Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 25, 2008, 4:52 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
Default

recently had a disscussion on lenses and would likeyour input on this

for a person who views their pictures on a computer screen, and never prints

would you see a difference between cheap zoom lenses as compared to expensive zoom lenses



Dave
dafiryde is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Sep 25, 2008, 6:03 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
NonEntity1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lake Placid Florida USA
Posts: 2,689
Default

For the sake of discussion, I am assuming that expensive means high quality and cheap means lower quality (as price and quality are often, but not always, in sync). With that assumption, yes, there is no question. Even if you do not zoom in on the computer screen you can see a difference and if you do zoom in you can see the difference even more than you would with a print. A computer screen at 100% and 72 dpi is less forgiving, IMO, than a print at full size and 300 dpi.

Tim
NonEntity1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 25, 2008, 6:22 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
tjsnaps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sacramento, Ca
Posts: 652
Default

Many years ago I read an article in a major photo mag about how people were being hood winked into buying expensive lenses they didn't really need. The basis of this was the fact that most hobbyist never make prints larger than 4X6 and the occasional 5X7 or 8X10 and therefore would never notice the difference between a high quality lens and a fare quality lens. Some really cheap lenses being a different story altogether.

The bottom line is, its all about how the images are viewed. If you are downsizing them to put on a web page or online album then chances are you wont notice a difference. But if you are making a full screen slide show you very well might see a big difference.

tjsnaps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 25, 2008, 8:17 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
bigdawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Thach Alabama
Posts: 14,981
Default

Get the better quality lens for no matter what you do with the photo now or in the future...The quality will always shine through. Like Tim said though...Quality doesn't always equate to expensive.

Dawg
bigdawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 25, 2008, 8:21 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
Default

thanks for your input
the reason this conversation started was when i got my k10d, i bought the 16-50 2.8 lens and was happy, then i wanted more reach, so i went and bought the 50-135 2.8 lens and was happy
but recently i find my self loosing the shot i want, cause i have to change the lens and by that time the shot i wanted is gone
so i was looking at the 18-250 lens and wondered

Dave

dafiryde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 25, 2008, 9:50 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
tjsnaps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sacramento, Ca
Posts: 652
Default

dafiryde wrote:
Quote:
thanks for your input
the reason this conversation started was when i got my k10d, i bought the 16-50 2.8 lens and was happy, then i wanted more reach, so i went and bought the 50-135 2.8 lens and was happy
but recently i find my self loosing the shot i want, cause i have to change the lens and by that time the shot i wanted is gone
so i was looking at the 18-250 lens and wondered

Dave
Now this is a problem I can relate with. I got very used to having two, sometimes three cameras with me so I hardly ever had to switch lenses. Now that I have gone digital its like starting over again. I'm back to one camera and I do not like that a bit. But in the long run, even though it means more money, I will save for a second camera not a super zoom.
tjsnaps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 25, 2008, 10:31 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

What everyone else said, though the camera's resolution capability enters into it also. When I got the K10 and took some comparison shots with the K100 and K10, I thought looking at the two pictures that the picture quality was very similar - the K10 had a bigger image but it didn't look like it had a huge amount more information. When I reduced full frame pictures to monitor size, I often couldn't tell the difference between the two cameras. The K10 was nice, though, if I wanted to crop significantly.

When I got the K20, I took some pictures with the kit lens on the K100 (I think - it might have been the K10)and the K20. Like with the K10, the pictures with that lens and the K20 didn't seem to have a huge amount more detail than the K100, it was just larger. However, I put the DA*50-135 on the K20 and I saw a whole lot more detail/resolution. Rather than just having a larger needle, the K20 showed more detail on the needle. My conclusion was that a better lens is well worth it, especially if you have a camera that can resolve more detail.

Final thought - once you get a taste for top quality lenses, it's hard to settle for a lesser one. I rarely use my kit lens any more.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 26, 2008, 7:33 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
Default

what was wrong with me

i was willing to give up two excellent lenses for oneso so lens :?

so i changed my mind and bought a domke F 3 X Bag





Dave

dafiryde is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:55 PM.