What is a "professional" lens?

[Frog]

I debated whether to put this question here in view finder or in digital slr so if someone thinks it should be moved, its fine with me.
I keep hearing that we are better off getting better glass than to upgrade bodies and how one lens is a professional lens while another might be a good lens but not professional.

So what makes a lens a "professional" lens?
If the average consumer can't tell the difference between a picture taken with a $300 lens or a $3,000 dollar lens, what's the deciding factor?
Figured this might lead to a lively discussion and I'm curious to know as I may be making some decisions in the next year.

[Greg McCary]

A professional lens is faster to focus and more durable and weather tight. Also better in low light situations and will not hunt as much. I also think one will out live a kit lens I upgraded my 510 to a higher quality lens and it is the same weight as the camera. Though mine was far from $3000.00 I asure you there is a difference, not so much in picture quality but performance. I get a lot more Keepers with focus and miss less shots. It's kind of like cars. A sedan will get you there but the performance is with the sports car.

[Photo-John]

There are three things that make a lens a "pro" lens. I mean, three things besides the price

1) Fast, fixed aperture - usually f/2.8 or f/4. But depending on the lens it might be even faster.

2) Build quality. Pro lenses are built for abuse and usually have internal focus and zoom mechanisms.

3) Better glass. Better glass means sharper photos at all apertures, better color and contrast, and less flare.

Most people can tell the difference in image quality between a consumer lens and a pro lens. For instance, take a look at reviews for Canon L lenses and you'll find lots of reviews where people say they were skeptics until after they bought, borrowed, or rented an L lens. Better lenses really do make a difference. A better camera usually doesn't make that much difference unless you're shooting sports or some kind of technical photography that really benefits from speed.

[walterick]

I agree with Greg and John. The only thing I might add is they usually have the lens distortions controlled better as well.

Rick

[Sebastian]

If the average consumer can't tell the difference between a picture taken with a $300 lens or a $3,000 dollar lens, what's the deciding factor?

That's the fallacy. The average consumer can readily tell the difference. The easiest way I demonstrate it is by having someone take a picture with a kit lens at or near 50mm and then take the same photo with the 50mm f/1.8. Every single time once they look at the images they immediately notice the difference. And that's between a $80 lens and a lens that typically costs more.

The disconnect is in that people can't qualify why "professional" pictures look better than theirs, and don't really know how optics figure into the equation.

For what it's worth, though some lenses are considered professional while others aren't, keep in mind that many pros use Holgas and Lens Babies. In the end, it's all about the end result: the image.

[jgredline]

Nothing has helped me more than good glass...The time saved in PP is next to nothing.Usually resizing and that is about it..The only lenses, that I can speak about are Pentax and there is a huge difference between ''cheap'' glass, good glass and pro glass....I have all the latest DA* Lenses (pro glass) and the latest Sigma and Tamron glass, and the difference...Wow..

Then there is the primes, and those little buggers can get real pricey especially when you start a collection...Ouch!!


I have also seen a difference in filters...
It blows my mind to see someone with a $1500.00 lens and $20.00 filter and then wonder why they have soft photos..

I have found atleast for me that B+W is the way to go...They are pricey, but well worth the money....

[Mr Yuck]

relative terms for the win.

A professional lens, in my eyes, is one that a professional might use.

Well then....pros often carry compact digitals...and those have lenses on them

Yeah...a bit broad eh?


There are some terms I just don't really care for....professional is one of them.

[gahspidy]

The biggest and most readily noticeable difference will be in build quality. My Tamron 28-75 2.8 lens is great for the money. Good optics and fast constant aperture, but the build quality leaves alot to be desired. The focusing ring will sometimes move after I let go of it and I will have to adjust it again and get it to stay put. This is not good. A "pro" lens such as my Canon 17-40 L 4.0 has very good damping in the focus ring and focusing is easy, reliable and accurate. That alone is worth it for me.
Then, you have the superior optics which is not readily noticeable in a 4x6 or 5x7 print, but when you enlarge your images to 20x28, you will sure notice a difference in sharpness, contrast, and even bg blur (bokeh).
I agree with what Sebastien said in that there is a disconnect in that people do not always recognize these diffeences. I have been to exhibits where I have seen a photo enlarged to poster size that just looked awful. It should never have been enlarged because it could not stand the enlargement technically. It may have looked fine at 8x10, but the optics were not good enough to enlarge the image past that. This photographer could not see that. A pro needs to have all the benefits that a good lens will give them: Build quality, performance and optics.
Like everything else, you get what you pay for.

