Choosing The Right Lens - Mike Browne
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 23 ноя 2024
- A ‘better’ lens should mean better image quality, but does it? Does a better lens mean better photos? I don’t think it does so I’m testing my Fujinon 18-55 OIS lens against a Fujinon16-55 WR lens that cost over four times as much money to see what the difference is.
Check out my...
Images: www.clickasnap...
Courses: www.photograph...
Workshops: www.photograph...
Free videos & articles: www.photograph...
Mike Browne
Mike , you are the camera producers nightmare! You have the knowledge and understanding that ridicules the entire regime of " you need to buy this , upgrade now!!!! Or your photos will be shit ! " great , i applaud you .
What he just said!...Julian
I agree too! Down to earth common sense. That's our Mike!
Mike, Thanks for making us a better consumer. Appreciate your effort.
Mike, since you have paid for it anyway, it might be wiser to just keep the more expensive lens as a backup lens for your out of town workshops, just in case something happens to your cheaper lens again some day? Then you will never be without a lens again in case of another mishap.
So much money and time spent on equipment and lenses that offer tiny improvements. We should all be more focused on using our own abilities to improve our photography, not let technology do it for us!
YES - thanks Overseer 13 - MIKE :-)
The 18-55 “kit” lens has been lauded by many as a superior lens. Fuji X-mount shooters are really lucky to have this option for great photo quality. I bought an X-T2 and later traded it for an X-T3. I bought the body only and purchased the 16-55. I have some other lenses but fell so much in love with the 16-55 that I rarely take it off. “Too sharp” has never crossed my mind. Having a fixed aperture with actual markings on the lens is a wonderful thing.
I recently bought an X-E3 as a “walking around” camera. I bought it with the 18-55 lens. That combination is fantastic for going out and about and not carrying a lot of weight. It’s really good for “street photography” (or any photography where you don’t want to look like a professional photographer and everyone hides from you).
I’ve done the side-by-side comparisons and it is amazing how close in quality the two lenses are for the “average” shot at f5.6. Your photos showed this well. But I submit this for your consideration: There is an old saying that you shouldn’t take a picture, you should make a picture. I think the 16-55 lens has a lot more options for the person who wants to “make” a picture.
I’m lucky to be able to afford both. For someone on a budget, they can’t go wrong with the 18-55. For someone who shoots “auto” or close to it, the 18-55 will work very well. For the person who wants more options for creativity and does like the extra sharpness afforded by the 16-55, it is a better lens.
Nice video, good message. I think that the "soft focus effect" in the portrait with the 16-55 WR versus a sharper result with the 18-55 may have been caused by the 1/40 shutter speed, handheld, combined with the lack of OIS in that lens.
You are so right in what you say Mike, I shoot events for a local newspaper and at all of the events I photograph I am along side newspaper photographers with Nikon D5 cameras with very expensive lenses. I however use a Nikon D300 and a D300s usually with an 18-200mm lens. When the photographs are published in our respective publications you would be hard pressed to differentiate between the cameras that took the image.
Thanks Bob Edwards. That sounds about right... MIKE :-)
Well, Bob, I think sometimes it's about "Mine is bigger than yours" from one photographer to another, just like cars and boats and houses :). I'm always thinking, if they need that for their confidence, let them do :).
or nuke buttons... ;-)
Love what you do for photographers and the support your classes provide. I have always felt that the camera is only a tool...that the real image is created in your mind and your minds eye. Thanks for all you do. I watch you videos all the time. I have been an active photographer for over 40 years.I appreciate you truthfulness.
Mike- Great video-- I think the better argument here is not that the expensive lens is too sharp is that the cheaper lens takes as good a picture as the expensive lens. The sharpness detail you are talking about does not really show on the video. Thanks for all of the content you put out.
In all honesty for the price of the 16-55 2.8 you can get the 18-55 & 55-200! & the versatility goes up significantly!.
Agreed Stephen. - MIKE
Mike, I agree wholeheartedly with your thoughts. I love using older glass, Helios, Jupiter, Fujinon, Chinon, Carl Zeiss etc,, The prime lenses of older M42/PK/Nik F variants can produce fantastic images, with great clarity and sharpness. The best part here is the cost, you can buy 4 or 5 decent vintage lenses, plus the required adaptor, for the cost of 1 new kit lens price.
I finally found your channel again. I lost it after years.
I still love your practical approach to things. People seem to forget what it's all about.
Endless discussions about gear.
Some good points, but I think that light transmission in a lens can be important to look at (and not just aperture). If the lens is meant to be used for low light photography it might be pretty important, since cranking up the ISO might end up ruining the detail. Light transmission is normally a lot higher in primes, and this makes them a good choice in those situations (in my opinion).
The 18-55 is F/2.8/4 not F/2.8/5.6 as mentioned in the video. The biggest advantage for me of the 16-55 is the extra 2mm on the wide end, doesn't sound much but it's amazing how much more you can capture. Just for reference though, I'd take the 18-55 because of price/performance is as good if not better than that of the 16-55.
Thank you Mike, I am so glad I take your advice!
