Lens quality

topic posted Fri, February 6, 2009 - 7:53 AM by  FeralKid
Share/Save/Bookmark
Advertisement
2 years ago I purchased a Nikon D80. I went from a point and shoot to the D80 in search of a sharper image. I've quested for a razor sharp image but it continues to elude me. I've tried using the lowest ISO, good lighting, and a tripod, a remote shutter release. The dazzling clarity that I'm looking for continues to elude me.

I have begun reading a book on digital photography which says that it's all in the lens. Is this the case? Should I invest in a better camera or a better lens? I'm currently shooting with the Nikon DX Nikkor 18-55.
posted by:
FeralKid
New Hampshire
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • Re: Lens quality

    Fri, February 6, 2009 - 8:17 AM
    Yes you are quite right, lenses are what make great images. Look at the ranges of lenses from canon for instance, they run from $150 all the way up to $thousands for the usm models. The camera is mainly supplying you with various functions, the lenses are providing the magic.
  • Re: Lens quality

    Fri, February 6, 2009 - 9:23 AM
    Absolutely. The lenses provided with the consumer 'kits' are the bottom line lenses. the D80 can take 25+ years of Nikon glass. In fact, my favorite lens (on my D3) is a 24mm Nikkor, which was used by a Vietnam war correspondent in the early 70's. Sure it's manual focus, but its smooth as butter and has a beautiful 'soul' to it.

    If you stick to prime lenses, you will notice superior images. Most zooms are not worth it, until you crack the $500 barrier. And a lens with a max aperture of 5.6 is a hindrance. But also research the lens you are thinking about. Like- what do you shoot? HOW do you shoot? kenrockwell.com has alot of good info~ love him or hate him~ he has put together some decent references.

    The 18-55 is not that bad, but these were mass-produced in China~ the QC is much different than the pro lenses. Try some old glass- the market is flush with good used lenses for 2-3 generations of Nikons.
  • Re: Lens quality

    Fri, February 6, 2009 - 10:19 AM
    Also consider that every lens has a "sweet spot" in its aperture range, where images are sharpest. Just look at the differences between f1.4 and f4 in the images at the bottom of the lens reviewed here: www.dpreview.com/lensrevie.../page4.asp
    • Re: Lens quality

      Fri, February 6, 2009 - 6:50 PM
      I am shooting in RAW.

      Brad, thanks for the link to DP Review. I'll have to sit and study that chart to fully digest it. At this point in time that kind of info is over my head, but I get the gist of what's being said. 2 stops above is usually best. That's great info. Thank you all for this help. It's the intel I was looking for.

      I'm willing to pay for the glass, but I didn't want to make that investment before I knew it was the glass and not the camera. I didn't want to invest in better lenses if I decided I was going to jump to Canon.
  • Re: Lens quality

    Fri, February 6, 2009 - 12:04 PM

    First of all, are you shooting in RAW?

    Secondly, I'd say that all digital files are in need of a bit of sharpening in post processing. Are you doing that?

    And finally, lenses do make a big difference. I'd recommend picking up a 50mm 1.8. They're only $109 on amazon with free shipping. See how that works out for you. I love my 50mm.
    • Re: Lens quality

      Fri, February 6, 2009 - 12:07 PM

      Oh.... and also what Brad said.

      Lens sharpness does vary according to the zoom. I've heard that _generally_ lenses are sharpest down about two stops from their widest setting.
  • Re: Lens quality

    Fri, February 6, 2009 - 1:35 PM
    Another think we tend to forget is that what we see in our monitor isn't always what we see when we display. I Used to zoom all the way in til I was seeing individual pixels, and want to sharpen that. But My pic size at that point was something like 48 inches short side.

    I tried an experiment,, and was happier with pictures after printing them. They appeared sharper on paper than on monitor. The sharpest shot will look bad if you enlarge it enough, so keep an eye on what size the images displays at.

    But everyone else here has a point as well. The more you pay for glass, the better your shots will come out. AN upside of that is except for some of the IS or VR stabilizing lens, a lens life is much longer lifed than a camera body. Glass is always a good investment. I'm always surprised by shooters who will spend $4000 on a body, but buy the cheapest glass they can, spending only 3 or $400. A body is just a box to keep light off the sensor. Remember that your light, the image, will pass through the glass before it ever gets to the sensor. The best algorithms in the world won't help a foggy distorted image .
  • Re: Lens quality

    Mon, February 9, 2009 - 2:22 PM

    > ... I purchased a Nikon D80 ... from a point and shoot ... in search of a sharper image.
    > ... lowest ISO, good lighting, and a tripod, a remote shutter release.
    >
    > I have begun reading a book on digital photography which says that it's all in the lens.
    > Is this the case? Should I invest in a better camera or a better lens? I'm currently
    > shooting with the Nikon DX Nikkor 18-55.

    It's not (necessarily) *ALL* in the lens; there are problems with bodies that can contribute. The D80 is a great camera; every maker has a few lemons, so it's not impossible that it's the camera... but it's not where the first suspicion should lie! The "kit" lens that comes with most dSLR's (in particular, the 18-55's with many dSLR's) is mediocre at best; the odds are overwhelming that it's your lens.

    Since you're a Nikon shooter, you may be able to "try" better glass. A local camera-store (a GOOD one!) may be able to help you here. Also, Nikon is widely available for RENT. Look into your local phone-book, or google "lens rental"+nikon+ your area-code or city-name.

    What lens(es) to look for?

    #1. Primes (non-zoom, fixed focal length); most especially macro's (sharpness is what they're ALL about).
    #2. Fixed-aperture f/2.8 zooms with moderate zoom ranges, e.g. 70-200, 24-70. These are classic pro favorites.


    - Steve
    • Re: Lens quality

      Mon, February 9, 2009 - 4:35 PM
      Thanks Steve. I'm guessing in my case it probably is the lens at this point and I'll see what I can do to remedy that. Thanks for the advice.

      I live in the boonies and unfortunately there's not many camera stores around these parts. I have to drive 40 miles just to get to a Ritz. It makes things tough at times. The internet sunk the good and reliable store that was much closer.
      • Re: Lens quality

        Mon, February 9, 2009 - 11:16 PM
        Feral- if you can afford it, get a 50 mm as your first lens. You can usually find them around $100, and they will be about as fast a lens as you can find. It will also be one of your sharpest. AS for the distance, try online. KEH.com is a very reputable dealer, and sell new as well as used, and their rating system is very conservative. I've never been disappointed by them, they usually rate stuff worse than I do, and the return policy is pretty much perfect. I've heard of people returning stuff they "just didn't like" and getting their money back.

        A quick check at KEH shows the listed price for a 50 mm F1.8 as $134 new. I see those lens about once a month here in Denver, from $50 up to 100 or so, so they are definitely not a budget breaker, even new.

Recent topics in "PHOTOGRAPHY"

Topic Author Replies Last Post
Online Gallery Jon 83 Yesterday, 9:53 AM
Happy New Year! Jon 0 January 1, 2010
Photo-Adventures with the Best! Darkling 0 December 20, 2009
Making a Living Lazee River 18 December 20, 2009