[jorgemonkey]

Since I consider myself a professional, any lens I use I consider a "pro lens". Of course, marketed "pro lenses" are usually what PhotoJohn described.

[Axle]

Nikon Labels certain lens as part of their "Nikon Pro System"

For example....

Nikkor AF-D Micro 60mm f/2.8 DAF (Henry's Price 449.00) which is a resonable price for a Pro lens (I own one of these myself, great lens!)

[Sebastian]

Gary,

I have to disagree with you about the enlargements. Sometimes the impact of an image is greatly diminished when it runs small, no matter if it's tack sharp or not. Sure, people will often miss that point and go up closer and scrutinize the enlargement, but they're just cheating themselves out of the greater experience. I have a shot that looks OK small, but when blown up it has depth and immersion that makes people just sit and take it in. On the flip side, some images fall apart when blown up, not in terms of sharpness, but in their emotional impact.

Hope you understand what I'm trying to say. I often disagree with you, not because I'm contrarian, but because I enjoy the discussions with you.

Later.

[photophorous]

I've never owned a pro zoom, but the biggest difference I've noticed between lenses is when I compare my primes to my consumer zooms. All of my primes, even my budget Minolta Celtic from the 70s, are better than my best zoom. The wide primes are much better at controlling distortion and that is noticeable at any print size. But there is also a less tangible aspect to these differences. My best primes have a signature that makes the photos seem to glow...for lack of a better description. Maybe there are technical terms to describe it, but it's more than just sharpness. I suspect some of the pro zooms are similar. It's unfortunate that you have to pay for all the "professional" bells and whistles to get the best image quality. One of the reasons why I buy old used film gear.

Paul

[gahspidy]

Gary,

Hope you understand what I'm trying to say. I often disagree with you, not because I'm contrarian, but because I enjoy the discussions with you.

Later.

Likewise, Seb. The discussions are fruitfull and enjoyable.

I agree that some images benefit from the enlargements and vice-versa.I think your touching on a different aspect about enlargements that what I am getting at. Poster sized photo enlargements are meant to be viewed from alot further back than smaller images.

Photography, digtal or film is a medium that relies on a chain of technical aspects. We are limited very often in what we can do by the weakest link in this chain ie; If an image was caught at a very high ISO, than it will only hold up to a small amount of enlarging before it begins to "fall apart" at any viewing distance.( of course there are always exceptions, any art form is full of exceptions) The same goes with any of the weak links in the chain. Another link in this chain is the lens and this is the basic point I was bringing up with Frog.

An inferior or Kit lens will not hold up to an enlargement as well as a "Pro" (hate to use the word pro in this context) or superior lens. The lack of optical quality becomes very apparent as the image is enlarged. Of course you know this but I think you may be reading too much into what I was conveying to Frog. It is not only sharpness, but also contrast and bokeh among other desireable aspects. As you stated, a better lens can be recognized at any size most times but if one is thinking about enlargements a better lens can help alot.
The example of an enlarged photograph that I viewed in a gallery was of a sea scape. It was approximately 12 X18 (not too enlarged) and while viewing it from about 5 ft away it was evident that it suffered from either poor lens quality, developing or editing (not certain if it wa digital or film)or more. Most likely a combination of all of the above. I and a few other artists and photogs were discussing the "suffering" that this piece was going through at it's enlarged size. Later it was disclosed to us that the photog of that image was related to the gallery owner and it was the one peice of his in the showing. btw, I realize that if the image was an outstanding moment and subject then the technical quality could be ignored especially if it looked fantastic large, but this was not the case.

Anyway, the point being was that the inferior optics of a lesser lens will be evident in an enlarged print in comparison to the superior optics of a "Pro" lens. I will say though that some cheaper lenses out there now have some pretty good optics. Build quality and performance is probably the most important aspects for most pros.

I agree, you like to disagree with me. :thumbsup:

[Photo-John]

Great comment, Sebastian.

I also want to add that there are exceptions to every rule. While I was writing my reply, I kept thinking about one of my current favorite lenses - the Canon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS. That lens breaks a couple of seeming pro lens rules. It's got a ridiculous zoom range and a variable aperture that isn't that fast. However, the glass is awesome and it offers wonderful image quality across a super flexible range. It's a serious photo tool when you only want to carry one lens. There are a whole bunch of consumer zooms with really long zoom ranges. But none of them compare to this beautiful, powerful pro lens.