How come your are so awesome... I just love the way your teach photography...especially composition videos. You let us know the whole situation and then help us get the right composition. Thanks a lot for your videos. Your videos are Blessing for any budding photographer. I'm from India and I'm proud to be in the same time and world where your are teaching. I dont have words to explain my gratitude.
Thank you Harsh Vardhan Saboo - that's praise indeed ... MIKE :-)
Ditto
Thank you for posting this. I, myself, am a fan of "kit" lenses for exactly the same reasons. I know people who are so caught up into getting the "next best thing," that they forget to ask themselves "why?" I completely agree that it's better to save that money and use it to learn something new or different about your photography.
Thanks Wooden Canoe Pictures - MIKE
I was convinced my 28 70 kit lens was fine until i replaced it with a 24 70 carl zeis one. The difference is incredible. Over sharp lenses , ? Ha you my freind are having a laugh .
Love your comment about being a photographer and stop worrying about your kit. It has been such a stumbling block.
That said, If it comes to purchasing a 24mm f/2.8 lens and a 24mm f/1.4, I’ll gladly purchase the one with the wider aperture, all other factors being equal.
100% Agree Mike. The 18-55 is the one I would have as it would suit my needs completely. I don't need the water resistance or 2.8 throughout. Great video as per usual Mike. Your effort is as always very much appreciated.
Thanks again Jeff
another awesome video Mike..every time that I see a vid of this type from you, I settle down and quit looking at the newest, greatest gear out there..it is inspiring to see a pro creating top notch photos with (supposedly) low end equipment...it gives us hope...thanks again !
I am not too new to photography but new to DSLRs. After watching tons of videos about lenses on RUclips I recently got a used Canon EF-S 18mm-135mm to go with my brand new Canon Rebel SL2. It is flexible enough zoom range and give me the shots I need. Also great for video work.
Long story short I don't see a huge need for expensive lenses and I absolutely agree with your comments about newer vs. older lenses. You make most useful videos about teaching photography.
Thank you!
Thank you Soydan, indeed you are correct. - Melissa pp Mike :)
Well, Thanks! You are by no means the first person to suggest that kit lenses can be "just as good", but your video is the first truly convincing demonstration of the claim that I have come across. Sure, it would be great to have first rate low light capability, but I wouldn't use it that often, I'd struggle to fund it and I'd hate to carry it all everywhere. Horses for courses they used to say.
I would like to ask about your choice of tripod. I have actually had one of these for many years but ended up never taking it anywhere because it was too heavy/bulky.
Oh, Happy New Year!
Thanks David and Happy New Year to you too. Yep that old Benbo has been working hard for me for over 20 years and still going strong... MIKE :-)
Mike: Thank you so much for providing a comprehensive channel that is both informative and easy to understand for beginners like myself. Out of all the photography channels on RUclips that i have viewed, yours is easily head and shoulders above the rest. Thank you again for your wonderful videos and unique teaching style. Much love from Canada.
Thank you Legend 115. I'm delighted they're helping. Please take a look on my website (link below) where all the videos on RUclips are searchable by category and skill level and all have an accompanying free article with more info too. Some say it's easier to find what you need there rather than YT. If you sign up for my newsletter, I'll let you know the instant there's a new one and send you a weekly email where we'll revisit tips and techniques to encourage you to keep practicing. - MIKE :-)
www.photographycourses.biz/videos
Through the experience of learning photography, I've grown to love my Pentax Q system 23-70mm kit zoom the most, even though I own all the lenses in the system and it is the cheapest of the 4 autofocus lenses, and the one that gets the least love (although Larry Becker at B&H liked it, too). This video validates my opinion, and lets me know I'm not a (complete) know-nothing.
Mike you are my Hero. I never really thought about an image being too sharp but you are totally right, The sharp flat screens you speak of also hurt my eyes and now I know why, it's not natural. I will be taking a closer look at my kit using your less is more insight.
Thank you Mike.
thank you Drew :) -Melissa pp Mike
Thanks for the thoughtful comparison Mike. Makes the point very clearly that the kit is only a small part of the picture making process.
Love your approach to photography and your personality, Mike. Great video, thanks for the perspective.
It's absolutely about what you need. Spending a ton of money doesn't make you a good photographer, it just makes taking great photos easier. You still need to know what you are doing.
My latest purchase was the Sigma 100-400 f/5-6.3, I was looking for something longer than 200mm for my animal photography. It cost me about 800€. I could have spent more, I could have spent less. I simply got this lens because it fits my needs. I did my reasearch before buying it and I'm happy with it. It does exactly what I need.
This lens might be a bad example for what you are talking about though because when you go longer than 200mm the lenses become very expensive very quickly...
Mike, One thing I noticed when you were showing the images on LR, is that they had different histograms. The colors on the kit lens seemed more pronounced then on the more expensive lens. The curves for each color looked different between the two. I think it is the color profile that is looking different to you. But at the very least it gives a quantifiable way to compare the two images.
Top marks, Mike, because it's refreshing to see an honest review about this as there are so many that push the expensive lenses and forget that the results are often artificial. If a photo can tell a story, has a pleasing composition that leads the eye and lighting that makes it feel alive almost 3D you have a winner.
