 10x more expensive, but the cheaper lens isn't built for every weather situation.

True, up to a point. But I can't see any photographer, especially one buying "professional" glass who would choose durability and weather resistance over IQ in a lens. Not gonna happen in my opinion!

hcmcdole

jerryc41 wrote:

I saw this on YouTube last night during a discussion about lenses. I have heard similar comparisons about other things.

There are three considerations when buying a lens: Good, Cheap, Fast. You can have only two of those qualities in a lens. If it's Good and Fast, it won't be cheap. If it's Good and Cheap, it won't be Fast. Etc. What we have to do is look for the best compromise - unless money is no object.

That's true for anything made. I heard that expression for software projects 20 years ago or more. It's true for cars, houses, etc.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

jerryc41 wrote:

Right. Pixel peeping is like Googling a potential girlfriend online. Don't go out of your way to find every flaw. Just enjoy what you have.

As a proponent of reviewing every single image at the 1:1 pixel-level details, you can think you're looking for flaws, or instead, you're visually confirming the excellence of performance. Of course, there's always the tried and true approach of simply lowering your expectations to match your results / equipment.

StanMac Loc: Tennessee

jerryc41 wrote:

I saw this on YouTube last night during a discussion about lenses. I have heard similar comparisons about other things.

There are three considerations when buying a lens: Good, Cheap, Fast. You can have only two of those qualities in a lens. If it's Good and Fast, it won't be cheap. If it's Good and Cheap, it won't be Fast. Etc. What we have to do is look for the best compromise - unless money is no object.

The old Three Legged Stool analogy . . . Applies to most anything, not just lenses.

Stan

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

jerryc41 wrote:

Right. Pixel peeping is like Googling a potential girlfriend online. Don't go out of your way to find every flaw. Just enjoy what you have.

Sometimes we need others to remind us of the beauty we have captured, when we often see the flaws instead.......

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

CHG_CANON wrote:

As a proponent of reviewing every single image at the 1:1 pixel-level details, you can think you're looking for flaws, or instead, you're visually confirming the excellence of performance. Of course, there's always the tried and true approach of simply lowering your expectations to match your results / equipment.

I don't think 1:1 is pixel peeping. I often will "pixel peep" way past 1:1 when editing and want to get some fine detail correctly selected or colored or whatever. Looking at 1:1 is just reality.

As far as lenses go, I often look at the EXIF data on Hog pictures that I feel have excellent resolution, sharpness, fine detail and so on because I don't like the performance of my cheap kit lenses that came with my camera. Unfortunately, about 99% of the time both the camera and lenses on these pictures are $2 g's and up, often way up. In fact, after looking at tons of these pictures, it seems to matter not what camera or lens brand, but as long as they are expensive, they produce excellent results as far as resolution, sharpness, fine detail and all that rot.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

BigDaddy wrote:

I don't think 1:1 is pixel peeping. I often will ... (show quote)

You can view pixel-based images only on pixel-based devices. It doesn't matter how many pixels are in your display device, the best view of that image is mapping 1 pixel of the digital file to 1 pixel on the display. You're wasting your time going beyond 100%, aka 1 to 1, or notation 1:1.

If you're not achieving sharply focused images, this post was developed to give proven, practical and effective methods to improve your results:

How to obtain sharp images in digital photography

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

CHG_CANON wrote:

You can view pixel-based images u only /u on pix... (show quote)

Like I said, pixel peeping is going beyond 1:1. and going beyond 1:1 is a technique often used when editing photo's.
It has nothing to do with the "best view" of the image, it is however extremely useful when editing.

Your link for focusing is good, however I've used those suggestions and more for years. I suggest the next time a picture on the hog curls your toes, rolls your socks down due to resolution, sharpness, fine detail and so on, check the EXIF for camera and lens, then look up those items for price, and you will see what I mean.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Everyone should be allowed to try their own ideas, even the wrong ones.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

BigDaddy wrote:

Like I said, pixel peeping is going beyond 1:1. an... (show quote)

How do you know that the photo was not heavily processed with sharpening AI programs and a half dozen other enhancement?
It could have been taken through the bottom of a Coke bottle with a Diana whiz bang camera then heavily manipulated.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

CHG_CANON wrote:

Everyone should be allowed to try their own ideas, even the wrong ones.