Lens and Camera Comparison

Photography 2 Responses »
Nov 132008

Earlier this year I set up my studio strobes in our finished basement and experimented with light and lenses.  While the light-control portion of my experimentation will be the subject of another post, I wanted to take some time to talk about lenses.

I have the following lenses in my collection:

Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 DX G ED one of two lenses that came with my D50 kit.

Nikon AF Micro Nikkor 60mm f/2.8 D, my fastest and sharpest lens.

Nikon 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 DX G ED, the other kit lens that came with the D50.

SIGMA 50-500mm f/4-6.3 D APO EX HSM, my long zoom.

None of these lenses have Vibration Reduction (VR) or IS (Image Stabilization) in Canon-speak.  The two kit lenses are lightweight plastic units that cost around $100 each.  The SIGMA is an $1100 lens, though I bought it used for much less than that, and the Macro lens runs around $450.  It’s a very nice piece of glass.

When I was experimenting in the basement “studio” I had borrowed a truly excellent lens from my good friend Peter.  He was gracious enough to loan me his Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR!  After shooting it a while I got wondering just how much you actually get when you spend $1700 instead of $1100 or even (gasp!) $100.

To experiment with portraits in a studio you have to have a model.  I can’t get my dog to sit, let alone a real person, so I shoot a doll.  (insert a pause to make room for your laughter) OK, do we have control of ourselves again?  Great. Now where was I?  Oh yeah. Dolls actually make great models because they have the correct coloring, similar texture, and they never blink!

So the idea crosses my mind that I have three lenses that can shoot at a 200mm focal length, and I have two camera bodies.  The D50, and my, then shiny new, D300.  So I decided to mount each lens and make the same shot with each.  Then I also got the bright idea to try shooting the same thing through the best lens with the 6.5 megapixel D50 and again with the 12.3 megapixel D300.  The results were interesting.

First up is the SIGMA.  Pay very close attention to the right eye; especially the tips of the lashes and the iris.

The second image is out of my “kit” lens, the 55-200mm.

And the last image is from the amazing 70-200mm f/2.8.

What surprised me about this very informal, yet fairly real-world, test was that the $100 kit lens looks sharper and seems to let in more light than the $1100 SIGMA!  I expected the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 to perform, and it didn’t disappoint, but that little kit lens is no slouch either.  When you compare the price, you have to ask yourself if it’s worth $1600 to get that little extra detail, clarity, and sharpness.

Unfortunately, my answer turns out to be, “Yes.”  I think I would spend the money for that awesome lens because I could add a 1.7x teleconverter and it can be a very widely usable lens with excellent sharpness.  I love sharpness.

After I had shot these image, I thought it would be interesting to mount both the D50 and the D300 on the same lens (with larger lenses you sort of mount the camera to the lens rather than mounting the lens to the camera) and see what the outcome would be.

In this case, I used the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 lens on the D300 to make the image on the left, and mounted on the D50 to make the image on the right.  My software reports the size of the NEFs (raw files) to be 10.4 and 5.1 MB respectively.

Notice that the D300 makes the lens look a lot better than the D50 does.  This isn’t surprising or unexpected, but I point it out because if you plan to upgrade to a pro, or “pro-sumer” level camera, it’s a good idea to realize that the actual quality of your lenses will be more apparent than they are on the consumer-level equipment.

To view these images larger, click on them or go over to the Gallery and look in the Tutorial album.

Older Entries
© 2006-2010 LarryEiss.com Suffusion WordPress theme by Sayontan Sinha