I totally agree that the end image quality is a function of both the lens and the camera together - I would have thought that is just common sense. However the investment in both has to be within the limits of budget, but taking into account that lens value and longevity often outlast camera bodies.
To be clear, I have asked questions about image size because I often see people outlaying large amounts of cash for very expensive cameras and lenses when, in fact, they are going to post to social media.
I recently posted an image taken by the venerable Canon D30 - that's a 19 year old camera using a 3.2MP sensor, with the EF17-40L lens attached. To jog your memory here it is again:
For posting on social media or even for moderate prints I think this is quite acceptable.
If however I was going to print this out to a really big size, say 24" x 36" I would probably be pushing it a bit, although Michael Reichmann seemed happy in his Luminous Landscape review to go pretty close to that. In his 2000 review he experimented to see if the D30 was as good as film in producing large prints. He used the same lens (100-400L) on a top SLR and the D30, scanned the SLR photos with the best available scanner and printed the outputs from both on a high quality printer. The D30 was significantly better, an assessment that was backed up by other authoritative opinions. So if one can get a decent image from a 3.2Mp, 19 year old camera, I think the 80D could be considered already acceptable for most purposes at 24MP. So we came down to the lens.
I always go back to asking questions about output - surely that is the ultimate purpose of taking the image in the first place; but I always explain why I am asking the question. In this case the camera is already purchased. A very capable unit with a crop sensor. So I needed to know the focal range and the quality and type of output required to establish the type of lens and a cost/benefit relationship. I stick to my guns that posting on Facebook on on a home TV is less demanding than say printing on high quality large-format prints.
In this focal range I have shot with a wide selection of lenses from the relatively humble (but to me good) kit lens (18-135), through the excellent 15-85 and 17-55, to the L lenses 17-40 and 24-105. My experience is that a lens does not require an L rating to be great glass: as I understand it the quality of glass in EF-S lenses is comparable to that of the more expensive units for most amateur and shooters' purposes, but they are not designed for the rigors of a professional - not as solidly built, nor are they environmentally resistant. For most people that will not be an issue: it certainly is for a professional who had to deliver under almost any condition. The cheaper lenses represent decent value for money for most purposes, and certainly for digital and small print output. The question always becomes cloudy for enthusiasts who either produced high-quality art of a size, or who just pixel peep, but they do not necessarily have the budget of a professional. I guess the aspiring student who seeks a profession would come into that category too - which is why is usually ask their intentions.
Personally, with all of these lenses I get results that I am happy with for my purposes (which do not normally include large, detailed prints). So my point is that these lenses are capable of producing results that have produced positive reactions on this site from photographers I respect. The rest comes down to how the gear is used and you can't buy that, you have to learn it.
It would be a boring choir if we all sang without a descant!
@Tronhard wrote:
I totally agree that the end image quality is a function of both the lens and the camera together - I would have thought that is just common sense. However the investment in both has to be within the limits of budget, but taking into account that lens value and longevity often outlast camera bodies.
.
I recently posted an image taken by the venerable Canon D30 - that's a 19 year old camera using a 3.2MP sensor, with the EF17-40L lens attached. To jog your memory here it is again:
For posting on social media or even for moderate prints I think this is quite acceptable.
Is that a flywheel for an air compressor?