Mike: this video is a good example of why I have so much appreciated your videos. You apply a common sense filter to photography and hardware. I have recommended your videos to many people..with the idea of trying to keep them from getting side tracked with irrelevancies and enjoy the process (not the pixel count) Since I am on a budget I was forced to shoot older lens and cameras... and have come to appreciate how well they can perform. (one of my favorite combinations is a d300 with the older 75 to 150E lens... an amazing lens for as little as 50 bucks on ebay) One of my favorite episodes is when you ripped your pants and did the post it note after the fact. You are one of us.
Thanks Gary. Yep I'm still good at ripping my pants, falling over in puddles, knocking stuff over... MIKE :-)
Love your stuff Mike, mostly because your 'local' exploits are in areas I recognise. I live on the Isle of Wight.
Before I retired I was a sign maker and, on this video, you are sitting outside a Lymington Harbour Coffee Shop where the blue signs behind you (and others in Quay Street) were done by me !!!!!!
Thanks for the belated ad.................
Thanks - and you're welcome Dave 🙏😊
I love your modesty and how real you come across on the subject. While we all know the perks of high end gear, lenses, etc, we all forget that it is the photo that ultimately wins. Same things with instruments where you can get for example a great drummer to play the hell out of a cheap drum kit.
thank you makemarker, really love your comment - Melissa pp Mike
One of your best educational videos not only about photography but about being a better consumer! Save money or spend it in real knowledge not just more equipment. Epic!
thank you Reb C, please do share it too so we can make more - Melissa
Just watched this video and may I add that back in the ( swinging ) 60's we used to use soft focus filters or a stocking over the lens to soften the image especially when taking portraiture, now its all about how sharp is the lens. Also what was in vogue at the time was "grain" the more grainy you could make your photos the cooler they where. I think trends and traits just come and go BUT good photos will stand the test of time and last forever
18-55 the right choice ; for faster aperture & shutter speeds, a fast prime can be used when situation demands, and no need to carry the heavy weight 16-55 ; Thanks, superb video
I recently (2-3 months ago) upgraded to a constant f/2.8 zoom from a lighter constant f/4 lens. I like the old one, it is light, has excellent image quality, except at the wide end the corners were unappealing. The new one is excellent but much more heavier, gives me extra light and the corners are much nicer looking, even though the f/4 had a sharper image all-around. Plus it has WR which for me a welcome feature. I will stay with the heavier f/2.8 but still keep the old f/4 around just for a lighter travel kit.
As far as sharpness goes, the center is crazy sharp on the new lens as well as on the old one, but the new one has a nicer, more smooth falloff in sharpness to the corners and nice smooth boke. It is a very nice lens for portraits and stopped down it is sharp throughout the frame with good depth and a touch of "dreaminess". I think I found the right lens for my usual shooting style.
Happy New Year!
I just recently got the Fuji X-T4 along with the 16-55mm which is one of the best lenses I’ve ever owned. The 18-55mm “kit” lens is an absolutely amazing lens and the best “kit” lens I’ve ever used. You can absolutely use the the 18-55mm in a professional setting if needed and is one of the best video lenses on the Fuji lineup.
Very sorry we never got around to commenting at the time!
Totally agree Mike, One of my favourite lenses is my 28-155 kit lens (for Pentax). Its a brute of a lens, super quick to focus, with a clutch, so I can override the auto if I want with a quick pull back. Also its WR, so when I kick my tripod over and it goes in the Thames its fine, or sill beer on it as I've done a few times, also I shoot street and prefer longer DOF so I don't need the "pro wide apature" f6.3 this bad boy is a beast and it was only £45 second hand. I also have loads of old school manual glass ecause like you say, it just feels right to the eye
Mike, thanks for the information.
I like the kit lens a lot. Instead of replacing it I bought the Mitakon 35mm 0.95. mark2.
This one makes a lot of a difference to me.
Of course it has no AF but the quality of the lens and the build quality is great.
For people that are used to manual focusing this a much better choice for their money.
It is very sharp, affordable and a very good lens for portrets.
thank you for the kind words joop- Melissa pp Mike
Kit is important, and finding the right kit is like finding that elusive great shot. Which is why we love photography. "Everything is effected by you" , is coming to all my shoots now great lesson!
That Fuji 18-55 kit lens is my favourite kit lens for travel, I mostly use 40-60 year old manual lens even though I have some Canon L glass and 5D3, the manual lens is just more enjoyable to use it slows down the action by making you think more rather than just spray and pray
What a refreshing photography channel. This is the third video Ive watched and I have loved them all. Subscribed.
