Lenses are worth the money you spend on them. At the risk of repeating myself, let me show you why.
A good lens focuses fast. It is well-built and strong. It has little aberration and edge distortion. It is silent. It has better coatings and resistance to flare. Most importantly, it has a larger aperture (a smaller “f-number”), hence more glass.
But also very importantly, it is sharper.
Look here. Click on this image and then click on “orginal size”, and then view it at original size. Make sure you follow all those steps.
(24-70 lens at 24mm, at f/8, 1/125th second, 100 ISO; using studio strobes).
When you do that, you basically get to DNA-level.
“But I do not want my face to be so sharp!”.
Yes you do. You want your eye, eyelashes and soon, to be sharp. Skin you can blur later if you wish, but the basic image must be sharp.
And that is why a good lens (e.g. in the Canon-world, an “L”-lens, where “L” stands for “Luxury) is worth every penny. (And they cost a lot of pennies – but the lens will last you twenty years, both technically and in economic terms).
I am repeating myself, I know – but this is important. In lenses, there are few shortcuts (except an affordable 50mm lens, which is why if you do not yet have one, go get one now!)
Thanks Michael. Good timing. I have been researching the Canon L series lens’ 16-35 F/2.8 vs 24-70 F/2.8. I have my daughter’s graduation in May, which combines an indoor ceremony with an outside function. I expect I will be further away for most shots, but want sharpness, quality and a fast lens in either case. I also have my Canon 50mm F/1.4 for the real nice inside close-ups, where speed/blur is important. I am leaning towards the 24-70 F/2.8 as I think I will get more long-term use for the various kids events, sport shots, family gatherings etc. I also have my 200-300 F/2.8 to help complete my range of lens (I also recently acquired the Canon ulta zoom 10-22). Your ‘lens blogs’ have been extremely helpful in steering me so far … any other advice is always appreciated.