Thanks for watching and I hope it’s helped. Remember, it’s not what you’ve got, it’s what you do with it! For the technical geeks out there, please watch this video before you comment ruclips.net/video/cgqBUKiSJbc/видео.html - This video is for the learning photographer, not people who read product manuals inside out! Enjoy 😊
Cory Ulrich • So we can all learn together 😉 It’s a popular question worth exploring, even if exploring is the operative word. I would like him to revisit the tests though, using identical manual settings in each pair of shots. I think his conclusions for the first two pairs of shots were good, but I think an additional variable crept in... if both shots of the flower were exposed the same, I’m sure they would look much more similar (slight contrast and sharpness to the pro lens, but only about as much practical difference as the other tests).
You've helped me greatly!!! I am on an extremely tight budget and only do it as a hobby. However, I do take great photos with what I have and I'm constantly told I should sell them. (I'm not THAT good!) I'm just proud of the fact that the area Counties and Cities do repost my photos in their "Vacation" Brochures and on their Facebook pages.
Sharon Barnes • Maybe you wont sell a million or be immediately considered the next Angel Adams or whatever, but go for it! Feels good to make a few bucks on the side, what can it hurt? Bit of advice from someone who tried to make a career of it though... the stress of trying to make it your primary source of income is very high, and it CAN hurt your love of the art. Be prepared if you decide to go that route. But as a side project, I’ve found it much more rewarding and it feels good to think other people are appreciating and enriched by my photos, and I recommend that to others :)
It looks to me as if the flower shot may be over-exposed for the kit lens. They do not appear to be taken at the same exposure; you can see that the L lens image is significantly darker.
I wouldn't be surprised -- He was shooting in AV priority so metering could have easily changed depending with some slight differences in light. IMO keeping it in manual would have been more scientific.
Ah, that would explain it. I didn't notice aperture priority. I think the above comment got it partly right too: f-stop vs. T-stop. Even at identical apertures there is a small amount of light loss difference between every lens. It's hard to make two different lenses look the same!
@The School of Photography - I just screencapped the video and pulled the flower photos into Gimp and looked at the layer histograms. The histogram for the L lens is shifted significantly to the left. By lowering the exposure and reducing the contrast I am able to very closely match them; there is a color shift in the pro lens that I find unattractive, but I prefer bold colors in general. After playing with the two images I prefer the cheap lens, though that is partly because it's exposed to the right more.
OMFG! You are not only so right, that is something I run into with non-photographer types all the time. People just expect that "pros" have cameras with these massive lenses like they would see a photographer shooting the Super Bowl using. I've lost track of the number of times I've had to explain to someone that I don't actually need to use my giant 450mm Telephoto to take a simple portrait, because my 50mm Prime will do the job just fine.
@@looneyburgmusic when ever I use my d3500 with my 18-55 nikkor afp or 50mm f1.8d no one looks twice but once I put on my metal dg hsm contemporary sigma 70-300 I always get compliments
@Picture This Im gonna be honest, i dont understand a shit that you wrote and im going to remove your rights to comment. How can someone write like a goddamn lizard running over the keyboard. Go back to school and when you learned to write you have a right to argument.
I have both of these lenses. The one thing you missed is distortion, especially at the wide end. The kit lens is truly woeful in this respect, but to compare them fairly, you have to use the pro lens on a full frame body.
My biggest thing about pro lenses are the focusing speeds and accuracy are better when it comes to lower light, and the shallower depth of field. Other than that the kit lenses are actually really well made and you can get amazing photos from them. I used them as my lenses for the first 5 years of my professional career. I only started buying pro lenses when i started shooting weddings and events not just commercial work and portraits. They make it a lot easier to shoot over the kit lens
It's really about what you are shooting. If you have a professional assignment, like shooting dogs at a show or sports, you're going to have to have gear that can handle that demand to get good shots. Just taking stills is not a total measure.
I've a;ways felt that lens speed was the biggest advantage when buying higher end lenses, since faster lenses tend to be higher end. A lot of kit lenses have the lowest f-stop at 3.5 which is really limiting when you want a shallow depth of field. The other stuff is just a nice bonus.
As usual, you've watched RUclips videos instead of actually taking photographs or bothering to study optical laws. Depth of focus, ( NOT "depth of field") isn't determined only by f-stop. I can, and have taken portraits at f8.3 with a 100mm or equivalent focal length lens and blurred the background completely. You are conveniently ignoring camera to subject distance, the focal length of the lens, the reproduction ratio (degree of enlargement) and the optical properties of the lens being used. When you learn what a kit lens can and cannot do, THEN you MIGHT be justified in buying an expensive lens. I'm sorry, but I have shot more photographs than were sold with a fixed normal focal length lens on a Rollei twin lens camera than you will probably ever take in your lifetime. Let's see, most movies are shot with a double normal focal length lens at f(T) 11 and the background is blurred. The Director of Photography knows his lens and what it will do.
Honestly, Canon really upped the quality of their cheap lenses when the STM versions came out. My new 50mm 1.8 STM is significantly sharper than the old 50mm at all apertures, especially wide open. The focusing is really accurate and way quieter. If you want to have a cheap setup, a new 50mm 1.8 and a cheap used STM kit lens makes a good budget kit. The 24mm F2.8 STM is also excellent and ridiculously sharp.
@@adamfowler4500 Very likely yes . I have the old style 50mm 1.8 and the 18-55mm kit lens. Compared to their newer STM counterparts, it's a significant difference, especially when you start cropping into your photos. On my EOS 90D, the old lenses frankly don't produce a sharp image unless you close the aperture down. The autofocus performs really well on my 90D although I'm not sure how it would be on the 200d.
That's what I chose to go with my cheap, used but like-new 70D. It's so much fun, but I do have to back away more than I'm used to compared to when using a smartphone.
If you had done this test ten or twenty years ago the results most likely would have been far different, but today, as you showed, not so much. The differences between a "pro" lens and a "kit" lens have reached a point where any issues with the kit lens are minor, and can be easily handled in post-processing.
@@serioussam909 Another big part of this question is people just need to slow down some, and take the time to learn their gear, and learn how to shoot the best photo with the lens they have on the camera. If I'm doing a professional "studio" portrait then I'm going with my best prime lens, with the camera most likely fixed on a tripod at a pre-measured distance from the subject. But for "casual", wandering around town photography, the kit lens that came with my Nikon, (18-55mm), is sometimes more than good enough for my needs.
@@looneyburgmusic A prime lens like the "nifty fifty" can take better pictures than a kit lens and is also very cheap. This is why it might be a good idea to pick up a cheap 24mm or 50mm prime even if you're not a professional.
You're right! Anyone can play soccer, but pro player is just a little bit of better :-). However, our clients pay for that "better", they feel happy to pay for a photographer uses camera with "red ring" lens!
There is FAR more to it than that! What is the distance from the image plane to the subject? What will be the enlargement percentage? What f-stop is being used? What are the lighting conditions? How much time are you willing to spend in post production (Lightroom/Capture One)? Are you shooting in JPEG or RAW? What ISO equivalent are you using? What about the noise figure for your camera sensor? Under the right set of conditions, it's not hard to produce a better straight from the camera image with a kit lens than a $3500 lens, BUT you have to know the limitations of BOTH lenses, and the expensive lens has limitations too. Size, weight and bulk are big factors. If you don't have your good camera with your big lens because it's too bulky and heavy, what good is it? I'm sorry, I've been a working professional photographer for over 50 years and these so-called "comparisons" are meaningless. Ansel Adams made a prize winning photograph with a $2.50 120 roll film Diana fixed focus, fixed exposure, single element lens camera. I have seen it in person. It is VERY, VERY hard to tell the difference in it and his Hasselblad images.
@@juanpedro814 no, no one knows about that outside the photography world. The clients do not know nor care, they want big cameras and big lenses, they want to hire someone who look pro, not someone who runs around with a kit lens
Yes it is. For sure. Years ago I bought a 50D. Went out and learned to shoot. Then one day I walked in to a shop for a filter. There was a offer from 600 euro for a new 24-105. I bought it and from that day my shots were much better in color, aperture and sharpness. Because of the cons from this lens for a crop factor cam I learned how to become even better.
This is exactly why I haven't opted for fast expensive zooms, but instead went for - wait for it - even MORE kit lenses! Large apertures are nice, but the affordable ultrawide and telezoom that now accompany my kit lens gave me much more things to shoot. Also, don't forget that expensive gear is useless if editing skills are weak - photography never stops at the shutter button!
thank you for this unbiased comparison and as a person who is the starting out I will defer to being a budget orientated and conscious hobbyist at this time. Can't have this hobby financially burdened me.