Awesome, thank you Abdul. I'm running a weekly photo competitiongroup during Lockdown. almost 3000 photographers of all levels having a great time and supporting each other. I think you'll love it. Link below explains everything... MIKE
www.photographycourses.biz/photography-locked-down
Image Stabilization on a lens is really useful . Specially as I do hand held videos too
I wish I’d watched this BEFORE my husband and I spent way too much money on a couple of lenses!!! I asked for some advice from a photographer on Facebook, and now I feel as though he was really a “photographer snob.” On the other hand, I met another wonderful photographer who has done loads of beautiful work and has encouraged me to buy what works best for me and makes me happy. I have a very nice macro lens that has a wide aperture, but for everyday fun and versatility, I bought a zoom lens. Also, I’ve looked back at old photos using a “kit” lens, and I have many great shots. But, as you point out, learning about light, composition, and practicing have much more value than buying the latest and greatest!
Yes sadly there are quite a lot of "“photographer snobs” about @Anne Harwood... MIKE
I'm absolutely with you about the 18-55mm kit lens. I switched from Nikon (D800 with 24-70/2.8) to Fuji (X-T2 with 18-55mm) and I did that because of the size and weight of the gear. Now I'm carrying about 800g instead of 2 kg of weight and I really don't see a lot of difference in my shots. I decided to buy the 18-55mm after you recommended it in one of your videos. Btw have a great and healthy new year and take care :).
Thanks Michael - you too buddy - MIKE :-)
I agree, we live in a world that thinks over sharp, over saturated, and over processed images are the ideal. This not only applies to the hardware, but also the processing software, of which there are so many choices now. I hope we begin to realize that telling a story, having a pleasing composition, and evoking an emotion are the real goals of an image.... not that I don't notice an overdone sky now and then!
great video as always mike. as an amature photographer i would be the first to admit that i have in the past been a little
hung up about sharp images and equipment but just recently i have been using my 18.55 kit lens and found very little
difference in image quality between 18.55mm kit lens and an expensive 17 40mm canon L lens. so your video mike
will help me to get into the mind set of more images less aquipment better composition. thanks mike regards ray
Thanks Ray. "more images less equipment better composition" is a great mantra - MIKE :-)
That’s really good advice, Mike. There’s a lot of nonsense spoken about kit lenses being awful when this isn’t actually the case. I’d say that how you intend to print your images is a bigger limiting factor. I’d be asking myself whether I’m going to see the results of the extra spending when I get my prints or photo book back from the lab. And to me, as a hobby photographer, it’s more important that I have that money to spend on travelling to interesting places with my camera.
My first camera was the Nikon D 40 18-55 kit lens. But my problem was I wanted more reach. A lens that covers a big area. So I got the Tamron 18-270mm F 3.5 you know the rest. I shot everything with it. Landscapes, people and pets. Inside an old mission. Planes , trains, and automobiles. It was a great lens.
Hi Mike, i am an enthusiast / hobbyist and also have the XT1 with the 18-55, i love this camera and with the (WYSIWYG) has helped me move on from shooting in Auto Mode. As to your video i was uplifted with your comparison test, ie, how much we can save on lenses, you are the first pro photographer, and i watch many on youtube to mention the lens sharpness issue !!, to be truthful both lense images looked pretty much the same to me, but my eyes are several decades old now !!. Also i have become interested in close up photography but fuji prime lenses are quite steep pricewise for me, so i bought the metabones fuji/nikon adapter and bought old Ai - S Nikon 24mm, 50mm and 105mm micro lenses, with a 52.5mm macro tube, all on ebay in great condition ( all manual lenses, but that's not a problem as i will be shooting closeup in manual ). With the the 105 & tube i can get a 1:1 ratio, all this for about half the price of the fuji 60mm macro, excuse me for going on, but a big thank you for all your great informative videos.
Thanks Peter... MIKE :-)
That made sense Mike I shoot with an xt1 with the 18-55 kit lens and it is a cracker lens. I have the 55-200 as well and that is a quality lens to. As you say it's the photographer that sees and makes the shots not the camera. Light and composition is everything. Cheers mate
Mike, I agree with you totally. I've used both high dollar "L" lens and the "STM" lens and find almost no difference in the quality of my photography. Matter of fact I perfer the STM lens for bang for the buck and they work so much better when shooting video.
Spot-on Mike!
I like your presentation style, no gimmicks, just straight forward info and content.
All the best for 2018
You too Colin - MIKE :-)
I like the energy in all of your videos. So much to learn. As far as changing lenses is concerned, I bought myself a cheap ebay lens-flipper. Made my life so much easier.
well, I will keep this in mind when (not if) I make the switch from Canon clunks to Fuji, but: as an Icelander having to deal with minimal light during good chunk of the year, and not just photographying landscape or street photography, I have to say that the 2.8 throughout the range is appealing ;)
When i moved to Fuji thought i needed the 16-55 but soon realised how good this kit one is, a previous video you did helped me with the decision when you had to buy the 16-55. Interesting view point about over sharpness. I also love using my old Olympus primes on the XT-2. Stephen
Another interesting and enjoyable video Mike, thanks. I slightly disagree with you on this one. When I first started out as a professional photographer with limited budget I used consumer lenses and got good results. I eventually started replacing my lenses with "professional" lenses and got.......good results. The major,and for me a big major difference, was that the better lenses give me consistently better results. Better focusing in low light especially when I need to capture that fleeting moment, better depth of field, better image stabilization, better tonal range and yes, most importantly, sharp, sharp and sharp! So I guess it comes down to what you want to use the lens for. Personally I don't think I can work with a kit lens at a professional gig, I've got so used to using the better lenses. They do make a difference.
