Lens reality vs cost

This may be so subjective there's no sensible response but I'm
wondering how to tell (by reading/research) if a lens is
cost-effective in terms of what it can do in normal use. Most things
and certainly lenses cost a great deal more to get that top 5-10
percent performance. Most of the time we might not need it, might not
even be able to tell the difference. In particular, I'm reading about
the optics on the Nikkor AFS 28-70mm f2.8 ED IF lens. It's very
expensive for my budget. But it's apparently a superb lens. But might
there be a similar lens that cost perhaps half as much that would
perform so well that I couldn't tell the difference? I don't have a
lab to conduct technical analyses on optics; I simply want a very very
clean piece of glass. But my question isn't really about that specific
lens. It relates to all lenses. And I know that not all pros use the
highest quality lenses all the time; there are situations where the
extra cost doesn't pencil out. Any ideas?

wrote in message
...

Most of the time we might not need it, might not
even be able to tell the difference. In particular, I'm reading about
the optics on the Nikkor AFS 28-70mm f2.8 ED IF lens. It's very
expensive for my budget. But it's apparently a superb lens.

Do you normally use a firm tripod? If not, why worry.

--
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm

wrote in message
...

Most of the time we might not need it, might not
even be able to tell the difference. In particular, I'm reading about
the optics on the Nikkor AFS 28-70mm f2.8 ED IF lens. It's very
expensive for my budget. But it's apparently a superb lens.

Do you normally use a firm tripod? If not, why worry.

--
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm

writes:

This may be so subjective there's no sensible response but I'm
wondering how to tell (by reading/research) if a lens is
cost-effective in terms of what it can do in normal use. Most things
and certainly lenses cost a great deal more to get that top 5-10
percent performance. Most of the time we might not need it, might not
even be able to tell the difference. In particular, I'm reading about
the optics on the Nikkor AFS 28-70mm f2.8 ED IF lens. It's very
expensive for my budget. But it's apparently a superb lens. But might
there be a similar lens that cost perhaps half as much that would
perform so well that I couldn't tell the difference?

Of course! Get a secondhand 35-70mm f/2.8. This is a really lovely
lens. Bit of a bitch to handle, but optically lovely

It relates to all lenses. And I know that not all pros use the
highest quality lenses all the time; there are situations where the
extra cost doesn't pencil out. Any ideas?

It would be a good idea to be familiar with various review
places. Ones like Bjoorn's over at www.naturfotograf.com is extremely
helpful as it provides quite a bit of perspective on the transition
between old and new lenses, and can be quite brutal where necessary.

You'll also need to keep in mind the secondhand prices. KEH, eBay, or
your local camera places would all be good places to look. Don't
forget to check B&H new stuff too.

Oh yes, and make sure you read rec.photo.equipment.35mm regularly
too. Check google groups for older threads too. Until the digital
groupies manage to emasculate it with their group re-org it's going to
be far and away the best available resource for this sort of thing.

B

Until and unless you have some experience using different lenses and
evaluating the results you cannot answer that question for yourself. You can
only judge results looking at slides directly or examining high quality
scans of slides or negatives.

As a rule long zooms (e.g. 28-200 or 28-300) are the easiest to see what bad
optical performance looks like and if you have access to one of these use it
and judge for yourself. All of them, regardless of maker, have pincusion and
barrel distortion, low contrast and poor sharpness. If you can photograph
subjects with vertical and horizontal lines and compare these zooms to a
single focal length lens, preferably a 50mm (as these tend to be among a
manufacturers best lenses) you should see these problems for yourself.

Unfortunately alot of what is written in these newsgroups is by people who
would never let the facts get in the way of a good opinion.

You can try looking at Tokina's ATX-Pro II 28-70 range [ not the SV some
said]
You'll lose the AF-S feature but quality wise, they are damn good lens.

=bob=

wrote in message
...
.. In particular, I'm reading about
the optics on the Nikkor AFS 28-70mm f2.8 ED IF lens. It's very
expensive for my budget.

In article , says...

This may be so subjective there's no sensible response but I'm
wondering how to tell (by reading/research) if a lens is
cost-effective in terms of what it can do in normal use. Most things
and certainly lenses cost a great deal more to get that top 5-10
percent performance. Most of the time we might not need it, might not
even be able to tell the difference. In particular, I'm reading about
the optics on the Nikkor AFS 28-70mm f2.8 ED IF lens. It's very
expensive for my budget. But it's apparently a superb lens. But might
there be a similar lens that cost perhaps half as much that would
perform so well that I couldn't tell the difference? I don't have a
lab to conduct technical analyses on optics; I simply want a very very
clean piece of glass. But my question isn't really about that specific
lens. It relates to all lenses. And I know that not all pros use the
highest quality lenses all the time; there are situations where the
extra cost doesn't pencil out. Any ideas?