I've just had to make this decision using used the same kit lens on my 80d for a year. Last week I bought the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 having read some seriously complimentary reviews. At the weekend I took pics at my local flying club and at a local wildlife event in a nearby country park, including my grandson. The verdict from my non-photographer daughter was that the results were a substantial improvement in clarity. So there's the thing - the results really impressed my intended audience. My thoughts? I am truly amazed and wished I had made the change months ago! However, having made the move from my EOS 300D there was a lot of camera learning to do first!
Was the 18-55 good with the 80D? Im having a crisis about it because my dad will buy me my first camera and i really want the 80D. And i think i have no choice but to get it with the 18-55 kit lens because the other kit lens "18-135"? (Not sure, can't remember) cost too much money. And if I dont choose the 18-55 i dont thibk he'll want to buy it... ugghhhhhhhhh I can't decide!
As a 600d user who has gone through the pain of shooting in low light with 18-55mm kit lens , Id say its worth spending extra cash on a Sharper lens. I'm upgrading to a new camera all together , Great video BTW
Your point sort of emphasizes something that I've noticed and is something that newb's should be aware of. Low light performance is not just the lens, but also impacted by the body chosen. Most people shooting inside most venues, including the home, are shooting in rather poor lighting. Buying a better lens is one thing, buying a body that performs poorly in low light is just as much of a problem. Adding flash helps if it can be done; an external flash that can bounce is perhaps the next step after upgrading glass. But when purchasing your first camera, newb's would be better off buying a better body than buying the cheapest body... All of the components work together; so to dismiss the body as part of the problem is sort of foolish. Advice to newbs: Buy as much camera as you can initially afford; then buy better glass, and an external flash prior to the next body..
Being the poor retired American bloke that I am I do get the lighter less colorful results with my Canon 18-55mm kit lens. However, with very little more time and effort required I can get beautiful end results of color with fairly cheap but effective enhancing software. Every photo I take goes through the enhancing software screening process anyway so the kit lens works perfect in my world. I'm sure I'm preaching to an already well versed choir. Thank You for the "reassuring" video you presented here.
Thanks for this.I have spent countless hours looking at reviews always lusting after the latest and best gear.This has taught me to learn how to use what I have properly before considering if I really need any more equipment.I replaced a Nikon 18-105 with a 16-80 can I see any improvement not really. Even worse neither can my treasurer ie my wife
I am pretty sure there is a marginal difference in corner sharpness between the lenses, obviously the 16-80 is sharper. Also I am sure the color contrast is better, not to talk about it is a faster and wider lens so overall it is impossible not to see any difference.
I still have a 28-80 kit lens that was sold with the EOS5, it has more plastic than the nifty fifty. A brilliant video and I totally agree about upgrading glass before your body, but also look at third party lenses such as Sigma and Tamron.
I have a kit 16-50 F3.5-5.6 ($400) and pro 16-55 F2.8 ($1000). They both are good performers, the build is better on the pro lens with more metal and much much heavier. I do a lot of landscapes on the trail so weight is important for each item, my pack for a week can be 65 lbs. The kit lens weighs 8-1/2 oz (242g) and the pro lens is a whooping 1 lb 10-1/4 oz (746g), that is 3 times heavier. So on those tougher longer backpacks, I take the kit lens. Side note, the kit lens has a plastic bayonet mount that broke when it was mounted on the camera when I drop the camera case. So which one I take depends on what I am doing.
I'm miles away from being an expert in this, but it looks like the kit lens just lets in more uv than the pro lens. Which leads me to believe that the pro lens has better coating. Normally you would fix this on the kit lens by just placing a uv filter but then you would be adding an optical element therefore reducing the overall sharpness of the image, so there is a trade-off for a lense that otherwise is practically on par with the pro lens. Correct me if I'm wrong in this. In the chromatic aberration test it is in my understanding that a good comparison would be done stretching the zoom to the max on each of the lenses so that the aberration is apparent.
I've an old 1991-vintage 28-80 USM MK1, and a 2013 15-55 EF-S STM. What it took for me to tell the difference between them was reading the number plate of a car a hundred metres away at the 50mm setting. The old 28-80 was a smidge sharper - until the shutter speed dropped off. TBH the biggest difference I ever saw was with an older 24-35mm nFD L, and a 28mm F2.8 FD on my Canon F-1. The L had noticeably better colours on Ektachrome E100 - it looked 'modern' and digital, compared to the shots with the 28. I broke the L by dropping it and knocking it out of focus. It died being put to work - which I suppose is an honourable end for some vintage gear designed to 'work'.
The gearheads may wish to disagree, but the point is quite clear. That extra 5% costs an awful lot of money, but you can still get amazing photos with cheaper equipment. Its about the photographer, not the equipment.
It wasn’t really a fair test anyway. It was more of a versatility test (which the pro lens would be a clear winner...pun intended) Take a similar macro focal length lens rather than compared a high end tele to a kit lens. In some situations the cheaper macro lens COULD beat a much more expensive tele lens for the same purpose :P
Really useful. I have that kit lens with my Canon 90D. The sharpness is a game changer for me. I feel if I shoot in raw and pull it into Lightroom I will get the colours right.
switch to prime kit lenses no need for the pro prime lenses you'll see a difference and get a 70-300 zoom with image stabilization you'll see a huge difference in quality. best to toss that 18-55 in the dumpster where it belongs
Not very convincing. In my opinion the two 'colour test' pictures show a different exposure and a different focal length. I do not deny that the pro lens is better, but the difference may be even less than you suggest.
The EV for the kit lens looks completely different than that for the pro model in the color test. Shouldn't be that much difference in contrast/color, considering the result of the CA test shots.
I often compare my kit efs 18-55mm lens which came with my old Canon EOS 450D to my 100-300mm telephoto. I have only 2 lenses.The expensive telephoto was designed for a full frame camera and is better.But only just. Both lenses are superb.Neither shows noticeable spherical or chromatic aberration or pin-cushion or astigmatic aberration. They are both pin-sharp as well.I am happy.What more do I want?
it would be really cool to have a proper chromatic abberation test cause i know i get some mostly purple fringing on the kit lense which is imo flawlessly removed by lightrooms lens correction options anyway though. also what if you did your best to make the pictures look alike in post? would be interesting to see if you could set up an "L lens preset" to safe the 800 bucks entirely xD
Many years ago I asked this question of a gentleman photographer whom i trusted. His advice to me was this : “everyone worries a lot about buying an expensive lens because of the extreme resolution. But they’re forgetting one thing - even a cheaper lens will have much much higher detail resolution at its center than any camera is capable of capturing on film or sensor.”
Not than ANY film by a mile and a half! Illford Pan F or Rollei 25 (as well as other films) can be used to MEASURE lens resolution in the center at the optimum aperture of almost all lenses ever made. The exception to this rule is the Leitz 50mm F2 Apo-Summicron for M series cameras. It rules as the sharpest 35mm format lens ever designed.
I’ve got a 6d with L series glass and a 450d with the kit lens. I can tell overall the 6d combo is ‘better’, but if we travel anywhere I take the 450 as it’s smaller and lighter, I never regret this, the images are absolutely good enough.
It's worth the extra money, if you know what you are doing. I know far too many people who buy a new camera, spend a bunch of money on lens(es) and then 2-3 months later their camera is collecting dust in their closet. I used my 18-55 for about 6 months until I felt I had gotten everything out of it that I could, and then I started upgrading to other lenses, but I did buy used to save money. I think I wound up getting 3 lenses(35mm, 70-300mm, 17-70mm 2.8 to replace kit) to add more versatility to my gear for under $500, when they would have cost me well over $1000 new. So if you are just someone that goes out once or twice a month to take photos and don't use your camera much, the answer is no, you don't need better lenses because you're probably never going to see any benefit from them. If you are an enthusiast/amateur or professional, then yes, you are going to want to upgrade to better glass once you've mastered your kit lens.
For $800 I will just fix the color in post. Honestly for all of the benefits of the pro winds you can make all of those adjustments if you shoot in raw and edit in post.
So glad I came across this video comparison. Whilst downtown today I saw the 24 - 105 lens for sale used in an electronics shop but wanted to do my research first. As on the School of Photography site, you explain things very clearly and in a way that's easy to understand. Anyway, whilst researching the lens online, I realised that the price I have seen it for is about a third of what I would be charged in the pro camera shops in the city - hadn't realised I was potentially saving so much. At the moment I'm still using the kit lenses with my 90D but this has convinced me that it will be worth the outlay. Thanks Marc!