Another super video. Many thanks for sharing.
I currently shoot with a Nikon D750 & my camera kit is nearly complete. The one last lens I would like is a 70-200mm. The thing is I am about to become a Dad for the first time and so as you can imagine money has become a little tighter. I have spent hours wandering which 70-200mm lens to buy but with this video you have put a few of my hangups to bed and I now feel much more comfortable and confident about the lens I will choose. So thank you for that. - Adam
Congratulations Adam and you're welcome. Happy to help... MIKE :-)
A while ago i picked up an old 70-210mm F4 on the back of this video from Angry Photographer ruclips.net/video/NRaT4qfQ-VM/видео.html I got mine from ebay for £120 and it was in pristine imaculate condition. No its not a 2.8 but thats no big deal for me. The pictures i get are amazing, really very nice indeed. I have young children also so £1500 plus lenses are out for me!
Adam Blackman Photography. Consider a 70-300. They have a varying maximum aperture, but a bit more reach. Doesn't have to be Nikon. I would insist on stabilisation though. Also, consider used. Someone will get Mike's at a huge discount from what he paid.
Hi Mike just starting out in proper picture taking. Glad found your channel and thank you for sharing
Good to here Dave, take a look here for more support www.photographycourses.biz/courses
I recently purchased a 13 year old (2005) Canon 5D (Mk1) as a permanent home for my Canon 40mm f/2.8 "pancake". Yes, there are sharper lenses. Yes, there are zooms that incorporate 40mm f/2.8 that are more flexible. Yes, the Canon 5D is ancient. However....wait for it.....I love the combination. It goes everywhere with me. It's a £300 combination. It recreates the feeling of my dear old Olympus XA2 and 40mm full-frame is, in my opinion, the most natural focal length. It forces you to "zoom with your feet" and work for an image but it also allows you to become familiar with what the image will look like, before you raise the camera to your eye. I love it. Let's not get hung up on having the latest gear when there is so much superb gear out there for 10% of the price.
Hi Lee. "I love the combination." - And that's all that matters... MIKE :-)
Mike, you are fantastic. A real pleasure to watch.
Thanks Evian.. MIKE
I wish I could mash the like button 100 times, I couldn't agree more about the Fuji glass. The 18-55 and 55-200 are just amazing period, especially for their size. I was always a die hard canon fan because of their color rendering, never liked the nikon files but once I switched to fuji I was really amazed and the glass you get for the money is incredible and the size and weight is a major bonus!
It's great to hear common sense in these matters. It disappoints many if us when we hear that same old song singing you need to upgrade. A lot of photographers are happy with good cost lens.
🙏 K.L. Yep, upgrading kit rarely makes any difference to how interesting the images are. Anyone shooting pre 1980's had the most basic of cameras and some of them took stunning images - Cariter-Bresson etc... It's much better and cheaper to upgrade our skills than our kit... MIKE
Hi Mike, I totally agree with you on this topic. The only reason I had to invest a lot of money on expensive lenses (Canon L Series) because of the weather sealing. Last year I had to give up too often to go out taking pictures because of the rain. Tried to use some DSLR raincoats but they were more trouble than any help for me. The companies should realizes not every one living in an area where most of the time in the year it's sunny or not raining/snowing and they should add weather sealing into the cheaper lenses too.
I always look forward to any new videos from you Mike..of course I've watched your other ones over and over..you were my first "teacher" last year when I got back into photography..every time that I get an itch to buy new equipment, I just watch your videos when you use our kit lens and think "if it's good enough for Mike, I think I'm ok with what I have"..thanks for continuing to save me $ !
It's the depth of field and constant aperture mostly that makes the 16-55 a premium. This is just laws of physics and the 2.8 provides better bokeh and this is important to wedding and portrait photographers...along with the convenience of a zoom. Personally I shoot primes and keep the 18-55 for travel and casual use.
I agree with you about the 18-55 OIS, its a great little lens and the image stabilisation on it cancels out the aperture advantage that the 16-55 WR has, and to be honest if you do want a shallower depth of field at the long end of the range its actually cheaper to buy the 18-55 OIS and the fabulous Fujifilm 50mm 2 WR lens for a few quid cheaper than the 16-55 WR and both of those lenses combined will probably take up less pocket space than the 16-55 WR.
Interesting comment on sharpness. I agree that there's too much emphasis on this aspect of image quality.
Hi guys. Everything depends on how the lens is used. This is why many photographers have several similar lenses to have the choice..
Sharpness is not the only quality. Zooms with many glass elements usually loose the light transmission/color and contrast, which those cheapo kit lenses have, because they have just few glass elements. And every transition between glass or air means additional dispersion and it modifies the light spectrum a bit by slowing different light wavelengths by different amount, which is then corrected to fight aberations, fringing and other defects. If you have significantly corrected bright zoom lens, it usually has many elements. Especially if it was designed to keep resolution high even in corners.
