Prove it!

Somebody prove this to me!

I was peepin' at some equipment today. Some very pricey equipment. Seriously - a $375 ball head to screw onto my fifty-dollar tripod? It's a freakin' ball head for cryin' out loud! Later on in the offerings I'm looking at a satchel bag that some clown stuffed a camera into for $260 - huh? Must come with the camera for that price. Then I take a gander at lens prices - wow - they actually have a lens for my camera that costs more than my truck!

Did I somehow propel myself out of the comfortable, middle-class, work-for-a-living and try-to-take-a-vacation-once-a-year, two-cat household lifestyle into the ------- upper crust - I don't fart - I phaart, drive a car manufactured in a European country, actually own a tuxedo instead of rent one, never drink beer from a can let alone heard of screw top wines and can trace my roots back to some foreign country's royal lineage, lifestyle?

When did that happen? All that just by buying a DSLR! Wow.

Now my point.

I want to see proof! I want to see proof that there is a bona fide quality difference in an image taken with a couple hundred dollar lens versus the same image captured with a multiple-thousands-of-dollars-price-tag lens. A legitimate side-by-side comparison. A comparison that my middle class, McDonald's-dollar-menu-eye, can honestly discern. Something that'll make me say, "Honey, skip this month's mortgage and start collecting pop cans, I need me a new lens!"

Don't get me wrong kids. I understand that there are times when quality is directly proportional to price. Mayonnaise for example. NEVER buy cheap mayonnaise. But back when I shot skeet, (that's a shotgun sport that blasts harmless bright orange clay pigeons from the air for those of you that fall in the latter category outlined in the above paragraph), we'd have these jokers show up with their eight-thousand-dollar skeet guns and couldn't hit the broadside of a barn with them either. That gave me a fair amount of personal satisfaction by the way as I would out-shoot them with my "old-reliable".

So my fellow shutterbugs, can someone really show me the difference? I already know that you pay a little more for "faster" lenses as they are a bit more involved in the manufacturng process. I can accept that. But thousands more? Gotta see it folks.

For that matter, I can't figger' out how that there $260 satchel bag will hold my camera equipment any better than the $50 bag mama got me for Christmas. Maybe that'll be my next rant.

Looking forward to responses and proof!

[RLucas]

Subscribed.....................

[nickbedford]

The difference between a $100 lens and a $1,000 lens?

Canon EF-S 18-55mm F/3.5-5.6 (kit lens)


Canon EF-S 17-55mm F/2.8 (expensive lens)


Notice the colour fringing, lack of sharpness and slight distortion in the top image?

[troutwhisperer]

I don't mean to be sarcastic at all but are those really comparable. Would you get the same results if you used an expensive vs inexpensive f3.5-5.6 lens. Just guessing that is what the OP meant as he acknowledges the price difference in a faster lens. Just wondering, because I don't know the answer.

[Nik0nator]

You have to realize that this equipment is made for professionals who can make back the 8,000 price tag with one job. Just try to picture a pro sports photographer trying to get AMAZING shots at a road rally with a kit lens, not likely. I can honestly say that if you look you can see the difference in equipment. I have seen my $150 run of the mill tripod "creep", move slightly up or down after I've tightened all the adjustment. This is really frustrating when you have to keep adjusting, much less for a pro whose subject will be long gone by the time the thing is finally adjusted.

[zona5101]

I think it's all about what you are into when it comes to the measure of "how much is enough" to justify the spend. Take other optics for example - are all rifle scopes the same? All spotting scopes or binoculars? No. Can you discern between a $100 Bushnell scope, a $350 Leupold and a $2000 Swarovski? Are the turrets solid and repeatable? does it return to zero precisely? If your shooting at the broad side of a barn any of the optics would do the job and it would be silly to spend $2000 to do that job but when you're wanting to do precision long range work there is no substitute for good glass.

[sk66]

Often times it's the difference in capabilities at the ends that makes an expensive lens "better". A wide aperture lens can take pictures when there is not enough light for a smaller aperture version. IS can allow you to hand hold for a shot at a SS lower than possible without IS....

But it's like most things..decreasing improvement for exponential increase in price.
9 times out of ten an inexpensive lens operated at it's optimal settings/environment will take just as good an image....

As for bags, it's a specialty thing....a basic bag will hold basic gear....it's when you add in specific requirements and specific functionality for yur specific gear and your specific style of shooting that it gets expensive....When you get to having a specific "style" of working then some things just become a PITA or even hindering. In that case the expensive bag may be worth it, if you happen to find "the one". IME it just becomes "really expensive" as I find a setup that works for one set of conditions/style of shooting but not others.

Ball Heads...Nope, don't bother putting a $300 head on a $50 tripod. I have a $1k tripod with a $400 head (retail) on it because that was about the only thing that would hold the rig and do what I needed.

If you don't have the need, don't spend the money, but with some things (tripods and lenses) if you stick with photography you will eventually "need" the differences so starting out buying what you will end up with is a net savings.

I buy almost everything used..especially bags. They are so "specific" that photographers buy them like women buy shoes.

[BexJarratt]

"In addition to being sharp, CA (Chromatic Aberrations) are very well controlled in the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens. The following example is meant to show the difference in CA between an economy lens (18-55 IS again) and a top quality zoom. This one was shot at 17mm/18mm and at f/5.6 for both lenses. This 100% crop sample is located about 25% into the frame from the top left corner. Mousing over the image will show the 17-55mm IS advantage."

I found the images refered to hereCanon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens Review with the above quote which explains the matter clearer. Also they have the images laid over each other and the difference is even more noticeable.

Interesting, but if I'm shooting for fun, I want to be able to afford to have the fun I'm shooting. If you can afford it and it's to earn your bread and butter then you pays your money...

[jml79]

And in marches the sanity squad.

I want to see a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 ($434.00) compared to a Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 ($1359.95). I think this is almost apples to apples except that the Tamron is usable on a full frame body and the Nikon lens is only usable on a crop sensor.

Is there any way that the image difference is worth $925.95

[ravncat]

I can try, but I have limitations to how well I can create such a comparison.

I was lucky to receive a multiple thousand dollar lens, but I have no cheaper equvalent lenses, they simply don't exist. Making the same image difficult. So before I bother I want your blessing on the following

1 same field of view as best I can, on two different cameras w different lenses.
Or
2 different field of view, same scene same camera
Or
3 cheap and median quality lenses with same view and same camera
Or not to bother

I can do in jpg or raw

I think there are strong important differences and can argue for them, and while i can assure you i see meaningful differences in my upgrades and high level gear over my entry stuff, i suspect you need more, the proof is in the pudding I guess. In general the top gear has fewer flaws and offers different options like a fast wide vs slow, or more RnD into lens design. In the case of ball heads were looking at grip vs mobility and the quality of those. Cheaper equipment will get the job done, but when you look at quality differences it's easier with better gear to get higher quality. I think the 80/20 rule is in effect, 80% quality at 20% cost. At the end of the day my 28-80 is not as good as my 18-70 is not as good as my 24 1.4, if you choose a condition above I'll do my best to show you