Curious on differences in quality of lens

[desertstrike]

anybody tried taking 2 identical pics using similar lens e.g.

nikkor kit lens at 18mm, f8 (18-105mm)

vs

nikkor higher grade f2.8 lens at 18mm, f8 (17-55mm)

vs

tamron f2.8 lens at 18mm, f8 (17-50)

any noticeable different in IQ, sharpness, saturation.... etc etc?

 

[Octarine]

Unlikely that people will own all 3 lenses. Overlapping range, not much sense. There are plenty of lens reviews and comparisons and those guys do a detailed analysis of the results. Whether the differences matter to you is your call.
Saturation is not depending on the lens but can easily be adjusted in post-processing.

 

[whattokingu]

definitely a difference in sharpness. But the difference might not be significant. Presented 3 pictures taken by the 3 cameras, I doubt most people can tell them apart, which picture is taken using which lens.

 

[desertstrike]

Unlikely that people will own all 3 lenses. Overlapping range, not much sense. There are plenty of lens reviews and comparisons and those guys do a detailed analysis of the results. Whether the differences matter to you is your call.
Saturation is not depending on the lens but can easily be adjusted in post-processing.

true also...

 

[desertstrike]

definitely a difference in sharpness. But the difference might not be significant. Presented 3 pictures taken by the 3 cameras, I doubt most people can tell them apart, which picture is taken using which lens.

hmm... if can't tell the difference... then the most value for money would be to go for 3rd party fast lens...

 

[shelomoh]

At f/11, I think you can get sharp pictures from almost all lens.

What are the likely differences?
Maybe flare, maybe softness at the edges, maybe vignetting, maybe distortion.

At f/11, there isn't much bokeh.

But why do people still get fast lens? f/2.8, 2.0, 1.8, 1.4?
For low light conditions, for their bokeh.

Why do people not get 3rd party lens?
Because quality control of 3rd party manufacturer might be a suspect and because the electronics of 3rd party manufacturer might not interface very well with the camera body.

For others, on why they don't get 3rd party cheaper lens, they are just "poisoned" by a lot of other people, website like this.

 

[redname]

maybe u might wanna test on the max zoom? (eg tamron at 50mm)

there might be a diff in sharpness at max zoom for some lenses

 

[desertstrike]

At f/11, I think you can get sharp pictures from almost all lens.

What are the likely differences?
Maybe flare, maybe softness at the edges, maybe vignetting, maybe distortion.

At f/11, there isn't much bokeh.

But why do people still get fast lens? f/2.8, 2.0, 1.8, 1.4?
For low light conditions, for their bokeh.

Why do people not get 3rd party lens?
Because quality control of 3rd party manufacturer might be a suspect and because the electronics of 3rd party manufacturer might not interface very well with the camera body.

For others, on why they don't get 3rd party cheaper lens, they are just "poisoned" by a lot of other people, website like this.

hmm... other than the blue words, the rest is like out of topic?

 

[desertstrike]

maybe u might wanna test on the max zoom? (eg tamron at 50mm)

there might be a diff in sharpness at max zoom for some lenses

hmm... i can't really see a difference...

or maybe is it just me...

 

[horizon_grazer]

At f8 the sharpness should be no different,
although the contrast should be better w/ nikkor higher grade f2.8 lens , 17-55mm

However, dumping down x4 cash for that slight contrast improvement for the 17-55 f2.8 really depends on ur wallet :sticktong

 

[pinholecam]

At f8 many lenses will turn out to be quite similar in sharpness.
The real difference and where the cost goes to is where the faster lenses are faster (eg. f2.8) with the better ones being sharp even wide open.

 

[desertstrike]

At f8 the sharpness should be no different,
although the contrast should be better w/ nikkor higher grade f2.8 lens , 17-55mm

However, dumping down x4 cash for that slight contrast improvement for the 17-55 f2.8 really depends on ur wallet :sticktong

hmm... make sense

 

[desertstrike]

At f8 many lenses will turn out to be quite similar in sharpness.
The real difference and where the cost goes to is where the faster lenses are faster (eg. f2.8) with the better ones being sharp even wide open.

hmm... but the cost is really... :bigeyes:

 

[desertstrike]

so, would your go for a kit lense e.g. 18-105 nikkor or a tamron 17-50 f2.8 which cost abt the same, maybe 100 more for the tamron?

any noticeable quality difference?

 

[Dream Merchant]

...
Why do people not get 3rd party lens?
Because quality control of 3rd party manufacturer might be a suspect and because the electronics of 3rd party manufacturer might not interface very well with the camera body.

For others, on why they don't get 3rd party cheaper lens, they are just "poisoned" by a lot of other people, website like this.

Actually, that's a generalization and probably quite untrue.

While there are lower/consumer grade manufacturers and/or lense series, I can also think of a whole lot of 3rd party lenses that are built better, feature better optical designs and are generally superior to premium Nikon or Canon lenses.

 

[shaoken]

I may not be a Nikon user but if given a choice, I think the Nikon 17-55mm F2.8 lens would be my choice.
At f8, should see a difference.

 

[torak]

At f8 many lenses will turn out to be quite similar in sharpness.

actually i wouldnt say lens at f8 will be nearly equally sharp.

I owned a Carl Zeiss 16-80 for my Sony Alpha, as well as 2 Tamron 17-50. Reason being, I bought the tamron first hand, then bought the CZ lens 2nd hand at a later date after seeing one on sale in BnS. Tested both of them at different fstops and focal length. Found that the CZ beating the tamron in sharpness, and the difference is noticeable even in f8, thus I sold away the tamron.

Then I bought a 2nd hand copy of the tamron as it was cheap (to resell), tested against the CZ again, and results are the same. The 2nd tamron is also sold.

however the tamron is still very sharp though (just not in the league of the CZ), and at f2.8 its very useful in low light.

 

[chua beng]

At F8, even cheap lenses can be quite sharp. Reason we pay extremely high for some lenses is for the performance when we use it wide open at it's biggest aperture. Most lenses when stopped down are sharp in today's technology and scrutinizing their differences is a waste of time. First, we pay higher price for BIG apertures. Second, we pay even more for those lenses that perform corner-to-corner sharpness when wide open at it's biggest aperture, and with the least chromatic aberration and what nought for high end DSLRs. Cameras like the 5Dmk2 and D3X are even more picky on lenses as their sensors can easily show off all the flaws of the lenses much more than the crop sensors due to their large sensors and high megapixel count. If you are not planning to shoot wide open much, any of the above is fine, all are of minimal difference.

 

[pinholecam]

actually i wouldnt say lens at f8 will be nearly equally sharp.

I owned a Carl Zeiss 16-80 for my Sony Alpha, as well as 2 Tamron 17-50. Reason being, I bought the tamron first hand, then bought the CZ lens 2nd hand at a later date after seeing one on sale in BnS. Tested both of them at different fstops and focal length. Found that the CZ beating the tamron in sharpness, and the difference is noticeable even in f8, thus I sold away the tamron.

Then I bought a 2nd hand copy of the tamron as it was cheap (to resell), tested against the CZ again, and results are the same. The 2nd tamron is also sold.

however the tamron is still very sharp though (just not in the league of the CZ), and at f2.8 its very useful in low light.

I did say "many lenses will turn out quite similar"
The Tamron seems to have a sweet spot at f4
http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/386-tamron_1750_28_sony?start=1

(CZ 16-80 results here)
http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-...5-dt--sony-alpha--review--test-report?start=1

Especially viewed in normal viewing sizes and not pixel peeping differences will usually be negligible.