How do you know when to try better lenses?

[Pentoman]

How is it that you guys decided that you would get better results by trying better lenses? I have never tried anything other than a kit 18-55 type of lens (currently on Nikon D3100), as well as a really cheap sigma 70-300 telephoto on my old Canon.
I've never been very happy with my results over the years. People say I take good photos but personally I just see all the flaws and feel they are not comparable to the more professional output you see around. I always put it down to not being a good enough photographer and so I am taking some classes this month. However, I think I at least deserve a go with something a bit more flattering so I can verify that the problem os definitely me - or not. So should I try a cheap fixed 50mm or 35mm? Or rent something really expensive and see how I get on with that? Some other option?

Today I played with apertures on my kit lens and have realised that it produces a noticeably better image at f/11 than it does at f/3.5 or f/22. This was new to me and is what got me thinking that a better lens (or at least, using the right aperture on my existing lens!) could be noticeable and may help me to be happier with my images.

[baz7175]

The quality of the glass will definitely improve the overall quality of the images, assuming the end results you don't like are due to the overall sharpness, focus of the images.

Maybe there's someone else local to you from PH with some higher glass available to test out, otherwise the renting option is probably a good option.

You mention that you're critical of your own images, that comes part in parcel with shooting images, half the pics I would normally discard I end up with people asking for...

[2slo]

Pentoman said:

How is it that you guys decided that you would get better results by trying better lenses? I have never tried anything other than a kit 18-55 type of lens (currently on Nikon D3100), as well as a really cheap sigma 70-300 telephoto on my old Canon.
I've never been very happy with my results over the years. People say I take good photos but personally I just see all the flaws and feel they are not comparable to the more professional output you see around. I always put it down to not being a good enough photographer and so I am taking some classes this month. However, I think I at least deserve a go with something a bit more flattering so I can verify that the problem os definitely me - or not. So should I try a cheap fixed 50mm or 35mm? Or rent something really expensive and see how I get on with that? Some other option?

Today I played with apertures on my kit lens and have realised that it produces a noticeably better image at f/11 than it does at f/3.5 or f/22. This was new to me and is what got me thinking that a better lens (or at least, using the right aperture on my existing lens!) could be noticeable and may help me to be happier with my images.

You get a better image at F11 because at F3.5 (assuming that's wide open) you're focussing on a very narrow depth of field, hence also any focus issues are more apparent here (i.e. if your set up isn't precisely focussed). Most lenses have a sharpest apeture. At the other end of the scale F22, most lenses tend to lose some clarity at this end, so that's to be expected too.
I'm highly critical of my own shots as well, which in some ways isn't a bad thing, it helps us improve by learning what isn't quite right.
As for trying different lenses, be careful, it can often be dangerous to your wallet. Probably worse than looking at what certain lenses can produce. Various independant review sites are available to give you an idea, e.g. http://www.digitalrev.com/article_category/hands-o... informative but a little Canon biased.

[GetCarter]

Buy yourself a good/sharp non zoom... The Nikkor 50mm 1.8 is only £110 new, and there are lots of secondhand ones out there. With a D3100 and a prime lens like this you've nobody to blame but yourself!

Seriously, you'll notice the difference, but it'll be tiny compared to the important things: composition, subject matter, angle of available light, correct exposure, holding the camera properly (still!) and post processing skills.

http://www.google.co.uk/products/catalog?oe=utf-8&...fficial&client=firefox-a&q=nikon+50mm+1.8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=11798194286674746864&sa=X&ei=T9n9TrC8N8ru8QOH7aDLCA&ved=0CHEQ8wIwAg

[2slo]

GetCarter said:

Buy yourself a good/sharp non zoom... The Nikkor 50mm 1.8 is only £110 new, and there are lots of secondhand ones out there. With a D3100 and a prime lens like this you've nobody to blame but yourself!

Seriously, you'll notice the difference, but it'll be tiny compared to the important things: composition, subject matter, angle of available light, correct exposure, holding the camera properly (still!) and post processing skills.

http://www.google.co.uk/products/catalog?oe=utf-8&...fficial&client=firefox-a&q=nikon+50mm+1.8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=11798194286674746864&sa=X&ei=T9n9TrC8N8ru8QOH7aDLCA&ved=0CHEQ8wIwAg

And as you rightly pointed out in an earlier post, shooting principles apply equally well to photography: grip, stance, breathing, sights (viewfinder), trigger (shutter button) pressure

[Starfighter]

2slo said:

Pentoman said:

How is it that you guys decided that you would get better results by trying better lenses? I have never tried anything other than a kit 18-55 type of lens (currently on Nikon D3100), as well as a really cheap sigma 70-300 telephoto on my old Canon.
I've never been very happy with my results over the years. People say I take good photos but personally I just see all the flaws and feel they are not comparable to the more professional output you see around. I always put it down to not being a good enough photographer and so I am taking some classes this month. However, I think I at least deserve a go with something a bit more flattering so I can verify that the problem os definitely me - or not. So should I try a cheap fixed 50mm or 35mm? Or rent something really expensive and see how I get on with that? Some other option?