Yes. Pro lenses are pro for a reason. Faster, quiter and more reliable auto focus. Most are weather sealed and are built with a much higher build quality. They need to work all the time no matter the condition. Not to mention the extra coatings, speed and sharpness.
True, but shooting for several weeks without AF made a HUGE difference in my knowledge and abilities. Try it if you haven't. Even forced me to get my diopter set up correctly! As he says, if the financial difference is not a big deal then go for it. Same is true of cars: if you have $6 million then buy the BMW, why not? If you work paycheck to paycheck buy a Honda, used. Performance is practically the same, except on the Autobahn. Applies to cameras, cars, audio, pretty much everything. Some exceptions: maybe surgery? You probably want the best.
You have to remember that you've used a full frame lens on an apc-s body so in chromatic aberration it'll probably look the same if not the kit lens performing better.
I used my kit lens heavily...untill one day i came across the sigma art line up...since then my kit lens became a dust collector..the sigma art series is crazy effective for the prices payed.
On a full frame the difference between a Pro lens and amateur is much more significant. For years I used the EF28-135mm is on my old 5D. I was just lucky enough to pick up a mint 24-105mm L (same as yours) on Craigslist for $400 US. The edge sharpness difference at wide is significant as well as the brightness and pop of the image. Low light contrast and color is also superior on the L.
I’ve owned the 18-55 for quite a bit of time now and have always been surprised by the sharpness. It easily compares to all my Canon L-Series glass. Pretty crazy.
LoL! I don't know where you come from but it is a London accent, I'd say probably North-East London or South Essex. It's half a world away from a Harvard accent! Nothing wrong with that, I'm from South London myself, and he is indeed a good clear speaker.
To be honest, I prefred the kit lens pictures in every case, on the wall pic it even looked sharper in the video. The only exception is the actual dandilion, and that looks like the kit lens pic is overexposed, not a problem with the lens but the picutre.
I think some pros are secretly jealous of the ( 18-140 ) kit lens , simply because of its versatility , which can't be found in a single full frame lens ( unless one harks back to the days of the old 28-200 superzooms )
@@dovidell I think it's the 18-135mm, I see quite a few used, and was thinking of grabbing 1! Would have a good zoom range along with good wide angle view. Cheers!
Kit lens is brighter, hence the washed out color test. Apperture priority will change regardless the setting being the same. Pro lens form factor wins and looks way better than the kit one and this is what separates from the other and seems like you're paying for how it looks and feels in hand, more weighty equels more price I suppose. Thanks for your video.
At the moment I'm working on a little photography project of my own using the Panasonic lumix G1. For those younger audiences who might not know this camera, it's the first camera ever to use the micro four thirds sensor..( mirrorless ).. anyway back to the point. I bought a lens adapter so I could use some big lenses on this old-school camera and wow did it surprise me. The detail and clarity sharpness everything this camera can produce today in 2020 is what I would call perfect by all standards ( using a new style lens that is.)
Thanks for the comparison. Bought a SL2 a week ago with the kit lense works for the time being but had to buy the canon 10-18 mm f/4.5 for wide angle shots.
Canon doesn't make any EF-S (crop sensor) lens in their professional "L" series line. Arguably, the closest to an L series lens, EF-S (crop) is their 17-55 with a fixed aperture of 2.8. I own this lens on my Canon 7D MkII and the images are incredible. I also own the 1DX MkII and 24-70 f/2.8L II lens and obviously the 1DXII + 24-70 is on another level....
Surely testing the lenses on aperture priority is not the right choice, the main reason for buying a pro lens is to get a wider aperture. Then there will be better image stabilisation and range of zoom to consider?
I shoot stills and video as part of my job. One of the challenges is carrying and using heavy equipment so I often carry smaller Rebel cameras that normally are just for backup. The Rebel and kit lens is substantially lighter than my pro camera lenses. I am more likely to carry and shoot a lighter rig.
Well, sometimes its not just about image quality of the photos, but the image quality of the photographer itself is important. And a little justification to charge your client for more..
I have the newer version of that kit lens. It's honestly my go to for landscape photography. I've never bothered even trying more expensive lenses for landscape because I like the shots I'm getting with this one. And like the old saying, "if it's not broke, don't fix it. All I have are cheep lenses. Besides that 18-55mm, I have a 75-300mm f/4-5.6 that also came with my camera. I'm not thrilled with that one, but as long as I use a tripod or a really fast shutter I can get really good shots. And I have a Canon 50mm f/1.8. There are other more expensive 50mm lenses, but for $125 you get a lot of bang for your buck. If you're going out not and sure what you're gonna be shooting, and you only want to bring one lens, you really can't go wrong with the a 50mm.
You should've mentioned that the camera body you're using has a crop factor, you couldn't have shot the L series lens at 24mm because the sensor crops the image from the lens
The School of Photography Yes it's technically still a 24mm lens on both camera bodies, but as you said the image is cropped so an APS-C sensor with 24mm wouldn't produce the same image as full-frame sensor with 24mm, and that's the point I was making.
Yes l series lenses are designed to shoot on full frame. They normally perform worse on a aps-c body. Watch Christopher frost he test lenses on both full frame and aps-c and most of the time a lens designed for a full frame isn’t going to perform no where near as good on a aps-c as it will on a full frame. So this test is not really accurate.
In addition to your 3 tests, my experience is that kit lenses tend to be softer in the corners than higher quality glass and kit lenses tend to have a worse t-stop rating, i.e. less contrast, than higher quality glass, especially when shooting more towards the light source / sun. With modern PP software, you can elevate a kit lens image to come close to matching a more expensive lens image.
Don't forget ladies and gents. The story/substance is the most important. Equipment is what helps bring your vision to life ! Don't let your budget hold you down ✌
I say the following after 60 years in photography, and I have owned the best you could buy. I often carried a bag full of gear that was insured for $20,000. So I had to adjust to the following like you will too: The Nikon 18-55 f3.5-5.6 VRII outresolves the D800 sensor. So does the equivalent Canon lens. Photographers will know what that means. Unless your are printing A0 prints (which no one ever does) and unless you have the skill of Annie Leibowitz, which no one else does, you are wasting your money buying so called pro bodies and lenses anymore. In fact, the current kit lens offerings for their mirrorless cameras from Nikon, Canon, Sony and Panasonic also outresolve their sensors, even the 1" ones, so there is no point, unless you want to pretend that you are a pro. If you are a pro then prove it by not post processing, because thats not photography, thats computer skills. If you were to somehow adapt the Panasonic 14-42 4/3 kit lens from a G7 onto a Leica, and compare it to a $4k Leica lens, you would not tell the difference in the results in a blind test. Why is this? Its all to do with the precision of modern lens production and sensor chip making equipment, the tolerances of which today far exceed anything even 8 years ago. What took Leica artisans days to achieve in a Summicron lens, is achievable in a few minutes on the latest equipment, and with more consistent results. In fact the 28/f1.7 Summilux lens that comes on the $5,000 Leica 48mp Q2, is made by Panasonic. Never has such quality been available to the ordinary photographer at such affordable prices. A $500 camera and lens today will give you the same or better quality output that a $3,000 camera with a $2,000 lens did 5 years ago. So there is no excuse anymore for poor photography. Not for me. Not for you. You cannot blame the equipment anymore. You don't need to invest in Photoshop anymore. Forget shooting in RAW too. A 20mp jpeg large/superfine image will blow you away. If you own a Mac, Preview and its basic tools will do all you need.
The funny thing is that L lens is actually a kit lens for the 6D and some people talk crap about it. I have it. I think it's fine.. it's not a 2.8 though. The real upgrade would be the 24-70 2.8. Big money. Or some sigma art lenses.
Thanks for the video. Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5 to 5.6 G AF VR zoom kit lens Nikkor 20-35mm f/2.8 D AF zoom pro lens Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8 D AF zoom pro lens I was so impressed with the performance of the Nikon kit lens that I purchased it to use as a back-up to my two expensive Nikon pro lenses. The kit lens cost less than $100; the pro lenses cost over $500 each. The kit lens has vibration reduction; the pro lenses do not. The pro lenses have a constant maximum aperture; the kit lens has a variable maximum aperture. The pro lenses have a fast maximum f/stop of 2.8; the kit lens has a slow maximum of f/3.5 to f/5.6 aperture. The pro lenses have an aperture ring; the kit lens does not.
I agree with you 100 times over. Camera manufacturers make their money on people that believe a 1 lb lens is better than a 1/2 pound lens. Just more glass at 9x the price.
