Zeke

Since the photographer is the main link in the photographic process, how will the photo be affected if a lesser quality lens is used on a pro quality camera body? It would seem that the lens would be the limiting link in a quality. Even if it is photoshopped would a pro quality lens produce the best result. It seems good lenses make excellent photos if everything else stays the same.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

The answer to your question is that "it depends." There are a lot of different things that cause a lens to have "lesser" performance...excessive distortion, limited sharpness, lesser build quality, poor usability, and other factors as well. Some of these matter a lot more than others in actual use. Cameras, on the other hand, vary mostly in terms of available functions, usability (including the user interface), and reliability and consistency of operation (consistent meter readings, consistent shutter speeds, and the like). I've seen beautiful images captured with all kinds and grades of both cameras and lenses. And I've used all kinds of cameras and lenses. And I've gotten good results with all kinds of cameras and lenses. But its easier with some than with others. And it's a lot easier with some than it is with some others. And the "work" of capturing a photo is a lot easier and more pleasant with my D500 (or D300 or D200) than it is with my wife's D40x. But it doesn't mean that she hasn't produced some beautiful images. Of course, she runs out of gas long before I do when the sun goes down because of the limited ISO capability of her camera, which is about 14 years old. But she is happy with it and has no interest in replacing it with anything newer. She usually uses an 18-55mm kit lens. Occasionally an 18-200mm zoom.

Photocraig

As with all generalizations, there are exceptions. Top of the line PRO gear is produced. primarily, for the following reasons, and situations. The users, mainly professionals and serious and highly skilled enthusiasts and artists need and are willing to pay for tools that are robust and durable. This usually includes redundant recording media, extra battery capacity, weather sealing, durable metal framing etc. From a Body performance standpoint, this includes the highest quality and capacity (to an extent) Sensor, highest performing image processing internal to the camera software, high ISO capability with little IQ depredation, fast buffering, fast frame rate capability. From a lens standpoint, this includes excellent glass and advanced anti-everything coatings, large and efficient and distortion free light gathering characteristics. These usually include wide maximum apertures.

These are all aimed at providing the top end user with a tool that will make and record as close to an excellent quality image in the most extreme conditions, no matter what. These are tall orders and they come with an correspondingly high price tag.

But, in the hands of an average or even above average enthusiast, these dream machines and lenses could be a detriment to their photography because of the excess of functions, features, controls, etc., not to mention their weight and size.

On average, most really fine photographs are taken in benign conditions, fairly good light with stationary or subjects moving at normal speeds. Often a tripod is also used. Most of these photos are captures within the f4-f8 "sweet spots" of even "kit lenses" and certainly within the higher quality ranges of good enthusiast level lenses--without relying on the special capacities of the expensive Pro level lenses. Moving subjects are usually photographed at "Spectator" distances, rather than Pro photographer's special access shooting positions, not requiring l high speed capture capabilities.

Within these more normal conditions where most of us dwell and practice our photography, the results of an equally skilled photographer (NOT to be underestimated) using Pro super gear, and a more modest "enthusiast rig" are usually indistinguishable. And especially when presented on screen, or displayed up to 11"x14" or maybe one step more, at normal viewing distances.

Simple message: unless you shoot in extreme conditions, or have unusually high resolution demands, the biggest determining factor is (CLICHE ALERT) what's 12" behind the lens. The camera, while vastly advanced beyond "the day" usually doesn't do much more functionality than the original definition as: "A light-tight box holding recording medium supporting a lens and providing for an ability to focus the image."

Since "Obsession" is a widely shared condition amongst this community, myself included, maybe it is best to obsess on our visualization, composition, exposure evaluation (NO IT'S NOT THE METER'S JOB!), and focus selection. Leave the GAS to the environmentalists and politicians.

In a mood,
Craig
PS: NOTE I never mentioned a mirror--once.

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

"... how will the photo be affected if a lesser quality lens is used on a pro quality camera body?" Zeke please allow me to cut to the chase... Below is an image captured with a "lesser quality lens" on a what Nikon considered a "Pro-Quality Camera" a D810 until the recent entry of the D850. I still consider the D810 a robust high end piece of kit.

btw that lens is a vintage (circa 1986) AF 70-210mm f/4 Nikkor purchased from Robert's Camera for $175. While I have a "Pro-Quality" AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G ED IF VR2 the 55 year old AF 70-210mm f/4 is a joy to shoot in the studio since it is almost half the weight... and is optically superior in as it doesn't suffer from "Focus Breathing" a.k.a. at portraiture distance it is a true 210mm unlike the AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G ED IF VR2 which at its long end is approximately a 135mm instead of 200mm.

Bottom Line? Every optic has it's own unique set of parameters thus it is incumbent upon the user to master the tool to obtain optimum performance...

Zeke I suggest you worry less about kit and more about technique...
btw, that D7800 you're querying about in your recent post is a DX body... and Nikon actually doesn't provide "Pro Level" DX lenses... You'll have to turn to Sigma for high end DX optics for a D7500... Nikon does however make a Pro-Level DX body... the D500... which is on sale now :) and Sigma has stellar "Art Series" DX (a.k.a. DC) glass...

All the best on your epic journey Zeke...
Please stay safe... Always wear a mask in public and practice social distancing.
.

Vintage (circa 1986) AF 70-210mm f/4 Nikkor

(Download)

starlifter Loc: Towson, MD

I thought that would be a simple yes or no question.

