francesca3 Loc: Sausalito, CA

I have a Nkon 55-200 inexpensive lens, and Nikon 70-200 (f2.8) rather expensive lens. I like them both. The first one is limited because it is an f5.6.

Does more expensive glass make for inherently better photos? (Or is it the photographer who really makes the difference?)

martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida

All lens have limitations, just use within their limits. Sounds like you need to get out and practice, your photos are only as good as you are at taking them. Throwing good money at photo equipment will not get you better photos.....

Roger Hicks Loc: Aquitaine

The photographer makes the difference BUT

(1) People who are REALLY serious often find a bit more money to buy better lenses, thereby flattering the lenses

AND

(2) People often try to 'live up' to better gear. If you have the finest money can buy, you can't blame the kit. It has to be your own lack of talent/skill, so you may try harder

AND

(3) For any given photographer, there is a 'quality plateau', above which the equipment makes very little difference. The better the photographer, the higher the 'quality plateau', but it's never really high. Weed out the bottom 30-50% of current cameras and there's not much difference in most cases, unless you're doing BIG, high-quality enlargements, double-page glossy magazine spreads, 48-sheet posters, etc.

Cheers,

R.

snowbear

Both, to a degree. The higher end lenses are not only faster (large apertures) but are typically sharper and have less distortion than the kit lenses.

A good photographer van take a decent photograph with a point & shoot camera. Likewise, a bad photographer will likely take a snapshot with a high end lens. It may be sharper and less distorted, but it will still be a snapshot.

Bmac Loc: Long Island, NY

Both

LarryD Loc: Mojave Desert

Even cheap lenses today are better than top quality lenses of the past were.. However, we buy the best glass we can afford to give us the best chance of capturing what we hope to..

Techies and gear heads microscopically critique every square pixel of an image today and declare that a lens is "soft" or "sharp" and even identify where you may see that anomoly within your frame....

But, the reality is that, without exif data, most would not be able to know what lens you were using if you are using that lens at it's optimal settings...

A properly exposed and focused image with a basic consumer lens will always be better than a poorly exposed and misfocused high end lens... it's that simple..

MWAC Loc: Somewhere East Of Crazy

There is a difference in expensive glass and the kit lenses. I can shoot something with my 24-70 L and then shoot the same thing with my 18-55 and the L glass shot will come out miles ahead of the 18-55. The f stop is higher, the lens is faster, let's in more light so it doesn't hunt for focus as much and the image is just over all sharper. The 24-70 SOOC images are just miles ahead of the 18-55 ones. So much so I don't think the kit lens has even been placed in my 40D in months, it lives on my film camera.

francesca3 Loc: Sausalito, CA

Thanks. That's kind of what I thought. I just wanted a simple answer to the question.

Roger Hicks Loc: Aquitaine

Not really, unless you are looking at the VERY distant past, and even then, the larger formats made up for the deficiencies. I'd back my 1915 Dagor on 5x7 inch against any modern zoom on any digital camers.

By the 1950s, there were several designs that were a LOT better than ANY cheap lens made today. And, indeed, that were as good as any lens made today, regardless of price: Zeiss f/4.5 Biogons are the most obvious example.

Cheers,

R.

saichiez Loc: Beautiful Central Oregon

Manufacturers often make mistakes resulting in much better value for the consumer who does his homework. I'm a bit of a fan of Ken Rockwell, regardless of some of the things people say about him. On nikon and canon lenses, I generally take a look at what he says.

I found this lens that Nikon produced a few years ago. It took some time before they realized they shot themselves in the foot and made a superb lens, by the thousands, that was too good for the money they were charging. There is still a healthy supply because they put them on their low end consumer cameras. However, they work on both Nikon crop (DX) and full frame (FX) cameras. They are commonly found for around $50 - $75, and have a 3.3 largest aperture, which is about a half stop better than most kit lenses. See Kens comments.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28-80mm-g.htm

And don't judge by appearance... READ the review. It also comes in black, for the same money,,,, usually well under $100.

The moral to this story... DO YOUR RESEARCH. It isn't a remarkable lens because it's a Nikon. It's a remarkable lens because Nikon probably screwed up and didn't realize how good it is.

If you get critical and do your homework, you will run into many stories like this. You might also be surprised to see how many Nikon lenses Ken gives a thumbs down on. Many of which have identical focal lengths and aperture ratings to other generations of lenses appearing to be the same.

Edmund Dworakowski

No ! To make better images, read your camera's manual and think out of the box...

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

Correct. The time to upgrade is when you can honestly say that the limitation is the gear, not the one behind the gear. The challenge is to wring the best out of what you have. JMHO.

JohnnyRottenNJ Loc: Northern New Jersey

There are a lot of great professional photographers out there who will all tell you that regardless of the camera body, the lens is what you look through to create an image. The more optically perfect the glass, the better the potential image is likely to be.

To put it in perspective though, I like the quote I read on UHH yesterday that said (and I'll paraphrase it:) "You get better images through practice than purchase."

You obviously need an "eye" for great photographs, but at some point the limitation of the lens becomes obvious. That is why the pros use better glass. They aren't snobs, but they don't want their photo quality limited by the lens.

Cappy Loc: Wildwood, NJ

LarryD, You have said it the best!!!!

rborud Loc: Minnesota

Hurray someone else has discovered these wonderful little lenses. I have two and buy every one I can find at very low prices, the last was a camera store that had one on an old film body. When asked how much the clerk said how about $20 bucks. Needless to say I bought it for my fellow nikon users in this area (TwinCities) who are lusting for this jewel. I have several very expensive Nikon lenses and there is very little difference, and I have to refer to the exif data to tell which I have used. It also makes your camera nearly half as heavy, if that has importance to you. There are a few more of these shoot in the foot lenses around too. I am sure Canon has done the same thing but I know Nikon best.