It used to be a big diffrence, but over the last decades even cheap lenses have gotten really good. For anyone that doesnt earn money with his pictures it is hardly worth it to buy expensive (expensive is a little bit subjective) lenses. Even though the gains per dollar are marginal compared to camera bodies the lens stays even when you upgrade your camera body, so that might be something to concider.
It all depends on the situation. Even though the 24-105 is a sort of meh L lens, it will definately outperform an 18-55 variable aperature kit lens -- even with a minimum aperature of f4. Having said that, you likely won't notice a difference in your shots if you photograph buildings or flowers in relatively reasonable lighting. Start to push a kit lens anywhere past that capacity and it immediately starts to fail. That's been my experience at least. You also need to ask yourself what you need the lens for. Are you a hobby photographer? Do you mostly take pictures of the occasional family gathering or pretty landscape? A kit lens will do you just fine. You are also more likely to notice a jump in quality by aquiring an inexpesnive prime lens (like a 50mm f1.8 or 24mm f2.8) rather than dropping $600-$2,000 on some L glass. That being said, L lenses are damn nice to have.
with the kit lens you can still achive the same as the pro lens if you just change your settings? like for the flower the kit lens was white washed but the kit could still get the out come as the pro if the setting were changed?
Great video, thank you! I did the same tests with my 18-55 STM on my Canon SL1 and 6D. I compared the 18-55 STM to the 24-105 on both the SL1 and the 6D. Preferred the 18-55 on the SL1! Sharp, brilliant colors and beautiful focus. I also ended up selling my 6D and getting the 80D. 80D is a fantastic camera, enjoying it more than I ever did the 6D. And I use it for professional as well as personal work. Thanks again!
Was the 18-55 good with the 80D? Im having a crisis about it because my dad will buy me my first camera and i really want the 80D. And i think i have no choice but to get it with the 18-55 kit lens because the other kit lens "18-135"? (Not sure, can't remember) cost too much money. And if I dont choose the 18-55 i dont thibk he'll want to buy it... ugghhhhhhhhh I can't decide!
@@ahsanalishaikh2004 yeah I got the 18-55. its not that bad. It's really great because it can be an all around lens. 18mm for landscape and 55mm for portraits
You should check out what DXO Mark have tested these two at on the 750D, also the 750D has a very capable sensor for it's price. It would have been a better comparison by going from APS-C to FF at the same adjusted focal length.
I bought this pro lense, but I bought it primarily for cinematic videography..and yes it makes a difference. The the 2.8 aperature is superb for video bokeh, and it performs better in lower lighting conditions. In video applications it's worth the extra money.
18-135 usm canon is a better kit lens. Use the 24-70 2.8 L and the 70-200 2.8 version 2 if you really need to understand how different the L series lenses from canon perform versus the kit lens.In the end it depends upon your personal choice as to how much you would want to spend on it.
You really can't fix a lot of exposure problems in post... You can't really do good depth of field effects in post either. You can correct for a lot of other problems, but all the editing in the world wont replace a fast lens.
You are correct. However, many things can be corrected and there are many videos on RUclips demonstrating this. By using focus stacking and masks there are almost no limits.
Great video sir. I would add that not all kit lens will perform equally. There are dogs out there, and there are kit lenses that are worth much more than their price. You just have to do a bit of digging.
Very nice informative video, the results also surprised me (: I would just kind of add on to what you said about upgrading the kit lens. That when someone has started out and later on are getting ready to upgrade from their kit lens, to instead add "new" lenses to their collection that can serve different functions, so say adding a lens with a longer focal length, a macro lens or something with a wider maximum apperture for low-light shooting or playing with bokeh and so on.
Exactly how I think. Color wise instead of paying a lot for a "pro" lens you can use an editing program to achieve the desired color tonality and intensity. In short the almost outrageous prices don't justify ditching the belittled "kit" lens.
I have a Canon L series 80-200mm lens, known as the "magic drain pipe" lens. I have had many lenses in the past and still also use a Tokina pro series 17mm. Both lenses are exceptionally good, but the Canon L is amazing, color, sharpness, etc. all outstanding. I hate my 18-55 lens that came with the camera, seldom had a great picture with it. The Tokina pro series are the only other brand I would buy so far, They are built very strong and have very good optics.
Thanks for sharing. I'm trying to take pictures of my running dog with a 5d Mark III and a 70 to 300mm f4/5,6 canon lens. This is just a basic lens. I am not able to get a sharp picture on hundreds of shots. Yes I'm in servo mode, hi ISO to keep my shutter in the 1000s to 2000s range. I'm starting to wonder if it isn't the cheap lens that isn't able to deliver the kind of picture that I am looking for, fast moving subjects? Do you have any taught's on this? Do I need to get L lens for sharp pictures of moving subjects?
For the price difference I can purchase Photoshop and use that on all my pictures. I did just buy a prime 35mm because the kit lens aperture would only open to F3.5 max and I am doing some night photography.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for watching and I hope it’s helped. Remember, it’s not what you’ve got, it’s what you do with it! For the technical geeks out there, please watch this video before you comment ruclips.net/video/cgqBUKiSJbc/видео.html - This video is for the learning photographer, not people who read product manuals inside out! Enjoy 😊
If you have never done this before why are you teaching the class?
Cory Ulrich • So we can all learn together 😉
It’s a popular question worth exploring, even if exploring is the operative word.
I would like him to revisit the tests though, using identical manual settings in each pair of shots. I think his conclusions for the first two pairs of shots were good, but I think an additional variable crept in... if both shots of the flower were exposed the same, I’m sure they would look much more similar (slight contrast and sharpness to the pro lens, but only about as much practical difference as the other tests).
You've helped me greatly!!! I am on an extremely tight budget and only do it as a hobby. However, I do take great photos with what I have and I'm constantly told I should sell them. (I'm not THAT good!) I'm just proud of the fact that the area Counties and Cities do repost my photos in their "Vacation" Brochures and on their Facebook pages.
Sharon Barnes • Maybe you wont sell a million or be immediately considered the next Angel Adams or whatever, but go for it! Feels good to make a few bucks on the side, what can it hurt?
Bit of advice from someone who tried to make a career of it though... the stress of trying to make it your primary source of income is very high, and it CAN hurt your love of the art. Be prepared if you decide to go that route. But as a side project, I’ve found it much more rewarding and it feels good to think other people are appreciating and enriched by my photos, and I recommend that to others :)
Great video, you just sabe me a ton of money.
It looks to me as if the flower shot may be over-exposed for the kit lens. They do not appear to be taken at the same exposure; you can see that the L lens image is significantly darker.
+Jody Bruchon I think it is slightly brighter but not by much Jody.
The exposure will be different as the settings are matched using the f stop not t stop :-D
I wouldn't be surprised -- He was shooting in AV priority so metering could have easily changed depending with some slight differences in light. IMO keeping it in manual would have been more scientific.
Ah, that would explain it. I didn't notice aperture priority. I think the above comment got it partly right too: f-stop vs. T-stop. Even at identical apertures there is a small amount of light loss difference between every lens. It's hard to make two different lenses look the same!
@The School of Photography - I just screencapped the video and pulled the flower photos into Gimp and looked at the layer histograms. The histogram for the L lens is shifted significantly to the left. By lowering the exposure and reducing the contrast I am able to very closely match them; there is a color shift in the pro lens that I find unattractive, but I prefer bold colors in general. After playing with the two images I prefer the cheap lens, though that is partly because it's exposed to the right more.
Lets just face it😂😂😂 the pro lens physically looks way cooler😂😂😂😂
Director Jemoo yup XD
OMFG! You are not only so right, that is something I run into with non-photographer types all the time. People just expect that "pros" have cameras with these massive lenses like they would see a photographer shooting the Super Bowl using. I've lost track of the number of times I've had to explain to someone that I don't actually need to use my giant 450mm Telephoto to take a simple portrait, because my 50mm Prime will do the job just fine.
If you need only to look cooler, updating your professional wardrobe will go farther than a lens.
@@looneyburgmusic when ever I use my d3500 with my 18-55 nikkor afp or 50mm f1.8d no one looks twice but once I put on my metal dg hsm contemporary sigma 70-300 I always get compliments
@Picture This Im gonna be honest, i dont understand a shit that you wrote and im going to remove your rights to comment. How can someone write like a goddamn lizard running over the keyboard. Go back to school and when you learned to write you have a right to argument.
I have both of these lenses. The one thing you missed is distortion, especially at the wide end. The kit lens is truly woeful in this respect, but to compare them fairly, you have to use the pro lens on a full frame body.
