"Good" and "Bad" reviews on the same lens: I doubt that there are THAT much differences within a certain type of lens. What do you think? Will the responses also be that diversified?

ballsafire Loc: Lafayette, Louisiana

I doubt that there are THAT much differences within a certain type of lens. What do you think? Will the responses also be that diversified? What do you think of Canon's "L" lenses -- are they as superior as the high prices seems to reflect?

timm27 Loc: Earth

Canon L lenses are superior to non L lenses from Canon

ballsafire Loc: Lafayette, Louisiana

timm27 wrote:

Canon L lenses are superior to non L lenses from Canon

In which ways? What makes a lens superior? Cost more money? Thanks!

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

There are two aspects to the quality of a given lens; the optical side (that relates to image quality) and the mechanical side (that pertains to longevity).

In the old days, the so-called "kit" lenses were generally inferior, optically speaking, to the higher priced lenses, but that has changed and today there is little difference between them, practically speaking.

However, on the mechanical side of things, higher priced (pro) lenses are simply built to be tougher in order to withstand the use 9and abuse) they will often receive at the hands of a pro. The materials used for the barrel, whether screws or simple pressure is utilized to hold internal components, and any degree of weatherproofing all fall under this heading. Too, at least in the SLR world (this is not an issue for mirrorless cameras) how robustly the diaphragm mechanism is made can make a lens last longer or not. This is because, with a SLR (or DSLR) the aperture is held at its widest diameter until the exposure is made; pressing the shutter button causes the diaphragm to "shut down" to the selected f-stop and then, in an instant, open up again. For high end DSLRs where the "motor drive" function can go at 8 or more fps, that's a lot of movement! Of course, pros typically shoot orders of magnitude more exposures than amateurs - a wedding shooter might shoot over 1000 images at an event - so, again, the mechanical aspects of the lens are what's more important.

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

ballsafire wrote:

I doubt that there are THAT much differences within a certain type of lens. What do you think? Will the responses also be that diversified? What do you think of Canon's "L" lenses -- are they as superior as the high prices seems to reflect?

For me it is the reviewer and his/her cridentials?

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

f8lee wrote:

In the old days, the so-called "kit" lenses were generally inferior, optically speaking, to the higher priced lenses, but that has changed and today there is little difference between them, practically speaking.

I disagree. The standard 50mm lenses typically sold with the film SLR cameras of yesteryear were quite good, and are even today highly regarded manual focus lenses. The notion that the lens which came with the camera was sub par is something camera shops often liked to tell their customers in order to sell more lenses.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

ballsafire wrote:

In which ways? What makes a lens superior? Cost more money? Thanks!

Optical quality, build quality, smoothness of operation, weather protection - and did I mention outstanding optical quality?

Take your pick - but it's all of the above.

And I'm a life-long Nikon guy.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

ballsafire wrote:

I doubt that there are THAT much differences within a certain type of lens. What do you think? Will the responses also be that diversified? What do you think of Canon's "L" lenses -- are they as superior as the high prices seems to reflect?

L lens are pro lenses that are built to pro specifications for use every day in a variety of conditions that professionals might find themselves. While the build of L lenses is superior to non L lenses, there are some non L's with optical performance almost as good as some of the L Lenses, and in a few cases even better then some of the older ones. The price of L's is as much about a build as it is about performance. Having said that, some of Canon's L lenses like the new 35mm f/1.4, the 24-70mm f/2.8, and the 70-200mm f/2.8 are as good as they get and Canon makes no non L lenses that compare. When you say you, "doubt that there are THAT much differences within a certain type of lens", what do you mean exactly? And what are you basing it on?

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

ballsafire wrote:

I doubt that there are THAT much differences within a certain type of lens. What do you think? Will the responses also be that diversified? What do you think of Canon's "L" lenses -- are they as superior as the high prices seems to reflect?

I wouldn't call them superior, but they are nice lenses and of decent quality, I like everyone I have!

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

ballsafire wrote:

I doubt that there are THAT much differences within a certain type of lens. What do you think? Will the responses also be that diversified? What do you think of Canon's "L" lenses -- are they as superior as the high prices seems to reflect?

If I’m interpreting correctly, you are referring to reviews such as at B&H where a lens gets lots of 4/5 star reviews but also gets 1 star reviews?
Consider that amateurs will give a bad review for things not related to lens performance.
For example a 500mm reviewer already has a 500 and gets a new one and are disappointed that they can’t see any differeance from the new to old, so they dock a few stars because there’s not much differeance.
Maybe they call CS and are told that’s just the way the two lenses are. The new one is better but not a lot and the amateur is again disappointed so they dock another star.
Then they send it back and it takes 90 days to get their money back, so there goes another star.
Plus they dock because the lens cost $10,000 dollars and it’s not worth 2x the old lens. Or maybe they don’t like the ergonomics and dock again. Pretty soon they’re at one star.
A pro thinks that one extra stop of IS alone is worth 5 stars!!!
Yet they all left the factory exactly the same!
And so it goes.
SS

btbg

SharpShooter wrote:

If I’m interpreting correctly, you are referring t... (show quote)

Good answer sharpshooter. We usually disagree on almost everything, but you nailed this answer.

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

rook2c4 wrote:

I disagree. The standard 50mm lenses typically sold with the film SLR cameras of yesteryear were quite good, and are even today highly regarded manual focus lenses. The notion that the lens which came with the camera was sub par is something camera shops often liked to tell their customers in order to sell more lenses.

You misunderstand. Nobody, ever, anywhere, referred to any prime lens as a "kit lens". That appellation was reserved for the moderate-wide to moderate-telephoto zoom lenses that were sold with the body as a "kit" starting about 15-20 years ago.

ballsafire Loc: Lafayette, Louisiana

When you say you, "doubt that there are THAT much differences within a certain type of lens", what do you mean exactly? And what are you basing it on?

I base this on my own observations and the literature I've read -- you see-- the eye can only see so much and there are limits for different eyes. I didn't foresee anyone not understanding this phenomenon. There are lenses that are different -- that's a "given," but lenses are made mostly of glass and the glass can be used to help us see and that's all I understand, so far.

Now how well the glass makes us see --I don't really know unless I look thrugh a lens. Furthermore, how can we judge how much money it will be worth? Now days with all this great technology it seems to me that industry could output dozens of superior lenses per minute?? LOL

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

ballsafire wrote:

When you say you, "doubt that there are THAT ... (show quote)

This post with its generalizations, based on your opinions and an apparent incomplete understanding of optics, suggests a lack of personal experience with the best lenses available. Perhaps over time you will have the opportunity to work extensively with top quality lenses and then perhaps you can revisit your current opinions on the subject with a fresh perspective.

ballsafire Loc: Lafayette, Louisiana

mwsilvers wrote:

This post with its generalizations, based on your opinions and an apparent incomplete understanding of optics, suggests a lack of personal experience with the best lenses available. Perhaps over time you will have the opportunity to work extensively with top quality lenses and then perhaps you can revisit your current opinions on the subject with a fresh perspective.

You didn't understand my questions -- the reason why I posted my query. Could you please enlighten me on the subject matter? Until I have an understanding about lenses it is impossible for me to respond properly -- could you please read my inquiry and help me as you seem to know something about lenses. What gives different values to lenses? Why does cost of lenses differ? And please don't use cars as an example, I know this senario already. I know the answer is a difficult one or else I wouldn't be asking - could you fill me in on understanding optics without using math, etc? Once the understanding of optics, etc. is solved why couldn't lenses be manufactured in bulk like Henry Ford did with cars? Pardon me for being too general - I only need sombody's answers and opinions.