When does it make sense to buy super expensive lenses? I have a friend who wants to be a great guitar player. He just bought a $2000 acoustic guitar but he still doesn't play well. I...

Photo-Jeff

I have a friend who wants to be a great guitar player. He just bought a $2000 acoustic guitar but he still doesn't play well.

I suggested he become so good with the equipment he has that he needs something that only a $2k guitar can do for him to make him better.

Is that not the case with photo equipment as well?

hlmichel Loc: New Hope, Minnesota

Photo-Jeff wrote:

I have a friend who wants to be a great guitar player. He just bought a $2000 acoustic guitar but he still doesn't play well.

I suggested he become so good with the equipment he has that he needs something that only a $2k guitar can do for him to make him better.

Is that not the case with photo equipment as well?

That thinking is more toward that camera end of things. You want to have the best glass you can afford between your camera sensor and your subject.

Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

It helps to have a good camera behind the expensive lens to take advantage of all the expensive lens has to offer.

Db7423 Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

It would help to know what camera you are using but the short answer is good glass on a good camerA will pay for itself. ;)

dali_lama_2k Loc: Norfolk

An expensive lens does not make a talented photographer no more than an expensive guitar makes a good guitar player. There are, however, certain lenses that just happen to cost a lot and have no inexpensive alternative. Just try and find a cheap 400mm lens that actually works well instead of merely functions! Most manufacturers make lenses of duplicate ranges, but different capabilities. Canon 50mm, 1.8, 1.4 or 1.2? As far as good cameras, it's almost the same. You should only pay for what features you are going to use and for what applications you are going to do. If you aren't an avid sports or bird photographer, could you justify spending $2500 on a lens? Unless you just want to, in that case, go ahead!

Bobbee

If you have the money, buy the better lens, If you don't have the money, save and buy the best lens. Pretty simple.

What do the Russians say, "Buy cheap 10 times, buy good once."

Kuzano

Bobbee wrote:

If you have the money, buy the better lens, If you don't have the money, save and buy the best lens. Pretty simple.

What do the Russians say, "Buy cheap 10 times, buy good once."

I don't think so... I think Russians Say... "measure three times, cut once."

Or maybe it's "measure once, cut three times... OH Hell, throw it away and start the project over".

Oh Wait, that's any branch of the military in the United States.

lovitlots Loc: Tottenham, Ontario, Canada

Most of the expensive lenses out there tend to be very fast lenses and they do help as a rule. But a good photograph is still and matter of composition and lighting. That you can do with any lens. First you have to learn that and then think about if you want to still spend more money on the glass. If you research the lesser cost and usually slower lenses out there you can find some real gems. The other thing to consider is that on the more expensive lenses you pay a lot for ruggedization which tends to be more important to pros as they can be rougher with their equipment. If you treat your equipment well you can concentrate on the optical quality from the lens which is the most important factor. As for the camera body try to choose the most important features that you think you'll need and stick to bodies that with give you that. Most manufactures usually have way more than you need regardless of what you want so try not to spend too much extra if you can.

Bobbee

Kuzano wrote:

I don't think so... I think Russians Say... "measure three times, cut once."

Or maybe it's "measure once, cut three times... OH Hell, throw it away and start the project over".

Oh Wait, that's any branch of the military in the United States.

Sounds like the White House

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

dali_lama_2k wrote:

. You should only pay for what features you are going to use and for what applications you are going to do.

Following this logic we should all be driving low end vehicles just capable of doing the speed limit.

Its a hobby. Buy what makes you happy even though it may not make you good. Life is short.

RodL Loc: Down Under

Photo-Jeff wrote:

I have a friend who wants to be a great guitar player. He just bought a $2000 acoustic guitar but he still doesn't play well.

I suggested he become so good with the equipment he has that he needs something that only a $2k guitar can do for him to make him better.

Is that not the case with photo equipment as well?

Some great photographs have been taken using pin hole lenses, creativity while being subjective as well as objective, the actual equipment (tools) needed to achieve the final outcome is more dependant on the individual than the cost of the camera or lens.

Hypno Loc: Miami

joer wrote:

Following this logic we should all be driving low end vehicles just capable of doing the speed limit.

Its a hobby. Buy what makes you happy even though it may not make you good. Life is short.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Photo-Jeff wrote:

I have a friend who wants to be a great guitar player. He just bought a $2000 acoustic guitar but he still doesn't play well.

I suggested he become so good with the equipment he has that he needs something that only a $2k guitar can do for him to make him better.

Is that not the case with photo equipment as well?

Available money plays a big part in this discussion. If Bill Gates were to start learning how to play the guitar, he wouldn't get a $19.99 cheapie. If money were no object, I would buy the best f/2.8 lenses available.

Better equipment produces better results.

Canoe50d

I was using (at the time) a Canon 50d and a Tamron 18-270 and I was pleased with my own work but there was something missing. On a whim I picked up a 300m f4 L . That was a game changer for me. From there I moved to the 7d body for more speed per frame and now shoot full frame with a 5dm3. L glass made all the diff in making what I knew to be possible, so. There was a level of frustration before L glass in that I couldn't seem to get it. L glass made it easier to learn, having a bag full of better tools. I've since added a 70-200m 2.8 L as well 24-105L f4. The learning process has been a fun one full of frustration as well as ah-ha's.

lovitlots Loc: Tottenham, Ontario, Canada

jerryc41 wrote:

Available money plays a big part in this discussion. If Bill Gates were to start learning how to play the guitar, he wouldn't get a $19.99 cheapie. If money were no object, I would buy the best f/2.8 lenses available.

Better equipment produces better results.

That statement is wrong. Skill produces better results. I used watch people marvel at watching how well my dad used to make mitred corners in woodworking with a hand plane when they couldn't achieve those results with a mitre saw. He had the skill and when he did use a mitre saw he could get the same results. The only advantage to the mitre saw was he could do it faster, but not better. The same hold true with any discipline including photography. Oh, btw, those mitre joints where flawless. No gaps and on angle.