My biggest thing about pro lenses are the focusing speeds and accuracy are better when it comes to lower light, and the shallower depth of field. Other than that the kit lenses are actually really well made and you can get amazing photos from them. I used them as my lenses for the first 5 years of my professional career. I only started buying pro lenses when i started shooting weddings and events not just commercial work and portraits. They make it a lot easier to shoot over the kit lens
Thanks for sharing 👍
Watching this at 144p
hahahaha
what a nice guy
@@helmyabdulsamad4700 da Frick why
yes, here in our country, you pay for the Megabytes so watching at 144p saves us a ton of money
Lord Cutler Beckett OMG
Where are you from?
It's really about what you are shooting. If you have a professional assignment, like shooting dogs at a show or sports, you're going to have to have gear that can handle that demand to get good shots. Just taking stills is not a total measure.
Bang on! Thanks bro
You're welcome 👍
I've a;ways felt that lens speed was the biggest advantage when buying higher end lenses, since faster lenses tend to be higher end. A lot of kit lenses have the lowest f-stop at 3.5 which is really limiting when you want a shallow depth of field. The other stuff is just a nice bonus.
As usual, you've watched RUclips videos instead of actually taking photographs or bothering to study optical laws. Depth of focus, ( NOT "depth of field") isn't determined only by f-stop. I can, and have taken portraits at f8.3 with a 100mm or equivalent focal length lens and blurred the background completely. You are conveniently ignoring camera to subject distance, the focal length of the lens, the reproduction ratio (degree of enlargement) and the optical properties of the lens being used. When you learn what a kit lens can and cannot do, THEN you MIGHT be justified in buying an expensive lens. I'm sorry, but I have shot more photographs than were sold with a fixed normal focal length lens on a Rollei twin lens camera than you will probably ever take in your lifetime. Let's see, most movies are shot with a double normal focal length lens at f(T) 11 and the background is blurred. The Director of Photography knows his lens and what it will do.
Honestly, Canon really upped the quality of their cheap lenses when the STM versions came out. My new 50mm 1.8 STM is significantly sharper than the old 50mm at all apertures, especially wide open. The focusing is really accurate and way quieter. If you want to have a cheap setup, a new 50mm 1.8 and a cheap used STM kit lens makes a good budget kit. The 24mm F2.8 STM is also excellent and ridiculously sharp.
I bought a used 200d eos and the video quality with the kit lenses really sucks, would it improve if I buy STM lenses?
@@adamfowler4500 Very likely yes . I have the old style 50mm 1.8 and the 18-55mm kit lens. Compared to their newer STM counterparts, it's a significant difference, especially when you start cropping into your photos. On my EOS 90D, the old lenses frankly don't produce a sharp image unless you close the aperture down. The autofocus performs really well on my 90D although I'm not sure how it would be on the 200d.
By new 50 mm are you referring to the RF mount 50 mm?
The 24mm f2.8 STM is surprisingly good given that it's absolutely tiny
That's what I chose to go with my cheap, used but like-new 70D. It's so much fun, but I do have to back away more than I'm used to compared to when using a smartphone.
I love your calmness and you don’t talk too fast! Thank you!
Thanks Chey, glad you liked it :)
If you had done this test ten or twenty years ago the results most likely would have been far different, but today, as you showed, not so much. The differences between a "pro" lens and a "kit" lens have reached a point where any issues with the kit lens are minor, and can be easily handled in post-processing.
Thanks for the comments 👍
Yeah, unless you need wide aperture or extreme telephoto - consumer level lenses are more than enough.
@@serioussam909 Another big part of this question is people just need to slow down some, and take the time to learn their gear, and learn how to shoot the best photo with the lens they have on the camera. If I'm doing a professional "studio" portrait then I'm going with my best prime lens, with the camera most likely fixed on a tripod at a pre-measured distance from the subject. But for "casual", wandering around town photography, the kit lens that came with my Nikon, (18-55mm), is sometimes more than good enough for my needs.
@@looneyburgmusic A prime lens like the "nifty fifty" can take better pictures than a kit lens and is also very cheap. This is why it might be a good idea to pick up a cheap 24mm or 50mm prime even if you're not a professional.
Low light performance? Sharpness at corners/edges? Vignetting? Lens flare? You get what you pay for....
You're right! Anyone can play soccer, but pro player is just a little bit of better :-). However, our clients pay for that "better", they feel happy to pay for a photographer uses camera with "red ring" lens!
There is FAR more to it than that! What is the distance from the image plane to the subject? What will be the enlargement percentage? What f-stop is being used? What are the lighting conditions? How much time are you willing to spend in post production (Lightroom/Capture One)? Are you shooting in JPEG or RAW? What ISO equivalent are you using? What about the noise figure for your camera sensor? Under the right set of conditions, it's not hard to produce a better straight from the camera image with a kit lens than a $3500 lens, BUT you have to know the limitations of BOTH lenses, and the expensive lens has limitations too. Size, weight and bulk are big factors. If you don't have your good camera with your big lens because it's too bulky and heavy, what good is it? I'm sorry, I've been a working professional photographer for over 50 years and these so-called "comparisons" are meaningless. Ansel Adams made a prize winning photograph with a $2.50 120 roll film Diana fixed focus, fixed exposure, single element lens camera. I have seen it in person. It is VERY, VERY hard to tell the difference in it and his Hasselblad images.
@@Walkercolt1 I absolutely agree with you.At the most basic level ,a good lens (or camera) is the one you have with you when you need it !
@@giangtrungnguyen Having expensive gear don't make you a Pro photographer mate. You are wrong.
@@juanpedro814 no, no one knows about that outside the photography world. The clients do not know nor care, they want big cameras and big lenses, they want to hire someone who look pro, not someone who runs around with a kit lens
Just watched this with great interest. I was in NewYork in February & only took my Canon EOS500 D with the kit 18 - 55 & got some fantastic results.
kit lens+editing program = pro lens+++
Θανάσης Μπλέτσας exactly my thought.. lightroom saves our money then? lol
@ICT if this is your sceptical, it is sure your photos will be like my first mls tablet, ...too bad...
@ICT btw i dont think 70-200 2.8 sigma is bad lens...but you know better...😂😂😂😂😂
No, there is a lot of new prime cheap lens with ultra sharpness and 3D pop.
ICT nah. Pretty much every professional photographer edits photos nowadays.
Yes it is. For sure. Years ago I bought a 50D. Went out and learned to shoot. Then one day I walked in to a shop for a filter. There was a offer from 600 euro for a new 24-105. I bought it and from that day my shots were much better in color, aperture and sharpness. Because of the cons from this lens for a crop factor cam I learned how to become even better.
This is exactly why I haven't opted for fast expensive zooms, but instead went for - wait for it - even MORE kit lenses! Large apertures are nice, but the affordable ultrawide and telezoom that now accompany my kit lens gave me much more things to shoot. Also, don't forget that expensive gear is useless if editing skills are weak - photography never stops at the shutter button!
Thanks for the comments
thank you for this unbiased comparison and as a person who is the starting out I will defer to being a budget orientated and conscious hobbyist at this time. Can't have this hobby financially burdened me.
You're welcome, glad to help. You might also like this video as well ruclips.net/video/vZog77AYURY/видео.html 👍
I've just had to make this decision using used the same kit lens on my 80d for a year. Last week I bought the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 having read some seriously complimentary reviews. At the weekend I took pics at my local flying club and at a local wildlife event in a nearby country park, including my grandson.
The verdict from my non-photographer daughter was that the results were a substantial improvement in clarity. So there's the thing - the results really impressed my intended audience. My thoughts? I am truly amazed and wished I had made the change months ago! However, having made the move from my EOS 300D there was a lot of camera learning to do first!
That's great Gordon, good luck with the photography 😊👍
Was the 18-55 good with the 80D? Im having a crisis about it because my dad will buy me my first camera and i really want the 80D. And i think i have no choice but to get it with the 18-55 kit lens because the other kit lens "18-135"? (Not sure, can't remember) cost too much money. And if I dont choose the 18-55 i dont thibk he'll want to buy it... ugghhhhhhhhh I can't decide!
As a 600d user who has gone through the pain of shooting in low light with 18-55mm kit lens , Id say its worth spending extra cash on a Sharper lens. I'm upgrading to a new camera all together , Great video BTW
Your point sort of emphasizes something that I've noticed and is something that newb's should be aware of. Low light performance is not just the lens, but also impacted by the body chosen. Most people shooting inside most venues, including the home, are shooting in rather poor lighting. Buying a better lens is one thing, buying a body that performs poorly in low light is just as much of a problem. Adding flash helps if it can be done; an external flash that can bounce is perhaps the next step after upgrading glass. But when purchasing your first camera, newb's would be better off buying a better body than buying the cheapest body... All of the components work together; so to dismiss the body as part of the problem is sort of foolish. Advice to newbs: Buy as much camera as you can initially afford; then buy better glass, and an external flash prior to the next body..
