I recently reviewed a mount plug such as Tamron 28-75 f2.8... In the course of discussion with a colleague who provided me with this stuff, the idea for this article was born. I'm used to Canon's high-quality native lenses, so this cheap piece of glass and plastic caused only negative emotions. Nevertheless, he somehow shoots and you can still take pictures with him. What is the difference if you can shoot and earn money anyway? Why good the photographer will not use something like that? By a good photographer, I mean professional photographerresponsible for the result and guaranteeing quality photos to its clients.
As a rule, the difference in image quality between average (not cheap) optics and expensive ones is about 10-15%... Expensive lenses are slightly sharper and produce slightly more contrast and saturated images. It would seem, why overpay if the price / quality ratio is not in favor of the expensive model? Not so simple.
At first, it all very much depends on the field of work of the photographer. If a photographer only shoots reports with his own equipment, this is one thing. And if the same lens is used for subject и interior photography, this is completely different. The latter two areas place higher demands on image resolution and detail than wedding photography... This seemingly insignificant 10-15% is very critical for professional photography for large format printing.
Secondlyimage quality is not the only advantage of good professional lenses (not necessarily L series). Good lenses are distinguished by high-quality assembly, construction and focusing mechanism. Such parameters are extremely important in reportage photography.
The photographer must be sure that he has a reliable tool in his hands. Reliable in all respects: speed and accuracy of autofocus, convenience and reliability of zooming. Dear and seemingly professional Sigma ART lenses do not guarantee that you will capture all the important moments during wedding photography. Percentage of misses in Sigma 35 f1.4art delivers great discomfort. Even if it is madly sharp in the open, but if the faces of the newlyweds are out of focus here and there, then you will not explain to them that this is such a very cool lens, but it sometimes misses.
Autofocus should not fail, this is the golden rule. As for the zoom ring, in the above Tamrone it rotates tightly and with play. This will automatically disqualify such a lens for video filming... However, this is also inconvenient for a photo. I was told about the Sigma 17-50mm f / 2.8, which, in principle, did not stand at 35mm. When rotating the zoom ring, it skipped this focal length... You can of course live with it, but it will often cause inconvenience. In cheap models, such nuances may not appear immediately, but over time. Some may jam at one focal length and require repair. Repair optics usually costs 30 percent of its cost.
The technique must be trouble-free and and always guarantee the quality. Inexpensive models can deliver identical sharpness to quality lenses under ideal conditions. When it comes to real shooting, the nuances begin. There is a missed focus, there he is afraid of backlight, there the sharpness at the edge of the frame for some reason let down, etc. The more a person shoots, the more he sees the differences between expensive and cheap equipment. Although at first glance it may seem that an expensive model is just an overpayment for the brand. This is not the case with optics. Even if you have the same aperture and focal lengths as on an expensive model, the savings will definitely make themselves felt.
This is the same as with the cost of the photographer's services... For the same money, you can order different wedding photographers. One of them will take pictures of the wedding and give the material on disk. Another for the same money will promise photo album, retouching 50 photos, additional love story and slide show in addition. It seems that there are so many things for the same money. Only one will shoot on a 5D Mark III with a set of L optics and have 10 years of experience under his belt, and the other on a 600D with a whale and fifty fifty f50 bought last year. One will spend a week on processing, the other will apply one standard filter to all photos and voila, you're done (retouch - similarly, few people in packages retouch by hand). Naturally, the result will be completely different. The same is with optics. The manufacturing process for optics of different classes is very different, different materials are used and different amounts of labor are invested. You see the same parameters, but behind them there is a completely different production process.
Should I buy an expensive lens right away?
In general I wrote about professional photography... If you are just starting out or are photographing without commercial ambitions, then my advice is to go through all the stages. Shoot on simple lenses, average and only then proceed to dear... Then you can fully experience the difference and understand the rationale behind each upgrade. It makes no sense for a beginner to buy right away Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8L II or Canon EF 50mm f1.2L... It will be a colossal and unjustified waste of funds. There must be a need for each lens, only then it becomes justified and expedient.