Just compare for example Sigma Art 35/1.4 and some old classic 35/2 lens (nikkor, Pentax, canon.. whatever.). Sigma wins with resolution significantly. It also is faster. But those older simpler lenses do have better contrast and better color transmission resulting in something called 3D pop.
And then depends what you need.. that is why they are interchangeable :)) Concerning basic zooms, in my cabinet there are for example sig 17-50/2.8, sig17-70/2.8-4.5, pentax 18-55/3.5-5.6 and pentax 18-135/3.5-5.6.. And sometimes I grab this, sometimes that.. depends on usage, bag, desired results. Same applies for any other lenses.. telephotos for example.. one can choose small and easily portable DA55-300, but sometimes I need the image quality, that only the big and 2kilo heavy sigma 100-300/4 is able to provide... or sometimes the brutal range, that huge and heavy sigma 50-500 gives me.. or sometimes I need the light capturing and shallow depth of field ability, that my sig 70-200/2.8 can provide..
And then we also can try to compare fixed focal lenses with zooms.. lets say the DA40/2.8 little pancake with few elements with that significantly larger and heavier Sig17-50/2.8 @ 40mm.. that small pancake trashes that sigma in terms of contrast and natural feel anytime.. but for rapidly developing environment like for wedding shooting that sigma wins hands down as I do not have to change lenses that often and it simply delivers perfectly usable image on any focal length.
Sad thing is, that Fuji does not have IBIS to provide stabilisation for the 16-55/2-8, wich somewhat kills the low-light fun with shutter speeds around 1/30s and longer.. and that lens might have high resolution in central part of image, but corners are not overly impressive for that lens level + price. And stopping down does not help it at all. That smaller 18-55 might not be that sharp in center part, but it is more balanced over whole image area. Anyway testing them af F10 (which involvs some diffraction on APS-C sensor) and looking at jpeg heavily processed by camera.. ehm ehm :D Rawtherapee might be better especially without the lens correction profile involved.
And I totally understand, that for those happy sunny days and relaxed shooting that 18-55 is better :)
I ran around with a Canon 20D and a 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 from about 2008 until 2016. I recently upgraded to a 5dMK3 and picked up a 70-200mm f/2.8L II and a 50mm f/1.2L prime. The quality of my images improved dramatically and what I could do with them also improved immensely. But that was after spending 8 years figuring out just what I wanted to achieve with photography and what I wanted my images to do.
I think it is much better to invest the time, money and effort into developing yourself rather than chasing the top end newest tech in lenses or cameras.
Furthermore, after you have a decent baseline of equipment, experience and training you need to weigh the money you would spend on a new piece of equipment against spending that money on going to a new location which doubles as both adventure and photography work. I'd rather spend $10k on a stunning adventure where I can use my current cameras than purchasing a 600mm monster at this point.
So true I use a Micro Four Thirds kit and I've thought many times to replace my "kit" lens with a $1000 upgrade but didn't do it because of the money and thought it wasn't worth it. I opted for cheaper primes for low light and faster apertures and I love them. I've also bought some second had Canon FD lenses with an adaptor for a fraction of the cost of a new lens and some of the results are great if you don't mind the manual focus. Quite fun and some of the older lenses have some great character to them compared to the ultra sharp modern lenses. If you watch some of Mathieu Stern's videos he does some wonderful shots with some weird old lenses.
We seem to be flooded with marketing strategies to coax us into spending more money. Some of the better photos I have taken is with my D300 and 18-55 kit lens, paid only £225 and came with a Lowepro sling bag, new speed light and spare batteries. I do a lot of concert photography therefore I also have a Nikon D750 with Tokina 16-28mm f2.8, Tamron 28-75mm f2,8 and old Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 push pull lens and Nikon 50mm prime f1.8. I am very pleased with my lens purchases and the most I paid for one of these lenses was £385. I could never afford to spend £1000's on a lens and never felt the need to as what I have does exactly what I need them to do.
Another brilliant video Mike!.
Thanks Tony. ... MIKE
You bring such a unique perspective, worth watching just for that
Thanks Christian, I appreciate your comment.
Try those huts again a little later in the day as the ambient light is dimming. That constant aperture is gong to be much apprecited. The pleasant fact that your camera/lens fits in your pocket won't be quite as fun if it has been relegated there out of necessity.
That said, really nice kit lenses do exist and you certainly appear to have one of them. Nice!
Mike, you should include how each lens prints on paper. I have found that when it comes down lens preference, the biggest difference comes in how the photographs print on paper. For example, I have an old Canon 55 F1.2 that that I have adapted to Sony, and what make this lens superb, are in the contrasting highlight that cannot be noticed on a computer.
Thank you for this video Mike! The kit you use is only a tool to create a vision. As long as you can m communicate the vision, who cares what equipment you use! Cheers!
