Does spending more mean getting less?

[Cindy-Clicks]

Unlike a lot of my colleagues in the field, I stayed with my T3i until I proved myself worthy of an upgrade.  But now that I decided to get a "better" camera, I am finding that spending more money means I am getting less performance.  Why is that?   I decided to buy a Pentax K-3, but eventually returned it because it did not give me the flexibilty I wanted.  I decided to put off buying another crop sensor camera for now, so I bought a 6D with a 100mm Macro L-glass lens.  My old T3i with a Tamron 28-300 zoom still produces much better images under the same conditions. What gives?

[TCampbell]

Macro is always persnickity.  When the distances get really tight, the difference between what is in focus vs. out of focus is just the tiniest fraction of an inch.

True macro lenses tend to have very fine detail resolving capability that exceeds even what prime lenses can generally offer, which exceeds what zooms lenses can offer, which exceeds what super-zooms can offer.

If you really want to be able to count every fiber on a plant and every point of pollen on a flower... that macro lens is it.

[ebiggs1]

"What I didn't realize is that my old 28-300 works on the 6D and it is wonderful."

I just can not imagine anybody liking or picking this lens over the Canon 100mm L.  But, hey, I guess that's just me.

These two lenses are not even on the same planet.

[Cindy-Clicks]

They each have their purpose.  When I am visiting a garden, sometimes I want a close up, but other times I want a landscape.  The zoom has always allowed me to get the composition I want.  

[ebiggs1]

They may have vastly different applications but they certainly have vastly different quality, too.

[cale_kat]

True, but your post doesn't share what the quality differences are so we're left with the impression that the differences might only be recognized by a perfectionist.

[TCampbell]

---

@cale_kat wrote:
True, but your post doesn't share what the quality differences are so we're left with the impression that the differences might only be recognized by a perfectionist.

---

I have a personal friend who is a chef.  One day we decided to pick up some things at the market to take home and prepare our own meal -- we bought whatever looked good and would figure out how to prepare something later.   But we needed a good wine to go with the meal.

We checked to see what wine we might have on-hand and found a bottle of a Stag's Leap cab -- a very nice wine.  

I uncorked it, poured a couple fo glasses, and was about to take a sip.  

And here's where the story is going...

The chef stops me "what are you doing?"  I tell him I was about to have a sip of the wine while we cook.  He says "You can't just start drinking a wine that good after freshly uncorking it.   You've got to let it breath first."

I respond that I'm not a wine expert and would never be able to tell the difference.

He objects!  "NONSENSE!  EVERYONE would be able to tell the difference.  I'll PROVE it!"

He has me take one sip of the wine to get a good sense for it.  Then look at my watch.  I was not permitted to touch the glass again for 1 hour.

At the end of the hour, he announces "Times up!  Take another sip."

I take a sip and I am ASTONISHED at the difference.  Any untrained pedestrian would have noticed the difference.  It does NOT take an expert.  It only takes someone who actually bothers to make the comparison at all.

In another thread here on the Canon forums we're discussing some nuances of comparison between super-zooms and non super-zooms.

It's fair to say that if you use only small size images you probably will not notice the difference (or at least it would be difficult to notice the differences.)  In a large gallery sized print and with a subject where you need corner-to-corner sharpness (e.g. suppose it's a landscape since those typically try to have everything in sharp focus) then for THOSE images you WOULD notice the difference and ... probably _everyone_ would notice that difference in they merely took the time to compare.

Sometimes you only want your sharply focused subject somewhere away from the edges of the frame and the background material around the edges was supposed to be out of focus anyway -- in those situations you probably will not notice the difference.

[Cindy-Clicks]

Ok, after today I can finally admit it was worth the money.  Here is one example, and its true, "you can count the hairs."  But what I find myself doing is taking the same shot at different aperture settings in order to determine later which shot I am going to like the best at a certain clarity that looks appealing to me.  I can start to drive myself a little crazy with this.  I like the background burred by I want the whole flower in focus and finding the perfect balance can be tricky.   I carried both cameras today because there were many times I went for a wider angle shot that required my other lens, or even times when I was not able to get close enough and that is where the 300mm came in handy.  Like I said before, if Canon could make a nice zoom that is comparable and higher quality, but lighter, like the Tamron, I would be first in line for it.

[ebiggs1]

"...  if Canon could make a nice zoom that is comparable and higher quality, but lighter, ..."

In photography there is no free lunch.  You give to get.  

The EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM, or

EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM, or

my personal favorite and quite possibly the best zoom lens made, the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM.

But in order to make a zoom lens in this quality level it is heavy and it is expensive.  Canon does make lenses in the same class as Tamron and they cost about the same and weigh about the same.  The EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM.

And Tim is spot on, it all depends on your desired result and how you use it..  However, there is no denying the difference.

[Skirball]

So use the DoF preview button.  Also, you'll learn with practice to estimate about how your DoF will look based on the settings you use.

[cale_kat]

Tim,

Truth be told, I think you have choosen a different subject (wine) to explain because it is easier than explaining the one we are discussing (lenses). In the field of logic, this is called a red herring argument. I don't mind that you devoted 262 words to explaining that red wine can taste better if allowed to "breath". It was an amusing story. But if you want the reader to take away from this argument that, "any pedestrian person would have noticed the difference" in the same way with lenes, you'll fail because you're not using sound logic.

So, what I'm left with is the suggestion that certain lenses might not be appropriate for enlargement because they fail to meet the highest standards, those of a gallery-sized print. I know I can treat many images to post processing techniques but that apparently doesn't count. I know that Canon makes a 28-300mm lens that suffers from that sort of edge softness that you describe but that doesn't count either.

What you're really saying is that there exists a lens that can do the job better. I don't need to be anything more than "pedestrian" to know that.

My point is that when one says, "Your lens is holding you back" they are suggesting that if only the person would change their tool, it would solve their problems. Well, I don't see any of posters arguing that Cindy doesn't take good pictures with her camera and I certainly haven't heard a single comment regarding what problems need solving.

The takeaway is to fill your bag with Canon lenses. Just trust us. This is not a well targeted form of advice and it hints of a bind devotion to a brand.

Just my $.02.