Pepper Loc: Planet Earth Country USA

A photographer will get better results with better equipment every time.

Roger Hicks Loc: Aquitaine

Absolutely. Unfortunately, there are many photographers who fail to recognize that they are the weakest link, and not their equipment.

Most of us, I suspect, fall into this category until we see lots of pictures better than ours, being taken with roughly similar equipment to our own. Then we begin to suspect that we can't buy expertise...

Cheers,

R.

saichiez Loc: Beautiful Central Oregon

QUOTE:
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.[/quote]

The secret to finding this lens in in two of it's properties... it is very unique in the 3.3 largest aperture, it's 28-80 focal length and it is a G lens, introduced for late film cameras. It originally most often came on N series film Nikons. However, Wolf camera and other camera stores often downgraded the lens on the N cameras down to Quantaray, which were made by Sigma for camera stores and are very poor.... not even up to Sigma standards and quality was all over the place on the Quantaray lenses.

The lens of which I speak here is an actual Nikon Nikkor "ooops, how the hell did we shoot ourselves in the foot on that one" lens.

larrycumba

Inherently? Yes.

visionstory

The better the lens, the better the photograph. The better the photographer, the better the photograph, but a great photographer may do poignant work with a cheap lens and use the lack of clarity (as compared to a top of the line lens) creatively as a juxtaposition to the subject matter. Reality, the better the lens, the better the photograph. You can see the difference.

Wabbit Loc: Arizona Desert

"This answer of Rogers should be made a sticky"

This is asked so many times that I don't even know why I or anyone for that matter responds.

I'm even sorry I did!

marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

You added a second variable by throwing in the part about the photographer which should not be in this question. So I'll counter your variable by changing it to: "in the hands of the SAME photographer."

In the hands of the same photographer, taking the same shot, in the same conditions and environment, on the same camera body, or two of the same camera bodies side by side on tripods - yes the considerably more expensive higher line glass will create a much better photo. I spent far too many years using mediocre glass. When I experienced Leica and Carl Zeiss glass, my photographic quality improved in leaps and bounds without me changing anything else at all. If you have a Nikon body, put one of Nikon's high end lenses on it and see for yourself. Same with any other brand. You'd be better off keeping a 10MP body and putting a very expensive lens on it than to use a 18MP body and use a kit lens on it in most cases.

That's not only true of dSLRs either. You can see it happen with P&S cameras as well. A $139 P&S versus at $189 similar model with Leica or Zeiss glass is astoundingly superior.

The widest aperture available is also not the only thing that makes a lens better. It's the glass and design of the elements and how they work together. The f number is just a side effect of those factors.

Comparing this to the music world, I had a saxophone professional jazz player tell me he would rather take a school band level instrument (equal to an entry-level camera body for this example) and put a pro-level mouthpiece and pro-level reed (equal to a high end lens) on it for an important live performance than to use a pro-level instrument (higher level camera body) with a cheap mouthpiece and brand of reed (entry level lens).

sinatraman Loc: Vero Beach Florida, Earth,alpha quaudrant

i agree its whats between a photographers ears that makes the biggest difference. also knowing your equipments limitations and how to manipulate them. If money was no object id shoot with prime lenses. heck if money was no object id shoot witha hassenblad with a digital back!!!!

ed, as a raving nikonian i love your avatar photo, im suprised that the cannonites haven't seen it and gone after you. what type of cigar is it? my prefence is for hoya de monterey's excaliburs with a maduro wrapper, or partagas black labels. course i won't turn do a fuente opus XX f its offered!!!! :thumbup: 8-)

rborud Loc: Minnesota

The secret to finding this lens in in two of it's properties... it is very unique in the 3.3 largest aperture, it's 28-80 focal length and it is a G lens, introduced for late film cameras. It originally most often came on N series film Nikons. However, Wolf camera and other camera stores often downgraded the lens on the N cameras down to Quantaray, which were made by Sigma for camera stores and are very poor.... not even up to Sigma standards and quality was all over the place on the Quantaray lenses.

The lens of which I speak here is an actual Nikon Nikkor "ooops, how the hell did we shoot ourselves in the foot on that one" lens.[/quote]

Sanchez the 28-200 is at 3.5 not 3.3 as is the 28-80. I have them both. As to the most expensive being always the best, I would agree almost all the time, however a there are tiny exceptions, these seem nearly the same as some I paid nearly $2000 for.

sinatraman Loc: Vero Beach Florida, Earth,alpha quaudrant

thanks for the tip on the nikon 28-80g! Ive found a few online and will order one as soon as i scrape up the moola.

saichiez Loc: Beautiful Central Oregon

Be VERY CAREFUL, that you do not end up with a Quantaray 28-80 or a Quantaray 28-90. Wolf camera downgraded a ton of Nikon N film cameras with these two lenses. I jumped on a Nikon N65 and it ended up being a Quantaray lens which was a total piece of KRAP!!!!

Be diligent about the Nikon Nikkor 28-80 3.3-whatever G lens.

sinatraman Loc: Vero Beach Florida, Earth,alpha quaudrant

thanks for the advice. never did like ritz camera anyway. paid their people mimimum wage.

Cappy Loc: Wildwood, NJ

Ugh!! I am a Canonite & HATE cigars!!!

sinatraman Loc: Vero Beach Florida, Earth,alpha quaudrant

take a closer look at what ed is using as an ashtray!!!! finally a use for cannons :lol: :P :twisted: :thumbup:

micro Loc: Texas

A good eye makes better pictures. A more expensive lense will help with image quality (better glass and bigger apature for higher shutter speeds).
I have expensive golf clubs, but my game still stinks.