Kit Lens vs Pro Lens - is it worth the extra money?
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 08. 2024
- How well does a standard camera kit lens perform next to a pro camera lens? Is the pro camera lens worth the extra money and
is there a real difference in the quality between the two lenses?
In this video, we investigate these questions by putting both lenses through some tests to see exactly HOW much better the pro series lens is next to a standard kit lens.
We test these two Canon lenses in three areas: Sharpness, Chromatic Aberration, and Colour/ Contrast.
If you enjoyed this video, make sure to subscribe to the channel to never miss future uploads. We upload new tutorials every week and if there’s anything you want us to cover here at TSoP let us know in the comments below, it gives us great ideas for new tutorials.
Support us:
Get 10% OFF our Online Courses here - bit.ly/3Jt12kZ
Our Recommended Photography Equipment - bit.ly/photog-...
Check out our Complete Guide to Photography Book here - bit.ly/2KZDw2U
Check out our eBook here - bit.ly/photog-...
Grab a Freebie:
Get our Free eBook for learners of photography here - bit.ly/2DwNS4c
Get 15 Free Lightroom Presets - goo.gl/xvTPT7
Get the Best Music for your CZcams videos and other projects. Try for free here - share.epidemics...
Free trial of Photoshop and Lightroom here - prf.hn/l/9mEZ58x
Get the Best Music for your CZcams videos and other projects. Try for free here - share.epidemics...
Create a photography website with Squarespace. Try it for free here squarespace.sy...
Get weekly tutorials delivered straight to your inbox, sign up at www.theschoolo...
Join our learning community on social media:
Facebook ► / theschoolofp. .
Instagram ► / theschoolof. .
Twitter ► / schoolofphot0
Pinterest ► / tsophotography
Follow my personal photography work here:
Facebook ► / marcnewton
Instagram ► / marcnewton
Vero ► vero.co/marcne...
Thanks for watching and remember - Learn more at The School of Photography.
NB: Above are some affiliate links and TSOP will receive a small percentage of some purchases made.
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 czcams.com/video/cgqBUKiSJbc/video.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.
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.
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 👍
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 CZcams 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.
I would suggest getting a good prime lens before spending big money on pro glass.
Prime lens are usually inexpensive and they provide a much better picture quality than a kit lens, they're also great for learning about composition. JMO
Thanks for sharing 👍
exactly what i did. bought the body itself, then a 50mm prime to practice everywhere, anytime i can. that way i can improve my skill before jumping in any zoom and pro lenses
Same, and I really like using my prime lens, it seems to suit what I'm photographing at the moment, still life, portrait's, found objects and interesting scenes.
Said: " _Prime lens are usually inexpensive_ ". I don't think you have looked at prices lately.
@@dukenukem5768 they are talking te 85mm and below "standard" primes", not the $10000plud hotn
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.
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.
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.
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.
I love your calmness and you don’t talk too fast! Thank you!
Thanks Chey, glad you liked it :)
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..
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.
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
Bang on! Thanks bro
You're welcome 👍
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 czcams.com/video/vZog77AYURY/video.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!
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.
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.
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'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'.
Most of my Nikon lens's are F2.8 for the lower light capability for indoor sprorts
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
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.
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 👍
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!!
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 👍
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 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 👍
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
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.
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
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.
Cancellation of my order for a new lens is in progress 😂
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.
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 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.
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 👍
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.
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).
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
Chromatic aberration has been driving me mad and now i know why! Thanks a lot, helped me a bunch
You're welcome 👍
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 😀
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 :)
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 agree with everyone who says that you can edit the images on post and shoot raw. I believe reason and purpose of expensive gear is for convenience. For some professionals who need the most efficient methods will buy those gear.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
I thought Michael Cane was narrating when he got into the studio
Thanx God i watched this Vid. Am doin jus fine with my Kit lens
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!
Amazing video and explanation 👏
Love your videos!
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 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 👍
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.)
Can you use any lens for a canon EOS 90d
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 😊
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
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.
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 🙂
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?
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..
👍
This was very helpful. Thank you for the video, mate!
You're welcome 👍😊
Hmmm...the one of the dandelion was better exposed with the L-lens, but in post production, could you get the cheap lens to give you substantially better results? In short, using Photoshop Elements, what could you do with both images? Could you make them more similar by reducing the kit len's exposure or in post production using Elements? Is there somewhere where we can download the photos and experiment with them? I'd also like to see both lens cranked up to the same zoom focal length. That's where many kit lenses crap out, big time. On the wide angle settings, we also have to compare pincushion and barrel distortion. Your lens comparison was interesting, but certainly not comprehensive.