Your critical eye, or that of your client, will be the main factor. Is the
lens in question sharp enough for YOU? Next, I'd advise on how the ergonomic
factors of lens suit you and how you shoot. Actually mount the lens and use it
a bit, even if only in a store. Do your fingers go naturally to the controls?
Do you have to fumble switching from Auto to Manual modes? Does the zoom
control work for YOU? The aperture ring, the focusing mechanism on manual?
Once you get the approximate sharpness you feel you need, which ones feel
right for YOU?

Hunt

wrote in message
...
This may be so subjective there's no sensible response but I'm
wondering how to tell (by reading/research) if a lens is
cost-effective in terms of what it can do in normal use. Most things
and certainly lenses cost a great deal more to get that top 5-10
percent performance. Most of the time we might not need it, might not
even be able to tell the difference. In particular, I'm reading about
the optics on the Nikkor AFS 28-70mm f2.8 ED IF lens. It's very
expensive for my budget. But it's apparently a superb lens. But might
there be a similar lens that cost perhaps half as much that would
perform so well that I couldn't tell the difference?

If you insist on a zoom, Tamron 28-75/2.8. Fine for portraits wide open,
it's sharp as all get out from f/4.0.

I don't have a
lab to conduct technical analyses on optics; I simply want a very very
clean piece of glass. But my question isn't really about that specific
lens. It relates to all lenses. And I know that not all pros use the
highest quality lenses all the time; there are situations where the
extra cost doesn't pencil out. Any ideas?

Yes. Zooms are almost always some combination of expensive, poor optically,
heavy, and/or slow. Usually all of the above. The Tamron is light, fast,
sharp, cheap, but nowhere near as well made as the expensive and heavy
Nikon/Canon competitors. I expect mine to last 1/5 or so the life of my
Canon 17-40. In the end, not really cost effective.

Primes, on the other hand, are cheaper, better optically, lighter, and
faster. The Nikon 85/1.8 (or Canon 85/1.8) is worlds better than any zoom
that covers the 85mm focal length, and is lighter and cheaper than even some
iffy off-brand zooms.

Note that the vast majority of great photographs were taken with prime
lenses.

Even worse, most shots with zoom lenses are taken at one of the extremes,
and the performance at the extremes is usually the worst in the whole range.
So a zoom really only replaces two primes, and does that badly.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Isn't "lens reality" a bit of an oxymoron? Seems too emotional an issue
for "reality" and "cost" to be operable :-)

Phil

wrote:
This may be so subjective there's no sensible response but I'm
wondering how to tell (by reading/research) if a lens is
cost-effective in terms of what it can do in normal use. Most things
and certainly lenses cost a great deal more to get that top 5-10
percent performance. Most of the time we might not need it, might not
even be able to tell the difference. In particular, I'm reading about
the optics on the Nikkor AFS 28-70mm f2.8 ED IF lens. It's very
expensive for my budget. But it's apparently a superb lens. But might
there be a similar lens that cost perhaps half as much that would
perform so well that I couldn't tell the difference? I don't have a
lab to conduct technical analyses on optics; I simply want a very very
clean piece of glass. But my question isn't really about that specific
lens. It relates to all lenses. And I know that not all pros use the
highest quality lenses all the time; there are situations where the
extra cost doesn't pencil out. Any ideas?

writes:

This may be so subjective there's no sensible response but I'm
wondering how to tell (by reading/research) if a lens is
cost-effective in terms of what it can do in normal use.

This is almost an oxymoron. Particularly if you are an amateur.

Most things
and certainly lenses cost a great deal more to get that top 5-10
percent performance.

True.

Most of the time we might not need it, might not
even be able to tell the difference.

True, and I think here's your answer. I'm sorry to say that no one is
better able to answer whether _you_ can tell the difference than you. No
one else can tell whether you need it. Unless you are shooting commercially
(or trying to) and buyers are rejecting your images because of technical
problems related to the lens, having a bunch of strangers chime in and give
you advice that tells you what they think won't be of any real help.


SNIP
It's very
expensive for my budget. But it's apparently a superb lens. But might
there be a similar lens that cost perhaps half as much that would
perform so well that I couldn't tell the difference?

There's only one way to know: buy the lens and see (1) if you can tell the
difference and (2) whether the difference in quality is worth the
difference in price. Well, maybe you can rent it. If you are in a region
where a good store is within driving range, you may be able to rent the
lens to try it out.

SNIP
And I know that not all pros use the
highest quality lenses all the time; there are situations where the
extra cost doesn't pencil out. Any ideas?

I'm confident that they've made the mistake of buying the costliest and
found it didn't pencil out. It's a mistake you need to make. :- The
problem you face is that some pros doing some specific sort of work need
one particular lens that is the absolute best. Other pros in other lines of
work don't need that particular lens that's the absolute best, but I'm
confident that they know which lens in their line must be the best and that
they have it.
--
Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
Legal Assistance on the Web | spam and read later. email to philip@
http://www.PhilipStripling.com/ | my domain is read daily.