What makes a "good" lens

[Nexxus]

I always hear people talk about "good" lenses and I frankly I dont get it, what makes a good lens, how does one figure out what a good lens is? Isn't any lens that isnt screwing with the end photo (glass defect for example) going to be "good"? I know my bodies and the functionality of them (at least in the Nikon space) but when it comes to selecting a lens for a job...I really dunno what to get and its what holds me back from investing in more (currently have the 18-105 VR that I got with my d40, and a 35mm prime  with 1.8 F stop. 

I specialize in automotive photography and use my 18-105 as my go to lens

Will use it for stuff like this


Or This


And my 35mm after some experimentation I use for detail shots up close. Like this


I'm wanting a 300mm for the track since my 105 struggles but ya I really dunno what else to get and I dont really know where to look to get an idea of what to expect from some glass or if it will be "good" 

[ZetZet]

I think this baby would suit your needs for the track http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-70-300mm-4-5-5-6G-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000HJPK2C/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1431261801&sr=8-1&keywords=Nikon+AF-S+VR+Zoom-Nikkor+70-300mm

 

55-300 is cheaper, but this one works for full frame too so it will have better resale value.

[mantylt]

Usually "fixed lenses" (those without zoom) are producing higher quality images and are cheaper, but one focal length means that you are pretty much locked and it can be complicated to catch moving objects

[Nexxus]

I think this baby would suit your needs for the track http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-70-300mm-4-5-5-6G-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000HJPK2C/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1431261801&sr=8-1&keywords=Nikon+AF-S+VR+Zoom-Nikkor+70-300mm

 

55-300 is cheaper, but this one works for full frame too so it will have better resale value.

I was looking at one of those actually. I was going to get it with my d7200 but at the end of the day money said I couldnt, I just was wondering if the VR was really gonna be worth it.

[ZetZet]

I was looking at one of those actually. I was going to get it with my d7200 but at the end of the day money said I couldnt, I just was wondering if the VR was really gonna be worth it.

at 200mm+ vr is a lifesaver.

[Nexxus]

at 200mm+ vr is a lifesaver.

I gotcha currently my 105 I've seen no real need for it but im always shooting with a tripod when called for.

[Blade of Grass]

I always hear people talk about "good" lenses and I frankly I dont get it, what makes a good lens, how does one figure out what a good lens is? Isn't any lens that isnt screwing with the end photo (glass defect for example) going to be "good"?

I'm wanting a 300mm for the track since my 105 struggles but ya I really dunno what else to get and I dont really know where to look to get an idea of what to expect from some glass or if it will be "good"

There's a bunch of different things that makes a lens good, here are some of them:

• sharper
• higher contrast
• low amounts of chromatic aberrations
• less (or more pleasing) distortion
• big aperture
• more pleasing bokeh
• fast autofocus
• vibration reduction
• good build quality

Now, there's a difference between how "good" something is quantitatively (contrast, sharpness) and qualitatively (how it is to use). Fixed focal length lenses usually are good quantitatively, but they suffer qualitatively because they are less versatile in their use. 

 

If you compare a Nikon 18-55 with a Nikon 24-70 you will find that the 24-70 is sharper, has more contrast, and better build quality (to name a few). This is why it's better glass. That's not to say the 18-55 is bad though.

[Captain_Slow]

dxomark has scores for most lens and camera combos. 

 

the 70-300mm lens is probably one of the worst and least sharp lens around for nikon.

[bob345]

what king of price range do you have for a telephoto lens? If its in your budget, i would look at a tamron or sigma 70-200 f/2.8. Also, those are some awesome pictures!

[Nexxus]

what king of price range do you have for a telephoto lens? If its in your budget, i would look at a tamron or sigma 70-200 f/2.8. Also, those are some awesome pictures!

Thank you  

Currently it's $0 lol im just thinking for the future really and a lens for the track is what I need most right now. the only other thing I really want is something that's going to let me get bokeh while keeping a whole car in frame. I thought the 35mm would do that but it sadly is VERY difficult to get the car all in frame, with bokeh in the same shot.

[beavo451]

Thank you

Currently it's $0 lol im just thinking for the future really and a lens for the track is what I need most right now. the only other thing I really want is something that's going to let me get bokeh while keeping a whole car in frame. I thought the 35mm would do that but it sadly is VERY difficult to get the car all in frame, with bokeh in the same shot.

You should read up on the relationship between aperture, focal length, subject distance, and depth of field.

[Nexxus]

You should read up on the relationship between aperture, focal length, subject distance, and depth of field.

