$150 lens vs $15,000 lens: Can you tell the difference?

It kind of makes the presumption that your output will be 1080, and even then there should be a discernible difference between a Rokinon Cinema lens and anything that costs several thousand dollars. It also presumes that you will be shooting at an aperture that gives maximum detail. I didn't watch the second half where they were going to use them wide open and throw flares into them.

But when you start going on about buying old lenses to get their imperfections to create a style, then you can really throw ultimate resolution out the window. But it still holds true that a fine lens is built to be a fine lens from the beginning, doesn't matter if it was built 30+ years ago or being built right now. Maybe Cooke and Zeiss and Canon should stop trying to build the optically perfect lens and go back to 1950 and build lenses that flare and are soft wide open?

As far as shooting test charts goes... I tend to think that knowing the weak points should let a skilled operator work around those weak points or to exploit them for creative vision.
 
I can't find it, but I remember reading an article / blog about a photographer that put a Canon 24-70 against a 24-105, and he thought side by side they were nearly identical, but for whatever reason he always liked the pictures he took with the 24-70 more.

He could take good photos with the 24-105, but all of the photos he felt had more magic were always taken with the 24-70. I think that was the most honest lens comparisons I have ever seen and really goes to what is true about gear: There is no such thing as the best gear, there is just the best gear for you.
 
zijital said:
He could take good photos with the 24-105, but all of the photos he felt had more magic were always taken with the 24-70. I think that was the most honest lens comparisons I have ever seen and really goes to what is true about gear: There is no such thing as the best gear, there is just the best gear for you.
Click to expand...

I use the EF 24-70/2.8 & 24-104/4. The only times I prefer the 24-105mm is when I need a bit of extra reach &/or Image Stabalization. To my eye the 24-70/2.8 is just a better looking lens, especially for faces, while the 24-105mm is meh.
 
What a ridiculous lens test...

Apart from the physical build of the professional lenses, what you are paying for in a profession lens are things like:

- Lack of breathing
- Round bokeh
- Lack of chromatic aberration in high contrast highlights
- Lack of smearing of high contrast highlights
- Lack of distortion

I only paid attention to one of their tests which I was able to pretty much instantly tell which lens was which, and that was the low-light night shot at around 4:15.

- With the cheapo Canon lens the bokeh was anything but round
- With the cheapo Canon there was very obvious breathing when they pulled focus
- With the cheapo Canon there was terrible smearing of the streetlight highlights

- With the Zeiss Compact Primes there was some chromatic aberration of the streetlight highlights
- With the Zeiss Compact Primes the bokeh was very good, but not as perfectly round as the Zeiss Ultra Primes
- With the Zeiss Compact Primes there was no noticeable breathing during the focus pull

- The Zeiss Ultra Primes has the cleanest streetlight highlights ( no chromatic aberration, no smearing, and a tiny bit of coma glow )
- The Zeiss Ultra Primes had perfectly round bokeh ( which made me think of all the Hollywood movies I've seen )
- The Zeiss Ultra Primes had no noticeable breathing during the focus pull

...So with ordinary subjects in unchallenging lighting conditions the crappy Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens might be usable, but given complex subjects in very demanding lighting environments you should be able to spot the primo glass almost every time.
 
TheDingo said:
What a ridiculous lens test...

Apart from the physical build of the professional lenses, what you are paying for in a profession lens are things like:

- Lack of breathing
- Round bokeh
- Lack of chromatic aberration in high contrast highlights
- Lack of smearing of high contrast highlights
- Lack of distortion

I only paid attention to one of their tests which I was able to pretty much instantly tell which lens was which, and that was the low-light night shot at around 4:15.

- With the cheapo Canon lens the bokeh was anything but round
- With the cheapo Canon there was very obvious breathing when they pulled focus
- With the cheapo Canon there was terrible smearing of the streetlight highlights

- With the Zeiss Compact Primes there was some chromatic aberration of the streetlight highlights
- With the Zeiss Compact Primes the bokeh was very good, but not as perfectly round as the Zeiss Ultra Primes
- With the Zeiss Compact Primes there was no noticeable breathing during the focus pull

- The Zeiss Ultra Primes has the cleanest streetlight highlights ( no chromatic aberration, no smearing, and a tiny bit of coma glow )
- The Zeiss Ultra Primes had perfectly round bokeh ( which made me think of all the Hollywood movies I've seen )
- The Zeiss Ultra Primes had no noticeable breathing during the focus pull

...So with ordinary subjects in unchallenging lighting conditions the crappy Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens might be usable, but given complex subjects in very demanding lighting environments you should be able to spot the primo glass almost every time.
Click to expand...

Exactly THIS.
 
Y'all can take it as some kind of personal attack on anyone who has spent money on high-end glass. I think that's the only thing that could possibly explain how the tone of the comments are totally out of step with the tone of such a fun, lighthearted video.

Or you can take it the way I took it, which is a dash of sobriety, mainly aimed at people with low budgets, who feel some kind of inferiority because they just have a few hundred dollars worth of glass, and who are seriously contemplating borrowing way more money than they can afford, to buy gear when all they have lined up are a few personal projects.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top