Hunting Washington Forum

Community => Photo & Video => Topic started by: popeshawnpaul on October 21, 2008, 09:18:00 AM

Title: Expensive camera, cheap lens or expensive lens, cheap camera?
Post by: popeshawnpaul on October 21, 2008, 09:18:00 AM: I know a lot of you have been asking me about this lately. Everyone wants to go dump a bunch of money on a nice camera and then use the cheap kit lens with it. Don't do it! I highly suggest getting a used or cheaper camera body and a nice lens. Now, in the Canon line the nicer lenses are designated with an L. There are a few ef-s lenses that are L type quality as well including the 17-55 f2.8 IS, the 10-22, and the 60mm macro. I posted these pictures a while ago to show people the difference between a quality lens and an ordinary lens. Both shots were taken with the same settings. The cheap lens picture is actually not a kit lens, but a respectable 28-105 f3.5-f4.5 lens. The quality lens is a 17-40 f4 L. The cheap lens costs about $200 and the L lens can be had for about $500. A cheap kit lens like the 18-55mm would be even more dramatic.

Also, I would stay away from any brand not named Nikon or Canon. N and C both have the best selections of lenses that are affordable and quality. Some of the other brands are ok, but there is a reason every pro uses either Nikon or Canon. By the way, Nikon is kicking butt lately...

These are zoomed in crops of the same image taken with each lens. Can you imagine if that was the detail of a mountain or the hair on your deer?

Cheap lens:
(https://hunting-washington.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10250/28-105.jpg)

L series lens:
(https://hunting-washington.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10250/17-40.jpg)
Title: Re: Expensive camera, cheap lens or expensive lens, cheap camera?
Post by: archery288 on October 21, 2008, 09:35:46 AM: Now your makin sense to me on the lenses!!!! :chuckle:
Title: Re: Expensive camera, cheap lens or expensive lens, cheap camera?
Post by: huntnphool on October 21, 2008, 09:41:33 AM: Awsome post Pope, makes perfect sense.
Title: Re: Expensive camera, cheap lens or expensive lens, cheap camera?
Post by: popeshawnpaul on October 21, 2008, 09:52:57 AM: The softness in a lens isn't always bad. For people photography, faces can look better with a bit softer lens. You can get the same effect post process though so most use a sharp lens and then fix it later. Does anyone remember the soft focus lenses? Canon had one. It was soft on purpose!

However, animals and landscapes look best razor sharp. The test I always use is to look at the hairs. If you can see individual hairs or feathers then you are ok...
Title: Re: Expensive camera, cheap lens or expensive lens, cheap camera?
Post by: cohoho on October 21, 2008, 03:48:45 PM: Ok, that makes sense even to me..........
Title: Re: Expensive camera, cheap lens or expensive lens, cheap camera?
Post by: Hornseeker on October 22, 2008, 09:35:59 PM: That is VERY dramatically different... WOW! Out of curiousity... I wonder what Bone's FZ18 would do with that pic?? Worse that the cheap lens or better????

E
Title: Re: Expensive camera, cheap lens or expensive lens, cheap camera?
Post by: popeshawnpaul on October 22, 2008, 10:27:08 PM: The fz18 would do worse. That is a $250 lens... Any point and shoot would get slaughtered in this test. However, you are also dealing with a sensor on the point and shoot that is much smaller than that on a dslr...

By the way, the results are so dramatic because I've cropped the photo way down. If you just looked at them full size it's harder to tell the difference. But that is the point. If you want that fine detail, that's what a nice lens can do for you. Don't mistake money for a fine lens as well. There are many lenses including a lot of zooms that cost money but aren't terribly sharp. Every prime L series lens is sharp though that I can think of. A few of the newer zooms are also crazy sharp.
Title: Re: Expensive camera, cheap lens or expensive lens, cheap camera?
Post by: bow4elk on October 22, 2008, 11:16:36 PM: Can you send me some $20's so I can do my own tests? ;)
Title: Re: Expensive camera, cheap lens or expensive lens, cheap camera?
Post by: Hornseeker on October 23, 2008, 06:10:11 AM: Yeah...I am aware that was a major crop...but like you said...the attention is in the details.... you cant have a clear, crisp pic with that other lens (comparatively)... now I understand "softness" much better... cool.