I cant put it into technical terms but I do have the basics down with  the time I spent with the 35mm I dont have any formal education on shooting I taught myself everything. So ya im not going to be great at explaining things in their proper terms and what have you.

[ShadowCaptain]

Thank you  

Currently it's $0 lol im just thinking for the future really and a lens for the track is what I need most right now. the only other thing I really want is something that's going to let me get bokeh while keeping a whole car in frame. I thought the 35mm would do that but it sadly is VERY difficult to get the car all in frame, with bokeh in the same shot.

 

Your best idea for that is to use a long tele lens, put the car far away from any backgrounds, use a small aperture, it will capture the car and the background will be out of focus

 

using a wide aperture on a wide lens, the amount in focus is absolutely tiny, so youll never get a whole car in shot 

[beavo451]

I cant put it into technical terms but I do have the basics down with the time I spent with the 35mm I dont have any formal education on shooting I taught myself everything. So ya im not going to be great at explaining things in their proper terms and what have you.

If you are having a "difficult" time achieving what you want, you don't have the basics down.

[beavo451]

Your best idea for that is to use a long tele lens, put the car far away from any backgrounds, use a small aperture, it will capture the car and the background will be out of focus

using a wide aperture on a wide lens, the amount in focus is absolutely tiny, so youll never get a whole car in shot

A small aperture yields more depth of field.

A wider lens has more depth of field than a longer lens at the same focus distance. Even at 1.8, a 35mm doesn't really have "tiny" depth of field. And then the quality of the out of focus areas isn't going to be as good as a longer focal length.

[Nexxus]

If you are having a "difficult" time achieving what you want, you don't have the basics down.

I'm having a difficult time achieving what I want because im using a lens that isnt allowing me to get me whole subject in frame and still give me the desired results. It has nothing to do with my lack of knowlage on how it works.

When I got the 35mm yes there was a lack of knowledge since I had never shot before trying to get a bokeh effect because my 18-105 was just to wide, but I do have time with the lens, I get how it works. Cars are simply to wide of a subject though to get all in frame+get close enough to get bokeh with that lens, unless I get REALLY creative with the positioning of the car, or I limit myself to front on shots.

But ya its why I am given the role of the 35mm as upclose detail shots.

[ShadowCaptain]

A small aperture yields more depth of field.

A wider lens has more depth of field than a longer lens at the same focus distance. Even at 1.8, a 35mm doesn't really have "tiny" depth of field. And then the quality of the out of focus areas isn't going to be as good as a longer focal length.

 

I am not sure you understood what I was trying to say ><

 

what I meant was, putting more distance behind the subject will create a more natural depth of field rather than trying to use a super wide aperture on a wide angle

[Williamchan87]

A good lens is based on many things like @Blade of Grass said, it really depends on the lens design, and the quality of perfection when the glass is made, and or what is the lens made with, as in coatings etc.

[nicon]

A red ring around the front.

 

 

-canon fanboy

[Nexxus]

A red ring around the front.

 

 

-canon fanboy

Get your fanboy garbage out of my thread.

[handymanshandle]

Basically if you can't afford whatever Nikon's version of Canon's L line up, Sigma Art series lenses are probably your best bet.

When (and if) I do end up buying a used 60D from NCE [National Camera Exchange] I'll probably buy a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC HSM "Art" from NCE to start off with. I think I'd either go with the Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 and or Sigma 18-35mm DC HSM "Art". Really it changes depending on whether or not you have an APS-C DSLR.

If you have APS-C and can afford the more pro lenses go for it, if you can't it doesn't hurt to just stick with lenses designed for APS-C sensors. It's just that major vignetting will most likely happen if you were to mount an APS-C lens to a full frame lens. [Not exactly sure about Nikon's mounting system other then your options are either Nikon's own line that isn't as extensive as Canon's line. Basically Tamron, Tonkina and Sigma open up the playing field  for Nikon shooters. ] 

[nicon]

Get your fanboy garbage out of my thread.

/jk

 

I have a Nikon 28-80 f3.3-5.6 G and it freakin' sick (at least on an F5)

[TroubleKlef]

Probably first and foremost lens sharpness. Maximum aperture, chromatic aberration, build quality (general build, focus ring quality, etc), auto focus speed/noise, weight, weather resistance, probably others but I can't think of them all.

[Quilamento]

If you're looking for a good and relatively cheap lens, take a look at primes. They normally have pretty fast auto-focus, are very sharp and also can go really wide in any light situation. I currently use a 50mm f1.4, and it's a really good lens.

[lazydog]

A "good" lens may vary from one photographer to another, depending on his needs and uses. But generally, you'd want a lens to be sharp and with good color/contrast rendition and build quality.