Being the poor retired American bloke that I am I do get the lighter less colorful results with my Canon 18-55mm kit lens. However, with very little more time and effort required I can get beautiful end results of color with fairly cheap but effective enhancing software. Every photo I take goes through the enhancing software screening process anyway so the kit lens works perfect in my world. I'm sure I'm preaching to an already well versed choir. Thank You for the "reassuring" video you presented here.
I would like to see some of you kit lens pics. I got a Canon 90d with a kit lens, but I just got a 50mm prime. This will be my first lens upgrade.
Thanks for this.I have spent countless hours looking at reviews always lusting after the latest and best gear.This has taught me to learn how to use what I have properly before considering if I really need any more equipment.I replaced a Nikon 18-105 with a 16-80 can I see any improvement not really. Even worse neither can my treasurer ie my wife
I am pretty sure there is a marginal difference in corner sharpness between the lenses, obviously the 16-80 is sharper. Also I am sure the color contrast is better, not to talk about it is a faster and wider lens so overall it is impossible not to see any difference.
I still have a 28-80 kit lens that was sold with the EOS5, it has more plastic than the nifty fifty. A brilliant video and I totally agree about upgrading glass before your body, but also look at third party lenses such as Sigma and Tamron.
I have a kit 16-50 F3.5-5.6 ($400) and pro 16-55 F2.8 ($1000). They both are good performers, the build is better on the pro lens with more metal and much much heavier. I do a lot of landscapes on the trail so weight is important for each item, my pack for a week can be 65 lbs. The kit lens weighs 8-1/2 oz (242g) and the pro lens is a whooping 1 lb 10-1/4 oz (746g), that is 3 times heavier. So on those tougher longer backpacks, I take the kit lens. Side note, the kit lens has a plastic bayonet mount that broke when it was mounted on the camera when I drop the camera case. So which one I take depends on what I am doing.
Thanks for the comments and glad you like the video 👍
I'm miles away from being an expert in this, but it looks like the kit lens just lets in more uv than the pro lens. Which leads me to believe that the pro lens has better coating. Normally you would fix this on the kit lens by just placing a uv filter but then you would be adding an optical element therefore reducing the overall sharpness of the image, so there is a trade-off for a lense that otherwise is practically on par with the pro lens. Correct me if I'm wrong in this. In the chromatic aberration test it is in my understanding that a good comparison would be done stretching the zoom to the max on each of the lenses so that the aberration is apparent.
Amazing video and explanation 👏
Love your videos!
Thanks
Excellent Video! This is a true service when it comes to informing people about true cost/benefit issues. Tks!
You're welcome, glad you liked it 👍
I've an old 1991-vintage 28-80 USM MK1, and a 2013 15-55 EF-S STM. What it took for me to tell the difference between them was reading the number plate of a car a hundred metres away at the 50mm setting. The old 28-80 was a smidge sharper - until the shutter speed dropped off.
TBH the biggest difference I ever saw was with an older 24-35mm nFD L, and a 28mm F2.8 FD on my Canon F-1. The L had noticeably better colours on Ektachrome E100 - it looked 'modern' and digital, compared to the shots with the 28.
I broke the L by dropping it and knocking it out of focus. It died being put to work - which I suppose is an honourable end for some vintage gear designed to 'work'.
The gearheads may wish to disagree, but the point is quite clear. That extra 5% costs an awful lot of money, but you can still get amazing photos with cheaper equipment. Its about the photographer, not the equipment.
It wasn’t really a fair test anyway. It was more of a versatility test (which the pro lens would be a clear winner...pun intended)
Take a similar macro focal length lens rather than compared a high end tele to a kit lens. In some situations the cheaper macro lens COULD beat a much more expensive tele lens for the same purpose :P
Really useful. I have that kit lens with my Canon 90D. The sharpness is a game changer for me. I feel if I shoot in raw and pull it into Lightroom I will get the colours right.
switch to prime kit lenses no need for the pro prime lenses you'll see a difference and get a 70-300 zoom with image stabilization you'll see a huge difference in quality. best to toss that 18-55 in the dumpster where it belongs
Did the light change at all during the lens change on the flower shot.
+Gary Clayton not that I noticed Gary.
The School of Photography ok it was just a thought. Great video write excellent subject
Not very convincing. In my opinion the two 'colour test' pictures show a different exposure and a different focal length.
I do not deny that the pro lens is better, but the difference may be even less than you suggest.
@fransamterdam I did a test shot like this. Yes the contrast depth is different. Not because of the exposure
The EV for the kit lens looks completely different than that for the pro model in the color test. Shouldn't be that much difference in contrast/color, considering the result of the CA test shots.
Thanx God i watched this Vid. Am doin jus fine with my Kit lens
A good composition is the most important factor than anything else, imo.
I often compare my kit efs 18-55mm lens which came with my old Canon EOS 450D to my 100-300mm telephoto.
I have only 2 lenses.The expensive telephoto was designed for a full frame camera and is better.But only just.
Both lenses are superb.Neither shows noticeable spherical or chromatic aberration or pin-cushion or astigmatic aberration.
They are both pin-sharp as well.I am happy.What more do I want?
Thanks for sharing Peter 👍
I'm using 18/55 kit lens on my 80D and I am quite happy with the results I get every time.
Me too, 18/55 on a D5600, and with a bit of minor processing for color correction in RAW mode I'm totally happy with the results I've been getting.
Thanks for sharing 👍
Most of my Nikon lens's are F2.8 for the lower light capability for indoor sprorts
Chromatic aberration has been driving me mad and now i know why! Thanks a lot, helped me a bunch
You're welcome 👍
it would be really cool to have a proper chromatic abberation test cause i know i get some mostly purple fringing on the kit lense which is imo flawlessly removed by lightrooms lens correction options anyway though. also what if you did your best to make the pictures look alike in post? would be interesting to see if you could set up an "L lens preset" to safe the 800 bucks entirely xD
einzeller85 this is why digital photography exists folks!!
Many years ago I asked this question of a gentleman photographer whom i trusted. His advice to me was this : “everyone worries a lot about buying an expensive lens because of the extreme resolution. But they’re forgetting one thing - even a cheaper lens will have much much higher detail resolution at its center than any camera is capable of capturing on film or sensor.”
Not than ANY film by a mile and a half! Illford Pan F or Rollei 25 (as well as other films) can be used to MEASURE lens resolution in the center at the optimum aperture of almost all lenses ever made. The exception to this rule is the Leitz 50mm F2 Apo-Summicron for M series cameras. It rules as the sharpest 35mm format lens ever designed.
I’ve got a 6d with L series glass and a 450d with the kit lens. I can tell overall the 6d combo is ‘better’, but if we travel anywhere I take the 450 as it’s smaller and lighter, I never regret this, the images are absolutely good enough.
It's worth the extra money, if you know what you are doing. I know far too many people who buy a new camera, spend a bunch of money on lens(es) and then 2-3 months later their camera is collecting dust in their closet. I used my 18-55 for about 6 months until I felt I had gotten everything out of it that I could, and then I started upgrading to other lenses, but I did buy used to save money. I think I wound up getting 3 lenses(35mm, 70-300mm, 17-70mm 2.8 to replace kit) to add more versatility to my gear for under $500, when they would have cost me well over $1000 new. So if you are just someone that goes out once or twice a month to take photos and don't use your camera much, the answer is no, you don't need better lenses because you're probably never going to see any benefit from them. If you are an enthusiast/amateur or professional, then yes, you are going to want to upgrade to better glass once you've mastered your kit lens.
Thanks for sharing
I imagine the CA was corrected in camera. But yeah, the 18-55 is not a bad lens provided you have enough light and aren't looking for shallow DofF.
Thanks for sharing 👍
For $800 I will just fix the color in post. Honestly for all of the benefits of the pro winds you can make all of those adjustments if you shoot in raw and edit in post.
Thanks for the comments 😊
Post editing the savior of the digital world
So glad I came across this video comparison. Whilst downtown today I saw the 24 - 105 lens for sale used in an electronics shop but wanted to do my research first. As on the School of Photography site, you explain things very clearly and in a way that's easy to understand. Anyway, whilst researching the lens online, I realised that the price I have seen it for is about a third of what I would be charged in the pro camera shops in the city - hadn't realised I was potentially saving so much. At the moment I'm still using the kit lenses with my 90D but this has convinced me that it will be worth the outlay. Thanks Marc!