Budget kit lenses in my view are notoriously variable when it comes to colour across focal ranges and don't cope well in variable lighting either. My first experience that really rammed this home was testing an 85mm f/1.8 and a 60mm EF-S Macro v the 18-135mm STM kit lens. Both prime lenses were consistent shot to shot whereas the metering was all over the place with the kit lens.
I had the same experience with constant aperture Zooms v variable aperture zooms - they're just not consistent. Sure, you can get good shots - But I'd be bracketing and fooling around instead of working.
Another thing - cheap full frame lenses don't always focus on crop canon bodies. Bad experiences with all the 50mm lenses - just switch to live-view.
Cool video, liked your accuracy!
The o ly thing setting me off was your talking speed :D
me being a long time canon user i will tink it depends on what you want/need if you are a casual shooter go for the kit lens it also depend on what body you ave bigger sensors NEED better definition.
the 750d is a apsc 24.2 meg sensor i think this is the limit for this kit lens also where do you use you cam L lenses are whether seald and much more solid/heavier and are in general faster what is andy
for nice bouquet and low light conditions.
look at third party lenses Sigma and Tamron ave wonderful lenses and ar more affordable or go for prime lenses some are pretty cheap even canon's i use 3 primes 20mm/30mm/50mm all 1.4 from sigma and those are my babies (lol).
A good composition is the most important factor than anything else, imo.
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.
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.
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.
Cameras perform lots of corrections (chromatic aberration, distortion, vignette, noise reduction etc.) while shooting JPEGs, so the differences would be (way) more obvious in raw.
The thing to do is this, as we know most pro photographers just have to buy the latests and gratest kit, so when they upgrade that is when you upgrade, you buy their old kit let them take the hit on the huge price drop, get some right bargains that way.
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.
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.
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....
I just got my 24-105 today... Compared it against kit lens and I thought I was bugging for not being able to see almost any difference. Hence why I had to watch your video 😂
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.
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.
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 👍
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
Thanks. very interesting. Back in the analog days a lens was a lens. There were no Pro lenses. And what bothers me is that today there seems to be only the choice between a super cheap Kit lens or an expensive Pro lens from the camera makers.
From my perspective I would go for something from Sigma or Tamron if I were a Canon or Nikon user. Or maybe a used Pro lens.
As an Olympus user however I'm using their normal prime lenses and they're great.
Thanks for the comments, appreciate that 👍
Nikon makes a lot of very solid mid range lenses so do the research before buying. I never use 3rd party glass personally and never would.
that L series lens sitting on the corner of your desk gives me anxiety lol good video though!
Is that really a head-to-head comparison ... Pro 24-105 vs Kit 18-55 .... being different zooms, wouldn't they have different builds?
Not sure why you took an angled picture for the sharpness. Typically a step down on AV dead center is gonna be sharp. It's the corners that really tell the difference in lenses IMO.
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.
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 👍
Thank you I have learned so much about true photography from this video as well as your others. I have a canon 15-45mm lens for my M6 and I consider it to be quite sharp but I have never compared it to anything.
Excellent tutorial. Thank you
Thanks, glad you liked it 👍
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.
I prefer the Kit Lens in all of the photos. But I'm a beginner photographer who's just starting out.....so my opinion will no doubt differ in a few years time.
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
Nice video you did, but I do have a few gripes with the "every day aspect" of the test:
Overall sharpness of the lenses; I do think it would have been much more telling if you shot the wall face on: Almost every lens sold for the last 100 years is sharp at it center. But is it CONSISTENTLY sharp, all through up into the edges? That's where the wheat gets seperated from the chaff.
Also: Shoot into the light (like, i. e. Backlit portraits. Superior glass doesn't get milky all over, or is less likely to go sunflare/ nova on you. (I had same kit lens and I knew damn well why I stayed the hell away from backlit portraiture outdoors. Also, when a flashlight entered the lens, it was bye bye image.
Also, image brightness; is the brightness falloff to the edges tolerable?
Also, the sharpness: if you shot a model's eyes with the kit lens, and you said "sharp", then you shot it with some pro glass (hell, even the nifty fifty....), then you say: "Oh my god!"
Now please, don't get me wrong, I did shoot the hell out of that lens and got a good lot of great images out of it, but only when you understand and accept its limitations.
+Michael Rapp hi read the pinned comment