"The kit you use is only a tool to create a vision" YES - MIKE
A good trick I found for getting some glass was to arrange my Lightroom catalog by the focal length used in my shots. I saw that the majority of my photos were either done at 18mm or the 55mm end on my kit lens, so I got myself a 10-20mm ultrawide zoom and a 50mm prime. Been having a lot of fun with both, but I still break out my kit lens when I need it! That being said though, Mike is absolutely right about not getting too hung up on gear. I'm geeky so I couldn't help getting some extra toys, even though I don't necessarily need them :P
You are talking good sense in a world of passion. Sometimes it is necessary because we are pleased to own the best(?) gear and we lose the ultimate purpose, the picture itself.
Hi Mike. Another great video. I have just sold a fast lens, and gone back to a "kit" lens. The f2.8 was a great feature, but I seldom shoot in low light. The extra reach that I now have (105mm) gives me more flexibility than the 50mm on the faster lens for my type of photography. It is comforting to know that a professional does the same sort of thing. Regards.
Thank you Colin... MIKE
Hi. As an ‘older’ photographer, the lack of stabilisation in the 16-55 mm makes carrying a tripod an unwelcome necessity (unsteady hands). Thank you for an excellent video.
Hi Mike you brought out something very important that is more expensive lenses doesn’t mean better pictures. Excellent video Mike keep it up. Wish I was in the UK so that we could meet.... may be some day ... Cheers
Great informative video Mike.
Good to see that it's not all about the equipment.. it's about the person behind it!
Thanks Mike Crawshaw. Cameras don't take pictures - the person behind it does... MIKE
Completely agree with Mike on this. That £350 lens is astonishing and does it all, no way could I justify the extra cost. Great video Mike, thank you very much.
People are always saying you need better lens to me especially as I like wedding photography. But my kit lens 18-55 does a great job .
Good on you Debbie. If it works for you and you got happy clients. Why fix something that's not broken? ... MIKE🙏😊
I quite like the 18-55 f/2.8-4.0 lens when needed. I think you meant f/4.0 when zoomed out and not f/5.6.
I have been reminding myself not to become a sheep gazing on this super duper sharpness wave. Totally agree I tend to work on my composition and not always want that crazy unreal sharpness, particularly when I m shooting videos. Thanks for keeping us all sane.
I just recently discovered your RUclips channel... I have been enjoying watching your videos. You are extremely knowledgable
thank you kimberly! please do share our videos too so we can make more - Melissa pp Mike
This video also highlights the main limitation of the Fuji system - the availability and cost of its glass. The 18-55 is actually over £600 new Mike. Great quality if one has deep pockets. I suspect one could find a cheap replacement 18-55 Canon lens even in Iceland.
Nice video, very nice video. Not sure I agree on your aversion to overly sharp lenses but what's more important is people should just buy and use what they want instead of "what's best".
God Bless you Mike, you are an excellent teacher.......full of life.....
Thanks again Dr. ShahZadah... MIKE
Thanks for another great video Mike. It would also be nice to have a little comparison section here on the 2.8 at the longer focal length vs the smaller lens at 5.6 (it's smallest f stop) for the same shot, show a bit what the extra money gets.
Hi Mike ,i use the Fuji XT10 with 16-50 kit lens , amazing little camera for its price , highly recommended for the budget photographer
Well Mike I finally made the jump this year and got rid of my Nikon D800e and 610 with accompanying 4 heavy lenses that I used for my landscapes. Now got the XT2 16-55mm (Too sharp) & 50-140mm that's it! (Ive commented on this before)
Of course I miss my big dslr's but not the weight. It took a long time, all of last year, and yours and others videos to convince me. At 64 yrs, big hands, wee Scottish brain, and not a lot of patience I was struggling with the weight I was carrying so decisions had to be made!!
I did the side by side comparison of course as others have done, between my D800e and the XT2 through the iso ranges and as expected the D800e was slightly better but not by much!
Lightroom was a bugger with the X-trans files but got round that with Iridient and after that I was really surprised. With my old eyes I couldn't tell the difference!! Once you learn that you have to edit slightly differently with the files produced by the XT-2 Brilliant. Your right its not about the kit or gear its getting out there and doing pictures and learning to adapt.
Jim
Good on you Jim. Interesting, I have heard folks say they have problems with X-trans files in Lightroom but I've never had a problem. Enjoy the XT-1 buddy... MIKE
Mike Browne thanks Mike keep up the good work 👍
Had the 18 55mm f2.8 as part of my fuji x-t20 kit and as you say mike its an excellent lens for a kit lens great for walkabout photography its so versatile
I have the D850 and the Fuji XT10. The XT10 I use to hike and head out deep into the trail. I'm Madly In love with my D850. However, what makes me smile and makes shooting just a joy is my XT10 with the 18-55. Its light and I capture shots that apear more unexpectantly because I have the ability to be more mobile and move quicker. I at times feel, I could have the XT10 and three lenses and be good. XT10 is so light and small and takes amazing photos. When I started photography pro's would preach its not the gear. But I obsessed over having great gear. Composition, lighting and capturing a good story overrides everything. I feel a simple camara like XT10 produces better Images than camaras ten years ago. I have a shot on an old Nikon E Lense. This was a kit E, not sharp, But I love the photo becasue it's story moves me. It's so not the gear.