Today I played with apertures on my kit lens and have realised that it produces a noticeably better image at f/11 than it does at f/3.5 or f/22. This was new to me and is what got me thinking that a better lens (or at least, using the right aperture on my existing lens!) could be noticeable and may help me to be happier with my images.

You get a better image at F11 because at F3.5 (assuming that's wide open) you're focussing on a very narrow depth of field, hence also any focus issues are more apparent here (i.e. if your set up isn't precisely focussed). Most lenses have a sharpest apeture. At the other end of the scale F22, most lenses tend to lose some clarity at this end, so that's to be expected too.
I'm highly critical of my own shots as well, which in some ways isn't a bad thing, it helps us improve by learning what isn't quite right.
As for trying different lenses, be careful, it can often be dangerous to your wallet. Probably worse than looking at what certain lenses can produce. Various independant review sites are available to give you an idea, e.g. http://www.digitalrev.com/article_category/hands-o... informative but a little Canon biased.

I'd say it has more to do with the "sweet spot" that DoF. DoF will increase as you close the lens down but this will just increase the distane that you perceive as sharp, remembering that the sharp range will be 1/3 in front of the focus point and 2/3 behind. The focus point will be in focus no matter what f-stop is used.

A typical cheaper zoom lens has the best compramise of ability at mid zoom and 2 stops closed. The 18-55 F4-5.6 will give this at around 35mm and F11 - try to use these when possible. You will find that the overall image is sharper and that you have some seriously slow shutter speeds to worry about.

Better quality lenses tend to be faster and primes are generally faster that equivalent zooms covering the same focal lengths. Primes are also optimised for a single focal length so will be better overall. There are a few zooms available that are prime sharp but they are very rare.

The point at which you start spending money is when you start to notice the quality problems in the image that are not operator induced. Soft fluffy edges, colour casts, vignetting, chromatic aberations. I'd start with recomending a 50mm 1.4/1.8 prime or posibly a 35mm on a crop body as this gives an angle of view equivalent to eye-sight. Second hand costs from sub £100 to maybe £300 new depending on spec.

In all honesty, if you are just getting to playing with f-stops then keep going with what you have until you can fully drive the camera. The lens may get the image to the camera but you need to know how to capture it correctly.

[Simpo Two]

I buy new lenses (or anything else for that matter) when what I have doesn't allow me to do what I want/need to do.

There could be 100 reasons why you aren't happy with your photos, many nothing to with lenses. If you posted a few, and said what it is you're unhappy about each, it might help us spend your money as wisely as possible

[2slo]

Starfighter said:

I'd say it has more to do with the "sweet spot" that DoF. DoF will increase as you close the lens down but this will just increase the distane that you perceive as sharp, remembering that the sharp range will be 1/3 in front of the focus point and 2/3 behind. The focus point will be in focus no matter what f-stop is used.

More or less what I meant but fair enough,that explains it better

[Stuart Truman]

What Simpotwo said! Go on your course and learn as much as you can about the functions of your camera and get familiar with them and work out what type of photography you really want to focus on (unintended pun) before you start spending money on glass. Lenses can be an expensive mistake if you get it wrong. Good luck with the course and have fun

[LongQ]

It's very easy to be ultra critical of your own shots and yet have others sing the praises of what you consider a poor result or be unimpressed by something you think is pretty good.

People can be very 'kind' sometimes - or maybe just very uncritical. And then there are others (or other occasions) to whom the general message of the image means more than the technical success.

And of course a few people just have no clue at all ....

As for a lens decision ... as Simpo says - when what you have does not do what you want or fails to to it well enough often enough and easily enough.

If you have a specific need and know of a lens that is intended to satisfy that need the choice can often be made for you. Sadly many of the clearest examples require some significant spending. Think large telephoto primes or some of the higher spec 'standard' tele zooms. Once in a while something just leaps out at you as a 'must have' for the sort of stuff you take or that you want to take but struggle to get satisfactory results.

[K12beano]

Simpo Two said:

.....it might help us bankrupt you as lavishly as possible

EFA