[SmartWombat]

From a "professional" lens I expect
- better optical quality
- better physical sealing
- better build (metal not plastic) for robustness
- wider aperture
- constant aperture across zoom range

I'm tempted to add IS too, just to stir things up a little
Partly so the owners of in-body IS cameras can feel smug.
Partly because I find I need IS more as I get older.
Partly because IS is more glass in the optical path and does it affect quality?
Discuss away gentlemen ...

[MJS]

Anything you made a buck or two off, or anything over $400. Actually, better glass, build and constant max aperture does it for me. It doesn't need to have a 77mm filter diameter.

[another view]

In the end, it's all about the end result: the image.

Agreed. I held off posting anything because really, I'm not sure what I would consider a pro lens (vs. an amateur or non-pro lens; I guess that would be the other category). To me, a professional has to come back with the shot and an amateur does not. I can go out shooting all day or all week, come back with crap and nobody cares. I haven't lost any income (real or potential), upset a client or missed documenting a once in a lifetime event. I just don't have anything worth sharing, but still may have even had a nice day out.

What will help someone get the shot? It depends on the situation. A 70-200 f2.8 is so big and heavy that it might not be carried up a mountain, and won't a photographer blend into the crowd like a physically smaller 18-200, etc - so I don't think the 70-200 is always the better choice. Sure, these are pretty unusual conditions but worth mentioning IMO. In general, I'd say that lens speed, construction (affects reliability especially in bad weather or conditions) and image quality are the main concerns - price is not; weight not too much.

[walterick]

Seb,

I agree with your bottom line here; it is ultimately about the image. If a kit lens or a pro lens or a Holga or a point and shoot gets you there, so be it. They're all about photography. Photo John recently revealed that he sneaks pictures taken with a point and shoot past magazine editors That is a great example of the final image taking precedence over the tools that made it.

But, I feel your comment about lens quality is a bit off here. The discussion is centered around "pro" vs "non-pro" glass, and you cheated a little by comparing kit zooms to prime lenses. Your example of the 50mm lens stands as a great example of the difference a lens can make. It does not however address specifically pro vs kit. The 50mm 1.8 is not a pro lens It is a prime lens. A better experiment to demonstrate your point would be to compare your kit zoom at 50mm to a pro zoom at 50mm, and then ask people if they can tell the difference. That would better illustrate the point at hand (if they can tell the difference, which I wouldn't bet they could!)

Your point about people being able to tell the difference in lens quality, particularly kit zoom vs prime is well taken however. I love the prime lenses for that reason!

Rick

[freygr]

With DSLR you have a problem comparing lens quality as the digital sensor acts as a low pass filter. With the lenses resolving power in lines per mm with digital cameras it comes down the to the how good is the cameras auto focus or does you camera have more resolution?

[gahspidy]

Oh no, this Tractor Trailer is veering off to the side of the road . . .
"What is a Pro Lens"?
It is one that is better built, better performing and usually better optics, and most always much more expensive.

[jgredline]

Oh no, this Tractor Trailer is veering off to the side of the road . . .
"What is a Pro Lens"?
It is one that is better built, better performing and usually better optics, and most always much more expensive.

I was just about to ask Frog if he had his answer yet

[Frog]

Qote:I was just about to ask Frog if he had his answer yet

No but its fascinating reading.

[jgredline]

Qote:I was just about to ask Frog if he had his answer yet

No but its fascinating reading.

LOL, I am right there reading with ya,

[Anthonys]

I held off for a while on investing in glass. I had a 28-105 that did a pretty darn good job. But before i went to Cambodia I figured I should get a couple of better lenses to take full advantage of whatever I might find there. I picked up a 17-40/4 L and a 70-200/4 L, both Canon.

As others have stated, I noticed an immediate uptick in image quality, and a reduction of the need to post-process images. I'm capturing more and better images. Less stuff hits the cutting room floor. Which is a blessing and a curse as I sit here and sift through 5,500 pictures.

[Loupey]

I'd say it's just simply the most expensive model in any series - whether it's a zoom range or specific prime focal length.

The build quality is the most noticeable difference IMO. The image quality improvement can sometimes be very small. Many "mid-level" lenses are very good already and one has to look quite hard sometimes to see the difference.

It's not sheer image quality. My 28mm, 50mm, and 85mm non-L primes are much sharper than the "L" zooms which cover these focal lengths. I know, zooms and primes are not in the same class - but I think you get my drift.

I like to use the sunscreen analogy: Most people think they have to buy SPF 45 over the SPF 15 stuff - in reality, the additional protection they are paying extra for is only 1~2%. So in terms of photography, the finest is available if you want to pay for it or if you are paid to do it. But whether you can utilize it to its full potential, well that's up to you