"I love the photo becasue it's story moves me. It's so not the gear" - AGREE 100% - MIKE
Well said. Boy, if I had a dime for every time someone asked, “how sharp is it”? I shoot both Fuji and Nikon and I have to say Mike that my favorite lenses for my Nikon are the ones made back in the 80s and the 90s. I use those 90% of the time. Happy New Year!
Happy New Year Michael - MIKE :-)
Would you consider doing the test with RAW rather than jpeg exposures. I was wondering if the contrast differences were related to the camera software compression rather than the lenses.
I actually shot jpg and raw when I did the test but they looked the same. So I thought better keep it simple and just do basic jpegs on same picture control settings... MIKE
Okay, been a while since I shot durning the day. Partly because of work and where I really, honestly like to shoot...in the dark without flash (because the jazz cats love it, so do i). Tried shooting flash once and twice but they still asked me to go back and shoot without. I happily continue to shoot with my iso jacked through the roof! pushing cameras to extremes.
I have a second camera now because I had three incidents where someone was kind enough to catch a lens falling off a table in a dark jazz club. It's dark and I am a bit fumblily at times changing lenses, especially after second round of Gin:) No, I don't get drunk or drink heavy. I learned to regulate beer in bars whilst living in Chile. Hardly ever took mine to a bar. maybe once and it never left the bag. Anyway, learned how to drink and still street shoot well, not have stuff stolen. Now back in home I have two expensive f1.4 prime lenses with wide apertures (that I had to save up a long time for) and two through the range f2.8 zooms. I will use just the two primes a lot if I want to pack light, and it has improved my technical and focal length skills.
So yeh, it sucks, but I am having ball shooting! It is sometimes bulky but I am happy (and really need the 2.8
If out during the day or long exposures at night, I am rarely stopping up very high. These days, as long as I am set RAW, the images are still fantastic night and day.
Images turn out fine using the STANDARD setting on my DSLR, but I have noticed a difference in Lr shooting MIKE-FLAT. I have to work with pixels the size of chocolate bars, however, when I met brilliant wanker Browne here for a 1to1 I have been shooting MIKE-FLAT. I feel as if I can almost control the sharpness more in post production now. And the contrast. Sure sometimes it is difficult to zoom in on a flat image on the LCD to check for sharpness on the spot, but I got used to it. I will shoot with an old D90 with long exposure shots and during the day. Never stop up past 4 or 5.6. That bad boy cannot handle the night. But sure can while I am shooting street on my longboard down long avenues in Manhattan; using burst or Continuous focus:) yes. I am nuts. 12 meg, 24 meg and a 36 meg. Fernando (cropped), Vinnie and Alistair. All my guys produce great image quality a bit better, most of all I can control the sharpness more with MIKE-FLAT, day and night. Tested it with Vinnie and Alistair. First set at my friends session I set to STANDARD and the second set I switched back to MIKE-FLAT. Have to agree that cheaper 4- 5.6, AND 2.8, 1.4 all are easier to regulate better in Lr with MIKE-FLAT.
Mike and I dug through menu and dialed down sharpness, contrast and a tiny bit of clarity. Now it is wicked fun post producing the images. Wider apt through the range ain't the trick. it's my mf brain! Concentrate, no matter the kit, and I am happy with my images and I can sharpen 'em up in Lr as needed I after shooting.
I took out this kid to teach some street. Set his camera to IAIN-FLAT: hair sharper than MIKE-FLAT. Kid practiced enough, and told me he is going to keep it set to IAIN-FLAT. And he is using a bleedin' basic kit for goodness sake. (I used my old kit with him so I did not come off as too flash).
Shootin' at night I kinda need that more expensive piece allowing faster shutter speed to catch these nuts performing. Otherwise would not have spent the money.
video was a little flat, but as always, still informative. Thanks.....dunno what for:)
Mike, do you feel the same way about nature/landscape photography? I personally really like the high detail sharpness of 4k when I'm watching something like Planet Earth II, or looking at a close up photo a professional nature photographer has taken.
Hi Paul. Yes I feel this way about all imagery. Hate super HD TVs and lenses. A lot of top end photographers and film makers use old lenses to avoid it.. MIKE
F/2.8 is not cancelled out by OIS. OIS wont freeze action or give shallow depth of field.
At mid apertures though, kit lenses are still amazing and I would agree that the basic lens works fine and saves weight.
Hi Mike. Thanks for this video. I have the fuji 'kit' lens and think it's great. I do think some you tubers feed into the belief that a 2.8 lens is a must have. It may be for some uses. I always thought that lens rarely perform best wide open so why worry?
A constant aperture is handy to have, especially if you shoot manual. It allows you to zoom in without having to change exposure.
There's also more to a wider aperture than just the wide open performance, it lets you stop down 2 stops, giving you better IQ, and contrast, as well as less vignetting at the same exposure.
I guess it depends on the 2.8. I own the brilliant 50-140 f/2.8. Even at 2/8 it is amazingly sharp. Sometimes you really do get what you pay for. I shoot mainly in full manual and will not shoot with any zoom that is not a constant aperture. Gives me one less thing to worry about.