Scruples Loc: Brooklyn, New York

Here is the scenario: We have a great Camera at our hands AND know how to use it. The lighting is acceptable but some may say difficult. We have a choice of two lenses. One is a high quality very expensive lens. The other one - not so much. The photographer has worked with both lenses in the past so they are very familiar with the ability of all the links In this scenario.

The limiting factor is the photographer, not the equipment or gear. I learned in high school (1976) this factor because some of us students could afford a top line camera. Others like myself were working with a Zenit-E Russian throwback from the 1980 Olympics. My teacher explained that I don’t need a super great camera (AE-1) or a great high quality lens. I have to develop the intuitive capability of how I want the photograph to provide. The teacher allowed me to use his Canon and I bought the other camera after I earned enough money to buy it.

The lens is a negligible link because once you have worked with the lens you know how to bring in a good photo.

I believe you can have any camera in any format. I believe you can have any lens. But it is the photographer that brings the image to speak to the viewer.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

"I thought that would be a simple yes or no question."

I am in complete agreement with the above statement.

foathog Loc: Greensboro, NC

Every chain is as strong as its weakest link!!

badapple Loc: Twin Lake, Michigan

MountainDave

I would rather use a really good lens on my cheap camera vs. a mediocre lens on my top of the line camera that cost 5X. The way I figure it, cameras are meant to be used up until nearly worthless while my great lenses will likely be in my estate and hold their value as well.

gwilliams6

As a pro of over four decades and a University Professor of Photography courses, yes the lens makes a difference. The lens you use needs to be able to fully resolve the sensor in your camera. A lens that may be fine with resolving the sensor of say a 24mp camera, may not have enough resolution to resolve a 61mp sensor in a camera like a Sony A7RIV.

An example here are tests of over 114 E-mount lens, testing which lenses can fully resolve the 61mp sensor of the A7RIV. Only the lenses that have enough resolution (MTF-standard resolution tests) to fully resolve that 61mp sensor got an Outstanding rating.

It doesn't mean you cant take A7RIV photos with lenses that dont rate Outstanding here, but those shots wont give you the full resolution that camera's sensor is capable of. Lesser megapixel cameras will still show adequate sharpness with lenses rated at less resolution.

When I personally upgraded to my A7RIV, I had to sell some of the lenses I had used on my 24mp A7III as they just didn't deliver on that 61mp sensor .

https://sonyalpha.blog/2019/11/10/which-lenses-to-maximise-the-potential-of-the-sony-a7riv/

(Download)

gwilliams6

When you have the combo of the 61mp A7RIV and a lens that can FULLY resolve that 61mp like the Sony 135mm f1.8 GM lens you get the best possible image resolution and detail.

Here one shot of a "Dancing Diva" from the Caribbean island of St. Martin. Sony A7RIV, Sony 135mm f1.8 GM lens.

And a shot of Environmental Scientist Brooke H. in the Valley of Fire, Nevada, USA. Sony A7RIV and Sony 135mm f1.8 GM lens

(Download)


(Download)

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

"...University Professor of Photography courses..." Gerald I'm questioning this... especially after viewing your Facebook page... https://www.facebook.com/Gerald-S-Williams-Photographycom-531248917012983/photos/

"You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."

Gerald in my humble estimation you are a troll for Sony... I rarely respond to trolls however your post is so far out in left field I'm not letting this slide... I'll let others here judge the merit of your work/credentials by your Facebook page since you have no commercial web site.

Bottom Line? Brand has very little to due with the OP's initial query... and actually many commercial shooters do just fine with as little as 12 to 16 megapixel resolution... resolution is pretty much camera vendor hype at this juncture...

All the best on your journey Gerald...
Please stay safe... Always wear a mask when in public space and practice social distancing...

Miami39 Loc: Florida

Once again, we are seeing some mean responses. I got great results with thirty year old Nikon lenses on my old D200. Now I am using a D750 with the same lenses and get good results. Buy good glass within your price range and there are plenty of good used lenses to pick from. For those who have commented on technique, that is the most important thing to learn. The only two lenses that I was not satisfied with are the old 24-120 variable aperture Nikon and the Fuji kit lens. Keep in mind that wide to tele lenses are difficult to design.

Scruples Loc: Brooklyn, New York

Every thing is required for a photograph to make a reality. You could use a very expensive camera or an inexpensive camera. The more expensive camera has all the fancy bells and whistles. The inexpensive camera, not so much. The two camera share similar mechanisms (shutter, sensor, etc.) Since lenses are the issue of this thread let’s take a look (pun intended) at a lens. We have two comparable lenses with exact focal lengths. The more expensive lens was made by the camera manufacturer. The company has poured an inordinate amount of research to bring the lens to market. It can take several years to research the elements, their position, their aperture, etc. Years later, the original manufacturer loses their patent. Now a third party can make a similar lens. That is why it is cheaper. But that is not the only reason. The materials are not the same. The housing is milled differently. The lens elements are not made of the same type of glass. Even the aperture is different. Both lenses will have a sweet spot but they are not the same. The real difference between these scenarios is that an experienced photographer will have an intuitive sense about the camera and lens knowing what will bring forth a superb photograph. Finally, a tripod is not an essential piece of equipment. Therefore, I didn’t compare carbon fiber or aluminum.

I would like to state that I have a Canon full frame. I have some lens that were made by Canon and others made by Sigma, Tamron and Rokinon. Do I want to have all lenses made from the same manufacturer? Absolutely not. Each lens does what I expect of it. I know the sweet spot and I also have the muscle memory. The limiting factor in this equation could be the camera, or the lens. In fact, it is the photographer’s eye and how they wish the photograph to “speak” to the person viewing it.