Originally posted by Rainy Day if I took exactly the same photo from my cheapie telephotos, and then another telephoto that costs 10 times more, would the more expensive model create a better exposure on its own merits?
Or, rather, does the creation of a great photo lie more in the way the photographer takes the photo, ie manipulating DOF, lighting, etc etc?
For your own photos and personal satisfaction, if you know what you want to do and can't do it with the cheaper lens but can with the more expensive one, the expensive glass definitely helps.
For example, I now have the 100mm f2.8 DFA WR macro lens because with my non-WR zoom at 100mm, I couldn't:
- blur out the background nicely, for indoor H&S portraits
- take large enough photos of small objects (from small flowers down to tiny insects)
- get as much centre sharpness as I occasionally wanted, while keeping a nice out of focus background
- get enough edge to edge sharpness on landscapes for large prints
- go out in the rain and shoot, or go down to the beach on a windy day and keep the blowing sand and salt out.
So I bought the expensive prime and now, even as a useless photographer (by professional and most of the photographers standards in here) I can do these things in a way that lets me produce nice photos
that I like, at large sizes. So yes, I think expensive glass can benefit even feeble photographers like me, but you must be clear about what you want to do with it - and how it will help you to do specific things that you like, and couldn't do before.
But for
great photos in the eyes of others, I think that's down mainly to the photographer's eye and very little down to the cost of the glass (but it may help a great photographer to get more difficult shots).