Now...Doug sent me a couple pics of flowers and squirrels that were from the Panny that were amazingly "crisp" I thought... Should zoom in on them and check. And Shawn...I am NOT "really" trying to compare the Panny to the DSLR with a $500+ lens... I know thats dreamland. Just looking at it from a couple different perspectives. It'll be a while yet before I get the big dawg gear! I have an Alaskan hunt and an African hunt I have to get out of the way before I can justify spending several thousand dollars on a camera! But...oh it would be nice to have that cam when I go to those places! :0)
Title: Re: Expensive camera, cheap lens or expensive lens, cheap camera?
Post by: huntnphool on October 23, 2008, 09:55:06 AM: Quote from: Hornseeker on October 23, 2008, 06:10:11 AM
I have an Alaskan hunt and an African hunt I have to get out of the way before I can justify spending several thousand dollars on a camera! But...oh it would be nice to have that cam when I go to those places! :0)

Wouldn't you want the gear before you went on the trip? :dunno: You can get good quality gear that has been used but still in good condition on Ebay or the like and save loads of money. Gear that was top of the line 2-3 years ago is relatively cheap now that its been replaced, most of us don't need 15 MP cameras for our shots and can get away just fine with 8 MP :twocents:
Title: Re: Expensive camera, cheap lens or expensive lens, cheap camera?
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on October 23, 2008, 10:07:20 AM: Quote from: popeshawnpaul on October 21, 2008, 09:52:57 AM
The softness in a lens isn't always bad. For people photography, faces can look better with a bit softer lens.
Works the same with eye lenses too - beer goggles! The alcohol soft focuses the eyeballs, making her look better than when you are sober. If you can't distinguish her individual hairs, be very careful ...
Title: Re: Expensive camera, cheap lens or expensive lens, cheap camera?
Post by: popeshawnpaul on October 23, 2008, 07:56:24 PM: Ernie, Huntnphool is right. You could get a used 20D these days for about $300 and a nice L series lens for about $500. That combo would take pro quality photos. No need to spend several thousand. Some of the photos I post are taken with a 40D or a film camera that costs about $700 or less right now and a Tokina 400mm f5.6 lens that costs about $150. I've since sold the lens but you get the point. The nice lenses are "nice", but not necessary.

I swear, some of you guys will open up your mind and try photo hunting instead of gun hunting some day and will be in the same boat as me. Until then, I'll keep taking photos and telling you guys what you are missing... (by the way, I love gun hunting and always keep the freezer full)
Title: Re: Expensive camera, cheap lens or expensive lens, cheap camera?
Post by: Hornseeker on October 23, 2008, 08:45:37 PM: Good stuff for sure...and $800-$1200 investment might be ok...but to drop several thousand is out of the question. And Phool (and I dont use that abbreviation derogitorily...only as an abreviation...just in case you ever thought differently! ;0)) I probably wouldn't even take the big expensive camera on those trips...at least not the AK trip... I'd do just fine with my little canon S3IS....

Hunting with a camera is awesome...

E
Title: Re: Expensive camera, cheap lens or expensive lens, cheap camera?
Post by: Ironhead on October 24, 2008, 05:04:49 AM: Great post Pope, visuals always put things in perspective. thanks
Title: Re: Expensive camera, cheap lens or expensive lens, cheap camera?
Post by: huntnphool on October 24, 2008, 08:34:04 AM: Quote from: Hornseeker on October 23, 2008, 08:45:37 PM
And Phool (and I dont use that abbreviation derogitorily...only as an abreviation...just in case you ever thought differently! ;0)) I probably wouldn't even take the big expensive camera on those trips

No worries Hornseeker, I have thick skin and an open mind ;)

I would reconsider not taking your nicer camera on the trip, better to have it and not use it than get all the way up there and wish you had it :twocents:
Title: Re: Expensive camera, cheap lens or expensive lens, cheap camera?
Post by: popeshawnpaul on October 24, 2008, 08:50:43 AM: Also...L series lenses are water proof/resistant...
Title: Re: Expensive camera, cheap lens or expensive lens, cheap camera?
Post by: boneaddict on October 24, 2008, 01:58:51 PM: One thing I like about that cheap Panny is that it has Leica glass even if its cheap. I agree about the sensor. The other thing is that I could at least carry it in my pack while hunting. I have been debating this on my up and coming deer hunt. I don't really want to be carrying that big lens, but would love to have it for the deer I pass on.
Title: Re: Expensive camera, cheap lens or expensive lens, cheap camera?
Post by: M_ray on October 24, 2008, 02:17:13 PM: Quote
I know a lot of you have been asking me about this lately.

Thanks Shawn this is exactly what I needed! I am one of the retards Shawn is talking about!

Quote
Works the same with eye lenses too - beer goggles! The alcohol soft focuses the eyeballs, making her look better than when you are sober. If you can't distinguish her individual hairs, be very careful ...

Personally I like mine clean shaven If you know what i mean! ;) (https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.langkawi.dk%2Fsmileys%2Fa1091.gif&hash=3bef3b9d7817e1edee45a06a37da62c7c36ab9cd)