Yes. Pro lenses are pro for a reason. Faster, quiter and more reliable auto focus. Most are weather sealed and are built with a much higher build quality. They need to work all the time no matter the condition. Not to mention the extra coatings, speed and sharpness.
True, but shooting for several weeks without AF made a HUGE difference in my knowledge and abilities. Try it if you haven't. Even forced me to get my diopter set up correctly!
As he says, if the financial difference is not a big deal then go for it. Same is true of cars: if you have $6 million then buy the BMW, why not? If you work paycheck to paycheck buy a Honda, used. Performance is practically the same, except on the Autobahn.
Applies to cameras, cars, audio, pretty much everything. Some exceptions: maybe surgery? You probably want the best.
You have to remember that you've used a full frame lens on an apc-s body so in chromatic aberration it'll probably look the same if not the kit lens performing better.
+Tomer Eshel hi, read the pinned comment
I like your review, but I wanted to know the differences in more ways than just for pictures. Thank you for your insight anyway. It was helpful.
I used my kit lens heavily...untill one day i came across the sigma art line up...since then my kit lens became a dust collector..the sigma art series is crazy effective for the prices payed.
Sigma Art all the way, they look so good! I got the 18-35mm 1.8 like a year ago and I rarely switch out lenses anymore (except for my 50mm sometimes).
On a full frame the difference between a Pro lens and amateur is much more significant. For years I used the EF28-135mm is on my old 5D. I was just lucky enough to pick up a mint 24-105mm L (same as yours) on Craigslist for $400 US. The edge sharpness difference at wide is significant as well as the brightness and pop of the image. Low light contrast and color is also superior on the L.
I’ve owned the 18-55 for quite a bit of time now and have always been surprised by the sharpness. It easily compares to all my Canon L-Series glass. Pretty crazy.
Thanks for sharing 👍
No problem 😀
This was very helpful. Thank you for the video, mate!
You're welcome 👍😊
Sir..your words sounds like they went to Harvard and got their phd. Such crisp clarity. Second best part about this video. Thank you so much!!
You're welcome 👍
LoL! I don't know where you come from but it is a London accent, I'd say probably North-East London or South Essex. It's half a world away from a Harvard accent! Nothing wrong with that, I'm from South London myself, and he is indeed a good clear speaker.
Is that really a head-to-head comparison ... Pro 24-105 vs Kit 18-55 .... being different zooms, wouldn't they have different builds?
I thought Michael Cane was narrating when he got into the studio
To be honest, I prefred the kit lens pictures in every case, on the wall pic it even looked sharper in the video. The only exception is the actual dandilion, and that looks like the kit lens pic is overexposed, not a problem with the lens but the picutre.
The reason I use a pro lens on my aps-c camera is for the wide aprature, kit lenses dont go very wide and you cant stay at say 2.8 at 100mm.
Can you use any lens for a canon EOS 90d
I've found the kit lenses to perform VERY well!
I think some pros are secretly jealous of the ( 18-140 ) kit lens , simply because of its versatility , which can't be found in a single full frame lens ( unless one harks back to the days of the old 28-200 superzooms )
@@dovidell I think it's the 18-135mm, I see quite a few used, and was thinking of grabbing 1! Would have a good zoom range along with good wide angle view.
Cheers!
Kit lens is brighter, hence the washed out color test. Apperture priority will change regardless the setting being the same. Pro lens form factor wins and looks way better than the kit one and this is what separates from the other and seems like you're paying for how it looks and feels in hand, more weighty equels more price I suppose. Thanks for your video.
At the moment I'm working on a little photography project of my own using the Panasonic lumix G1. For those younger audiences who might not know this camera, it's the first camera ever to use the micro four thirds sensor..( mirrorless ).. anyway back to the point. I bought a lens adapter so I could use some big lenses on this old-school camera and wow did it surprise me. The detail and clarity sharpness everything this camera can produce today in 2020 is what I would call perfect by all standards ( using a new style lens that is.)
Thanks for the comparison. Bought a SL2 a week ago with the kit lense works for the time being but had to buy the canon 10-18 mm f/4.5 for wide angle shots.
You're welcome Alain, glad it helped :)
Say, aren't you comparng an APS-C lens to a full frame lens?
Canon doesn't make any EF-S (crop sensor) lens in their professional "L" series line. Arguably, the closest to an L series lens, EF-S (crop) is their 17-55 with a fixed aperture of 2.8. I own this lens on my Canon 7D MkII and the images are incredible. I also own the 1DX MkII and 24-70 f/2.8L II lens and obviously the 1DXII + 24-70 is on another level....
Surely testing the lenses on aperture priority is not the right choice, the main reason for buying a pro lens is to get a wider aperture. Then there will be better image stabilisation and range of zoom to consider?
Hi, yes of course those are reasons to get one too. Thanks
I shoot stills and video as part of my job. One of the challenges is carrying and using heavy equipment so I often carry smaller Rebel cameras that normally are just for backup. The Rebel and kit lens is substantially lighter than my pro camera lenses. I am more likely to carry and shoot a lighter rig.
Well, sometimes its not just about image quality of the photos, but the image quality of the photographer itself is important.
And a little justification to charge your client for more..
👍
I have the newer version of that kit lens. It's honestly my go to for landscape photography. I've never bothered even trying more expensive lenses for landscape because I like the shots I'm getting with this one. And like the old saying, "if it's not broke, don't fix it. All I have are cheep lenses. Besides that 18-55mm, I have a 75-300mm f/4-5.6 that also came with my camera. I'm not thrilled with that one, but as long as I use a tripod or a really fast shutter I can get really good shots. And I have a Canon 50mm f/1.8. There are other more expensive 50mm lenses, but for $125 you get a lot of bang for your buck. If you're going out not and sure what you're gonna be shooting, and you only want to bring one lens, you really can't go wrong with the a 50mm.
Thanks for sharing this with us 👍
You should've mentioned that the camera body you're using has a crop factor, you couldn't have shot the L series lens at 24mm because the sensor crops the image from the lens
+Kevin Loiselle no, 24mm is 24mm on crop or full frame. It's the crop of the image that changes between the two. I do this for a living!!
The School of Photography Yes it's technically still a 24mm lens on both camera bodies, but as you said the image is cropped so an APS-C sensor with 24mm wouldn't produce the same image as full-frame sensor with 24mm, and that's the point I was making.
Yes l series lenses are designed to shoot on full frame. They normally perform worse on a aps-c body. Watch Christopher frost he test lenses on both full frame and aps-c and most of the time a lens designed for a full frame isn’t going to perform no where near as good on a aps-c as it will on a full frame. So this test is not really accurate.
In addition to your 3 tests, my experience is that kit lenses tend to be softer in the corners than higher quality glass and kit lenses tend to have a worse t-stop rating, i.e. less contrast, than higher quality glass, especially when shooting more towards the light source / sun. With modern PP software, you can elevate a kit lens image to come close to matching a more expensive lens image.
Thank you for an honest unbiased review. Your the man...
Thanks 👍
Don't forget ladies and gents. The story/substance is the most important. Equipment is what helps bring your vision to life !
Don't let your budget hold you down ✌
I like this video. Thank you for speaking the truth and not just trying to get people to break the bank as a novice photographer.
Thank you for the video! You should make the same video in sunlight and during night time. It would be cool to see the difference there.
+Tygrysku __ thanks for the comments 😊
I say the following after 60 years in photography, and I have owned the best you could buy. I often carried a bag full of gear that was insured for $20,000. So I had to adjust to the following like you will too:
The Nikon 18-55 f3.5-5.6 VRII outresolves the D800 sensor. So does the equivalent Canon lens. Photographers will know what that means. Unless your are printing A0 prints (which no one ever does) and unless you have the skill of Annie Leibowitz, which no one else does, you are wasting your money buying so called pro bodies and lenses anymore. In fact, the current kit lens offerings for their mirrorless cameras from Nikon, Canon, Sony and Panasonic also outresolve their sensors, even the 1" ones, so there is no point, unless you want to pretend that you are a pro. If you are a pro then prove it by not post processing, because thats not photography, thats computer skills.
If you were to somehow adapt the Panasonic 14-42 4/3 kit lens from a G7 onto a Leica, and compare it to a $4k Leica lens, you would not tell the difference in the results in a blind test. Why is this? Its all to do with the precision of modern lens production and sensor chip making equipment, the tolerances of which today far exceed anything even 8 years ago. What took Leica artisans days to achieve in a Summicron lens, is achievable in a few minutes on the latest equipment, and with more consistent results. In fact the 28/f1.7 Summilux lens that comes on the $5,000 Leica 48mp Q2, is made by Panasonic.
