grahamfourth wrote:
Hello,
I have always wondered exactly what makes more expensive lenses "better". I have read that they have very fancy coatings and use better glass, but I always have wondered how that actually shows up in the pictures. I have never had the money to buy any such lenses, and since I don't have any first-hand experience with them, I am asking for some more experienced eyes to help me with this. Below are two pictures that I took. The Blue Heron was using a Nikon D7200 with a 200-500mm lens and the Osprey was taken using a Nikon D500 with a 70-300mm P lens. Both images are untouched by any photoshopping, just cropped. What would improvements would I see if I had the more expensive lenses? Better colors? Sharper detail? Something else?
As always, thank you in advance for your help, I always learn a lot here.
Hello, br br I have always wondered exactly what ... (
show quote)
A few years ago I had one of those "expensive" lenses - a 600mm F4 AF-S II Nikkor. It was crisp, fast, extremely well-built. I think the list price may have been around $10k. But it weighed almost 11 lbs. By the time I added a tripod+head, backpack to carry it etc, I was easily at about 30 lbs. So looking for something lighter, I looked at all of the usual suspects - 150-600 Tamron (the G2 was not available), the 150-600 Sigma Contemporary, the 200-500 Nikkor, the 80-400 Nikkor - and even stuff like a 300 F2.8 + 1.4 TC. My goal was to come as close as I could to the image quality of the 600mmF4, but still be hand-holdable. I looked at the 1000s of pictures I took with the 600F4 and came to the conclusion that the majority of the images were taken stopped down for DoF optimization. The 600 was not sharper stopped down, but the DoF was better.
So . . .
If I could get a lens that gave me similar image quality at F7.1 or F8, and saved me 5 lbs, it would be worth investigating. I came close with the 200-500, but the lack of robust build quality and the fact it was only 500mm and it's performance with a 1.4 TC III left a lot to be desired, I did not pull the triiger on one. I had borrowed one twice from Nikon's NPS inventory, so I was very familiar with the lens. The game changer was the Sigma Sport, which ticked all the boxes - no worries about getting caught in the rain with it (since field proven), super hard front and rear element coatings, built like a tank (also field proven), and image quality that was significantly better than the competition. I sold my 600mmF4 a year later, and frankly don't miss it. I also don't use a tripod 98% of the time with that lens.
In my opinion, the images at F7.1 or F8 with the Sigma Sport hand held are every bit as good as those shot with the 600mmF4 at similar apertures even when used on a tripod.
The 600F4 focused faster, provided a brighter viewfinder for composing and manual AF. But the Sigma is lighter, more portable, 20% of the price of the big expensive alternative, and has turned out to be a fine walkaround lens for me when I am out looking for things that move quickly and mostly fly around nervously.
So to answer your question - how an image is processed will determine a lot of the differences in color and to some degree, contrast. But fine detail capture is a weak point with many more modestly priced lenses, especially third party. However, as you can see, the fine detail capture of the Sigma Sport is exceptional, and I can say, without hesitation, that it is fulfilling its role as a $1800 replacement for the $10,000 lens.
This is not a universal thing - you really do have to make direct comparisons. Some less costly lenses are real values, others not so much. In this case, the expensive lens does not offer $8K worth of benefit over the cheaper one.