Never has such quality been available to the ordinary photographer at such affordable prices. A $500 camera and lens today will give you the same or better quality output that a $3,000 camera with a $2,000 lens did 5 years ago. So there is no excuse anymore for poor photography. Not for me. Not for you. You cannot blame the equipment anymore. You don't need to invest in Photoshop anymore. Forget shooting in RAW too. A 20mp jpeg large/superfine image will blow you away. If you own a Mac, Preview and its basic tools will do all you need.
Forget shooting in RAW? That's patently absurd.
The funny thing is that L lens is actually a kit lens for the 6D and some people talk crap about it. I have it. I think it's fine.. it's not a 2.8 though. The real upgrade would be the 24-70 2.8. Big money. Or some sigma art lenses.
I agree. The 24-70 F2.8 costs about 70% more than that 24-105.
@@dukenukem5768 i actually ended up going with the Tamron 24-70 g2. That's a great lens. Best one you can get for the money in my opinion.
Thanks for the video.
Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5 to 5.6 G AF VR zoom kit lens
Nikkor 20-35mm f/2.8 D AF zoom pro lens
Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8 D AF zoom pro lens
I was so impressed with the performance of the Nikon kit lens that I purchased it to use as a back-up to my two expensive Nikon pro lenses.
The kit lens cost less than $100; the pro lenses cost over $500 each.
The kit lens has vibration reduction; the pro lenses do not.
The pro lenses have a constant maximum aperture; the kit lens has a variable maximum aperture.
The pro lenses have a fast maximum f/stop of 2.8; the kit lens has a slow maximum of f/3.5 to f/5.6 aperture.
The pro lenses have an aperture ring; the kit lens does not.
It’s not worth $900 more. Just use photoshop or Lightroom for the colour. End of story
I agree with you 100 times over. Camera manufacturers make their money on people that believe a 1 lb lens is better than a 1/2 pound lens. Just more glass at 9x the price.
It used to be a big diffrence, but over the last decades even cheap lenses have gotten really good. For anyone that doesnt earn money with his pictures it is hardly worth it to buy expensive (expensive is a little bit subjective) lenses. Even though the gains per dollar are marginal compared to camera bodies the lens stays even when you upgrade your camera body, so that might be something to concider.
Yes it’s true
Only on APC size sensors, not Full Frame
And now try low-light or indoors, haha. Good luck with the kitlens....
Cancellation of my order for a new lens is in progress 😂
The 24-105mm f/4 was the kit lens that came with my camera.
+1dgram you must have bought a pro or semi pro camera then. Thanks
Wow.nice review.Thank you so much
Excellent tutorial. Thank you
Thanks, glad you liked it 👍
It all depends on the situation. Even though the 24-105 is a sort of meh L lens, it will definately outperform an 18-55 variable aperature kit lens -- even with a minimum aperature of f4. Having said that, you likely won't notice a difference in your shots if you photograph buildings or flowers in relatively reasonable lighting. Start to push a kit lens anywhere past that capacity and it immediately starts to fail. That's been my experience at least. You also need to ask yourself what you need the lens for. Are you a hobby photographer? Do you mostly take pictures of the occasional family gathering or pretty landscape? A kit lens will do you just fine. You are also more likely to notice a jump in quality by aquiring an inexpesnive prime lens (like a 50mm f1.8 or 24mm f2.8) rather than dropping $600-$2,000 on some L glass. That being said, L lenses are damn nice to have.
with the kit lens you can still achive the same as the pro lens if you just change your settings? like for the flower the kit lens was white washed but the kit could still get the out come as the pro if the setting were changed?
Great video, thank you! I did the same tests with my 18-55 STM on my Canon SL1 and 6D. I compared the 18-55 STM to the 24-105 on both the SL1 and the 6D. Preferred the 18-55 on the SL1! Sharp, brilliant colors and beautiful focus. I also ended up selling my 6D and getting the 80D. 80D is a fantastic camera, enjoying it more than I ever did the 6D. And I use it for professional as well as personal work. Thanks again!
You're welcome 👍
Was the 18-55 good with the 80D? Im having a crisis about it because my dad will buy me my first camera and i really want the 80D. And i think i have no choice but to get it with the 18-55 kit lens because the other kit lens "18-135"? (Not sure, can't remember) cost too much money. And if I dont choose the 18-55 i dont thibk he'll want to buy it... ugghhhhhhhhh I can't decide!
@@kailaoliveros9299
Did you get your 80D with 18-55? If yes, is it good?
@@ahsanalishaikh2004 yeah I got the 18-55. its not that bad. It's really great because it can be an all around lens. 18mm for landscape and 55mm for portraits
Thanks for these videos Mark, I really enjoy your way of explaining and teaching, it helps me a lot!
Thanks, glad you enjoy the videos 🙂
You should check out what DXO Mark have tested these two at on the 750D, also the 750D has a very capable sensor for it's price. It would have been a better comparison by going from APS-C to FF at the same adjusted focal length.
It has been very useful. Thanks
👍
I bought this pro lense, but I bought it primarily for cinematic videography..and yes it makes a difference. The the 2.8 aperature is superb for video bokeh, and it performs better in lower lighting conditions. In video applications it's worth the extra money.
👍
Nice video! Can you make a comparison between Nikon lenses 18-105 3.5 - 5.5 VR vs 18-200 3.5 - 5.5 VR? Thank you!!!
there's an in-betweeny lens available to Nikon folk , namely the 18-140 ( which I own ), which is you forgive the pun , is a prime performer
18-135 usm canon is a better kit lens. Use the 24-70 2.8 L and the 70-200 2.8 version 2 if you really need to understand how different the L series lenses from canon perform versus the kit lens.In the end it depends upon your personal choice as to how much you would want to spend on it.
If you shoot in raw any difference can be corrected in Photoshop or Lightroom.
You really can't fix a lot of exposure problems in post... You can't really do good depth of field effects in post either. You can correct for a lot of other problems, but all the editing in the world wont replace a fast lens.
You are correct. However, many things can be corrected and there are many videos on RUclips demonstrating this. By using focus stacking and masks there are almost no limits.
Great video sir. I would add that not all kit lens will perform equally. There are dogs out there, and there are kit lenses that are worth much more than their price. You just have to do a bit of digging.
Thanks for sharing 👍
Very nice informative video, the results also surprised me (:
I would just kind of add on to what you said about upgrading the kit lens. That when someone has started out and later on are getting ready to upgrade from their kit lens, to instead add "new" lenses to their collection that can serve different functions, so say adding a lens with a longer focal length, a macro lens or something with a wider maximum apperture for low-light shooting or playing with bokeh and so on.
Thanks for sharing 👍
Exactly how I think. Color wise instead of paying a lot for a "pro" lens you can use an editing program to achieve the desired color tonality and intensity. In short the almost outrageous prices don't justify ditching the belittled "kit" lens.
But when shooting on low light on the other hand..
Sir. You deserv more than 1 million subscribers.
Thanks Jafar, hopefully we will get there 👍
I have a Canon L series 80-200mm lens, known as the "magic drain pipe" lens. I have had many lenses in the past and still also use a Tokina pro series 17mm. Both lenses are exceptionally good, but the Canon L is amazing, color, sharpness, etc. all outstanding. I hate my 18-55 lens that came with the camera, seldom had a great picture with it. The Tokina pro series are the only other brand I would buy so far, They are built very strong and have very good optics.
Thanks for sharing. I'm trying to take pictures of my running dog with a 5d Mark III and a 70 to 300mm f4/5,6 canon lens. This is just a basic lens. I am not able to get a sharp picture on hundreds of shots. Yes I'm in servo mode, hi ISO to keep my shutter in the 1000s to 2000s range. I'm starting to wonder if it isn't the cheap lens that isn't able to deliver the kind of picture that I am looking for, fast moving subjects? Do you have any taught's on this? Do I need to get L lens for sharp pictures of moving subjects?
For the price difference I can purchase Photoshop and use that on all my pictures. I did just buy a prime 35mm because the kit lens aperture would only open to F3.5 max and I am doing some night photography.
Thanks for sharing 👍
Dude thank you! This helped me a lot.
Glad it helped!
How about the lens hood that would block some of the light from the pro lens giving a deeper darker photo?! Seems plausible.
+NattySawer hi, yes it would but I wanted the test to be the same and didn't have a lens hood for the kit lens
you just saved lot of people’s hard earned money
I think in the flower shot with the kit lens, the camera focus points preferred the background over the flower