Expensive Lenses Are Overrated

[@Princeton_James]

GAS is fun for the fact that you get to test for yourself. I do not keep everything but I do buy most things. For example, everyone is talking smack about the Sony 24-50 2.8. well i just pre-ordered it bc reviews state that its pretty sharp, but mainly because the size is appealing to me. I already have the 24-70gmii but i dont always need the extra 50-70. Lenses are becoming like smartphones; the newest releases are more about features rather than ability.

[@CongThanhContent]

I wish I wasn't like this too

[@countskippy]

I'm having WAY more fun with vintage stuff and printing adapters for my cameras right now, so I definitely don't want to spend a ton of money if I don't have to. The diminishing returns are getting pretty noticeable, imo.

[@CongThanhContent]

Haha for sure comparing vintage lenses 😂. Coatings have gone a long way. Alot of vintage lenses still slap though! If you can get your hands on a Zeiss biotars, Pentax takumars or Konica hexinons I can 100% recommend them

[@PaulFeinberg]

Lots of good points. Some solid options out there these days! Especially for Sony shooters.

[@icouldseethesquirrels]

I purchased that Tamron 45 because of Ryan. My laowa 7.5 and sigma 16 mft on the gh5ii are beast. ROI is up exponentially without blowing everything on gear I won't use. Minimized my kit this year and enjoy shooting more than ever.

[@adonhd7]

Bro I’m not falling anymore I’m going to stick with sigma, which is like the cheaper version of the Gmaster lens for Sony.and since I am a Sony shooter, I’m a sigma master

[@selkiemaine]

You are SO right. IMO, most of the time nobody can tell if you use a cheap lens. I shot products for years with a first generation Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro that I got for three bills on e-bay. I recently tested that lens against an RF 100mm f/2.8L - yep the new one has much faster and quieter autofocus, and it did have slightly more contrast - but that little difference disappeared instantly during processing. I could shoot in the studio with that janky old lens all day long. Nobody would ever know the difference.

[@CongThanhContent]

gear really comes down to person using it. once you reach a point you can pull off excellent results with so much less

[@NamHoang-vm5cg]

I totally agree with you. I shot a photo with a 2470GM lens and another with a 2470 Sigma Art lens when I brought it into Lightroom, edited and posted it on Facebook. Nobody couldn't tell the difference between those pictures. I used to buy many "fast" lenses and 2.8 big bulky zoom because I thought it would help me take lots of good pictures. Now I use 2040F2.8 and 85F1.8 but I can still take many good pictures. Btw, very nice content.

[@CongThanhContent]

Thanks man! Awesome lenses btw! 20-40 was favourite lens when it came out. Absolutely great lens! And surprisingly how small it actually is too!

[@camstanley]

Coming from someone who’s just got an A6700 with the kit lens, I have to agree with a lot of what you’ve said. I watched SO many lens videos talking about how important they are, and I’ve got some truly amazing shots already with this kit lens. I was duped for sure. However I think I would disagree on the OSS not being important - my video shots with active stabilisation on and those without is massive, looks like I’m on a tripod honestly it’s that good

[@CongThanhContent]

Active stabilization is IBIS with software stabilization. It applies a 1.1 crop and utilizes the sensor and a slightly smaller part of the sensor for stabilizing. Standard stabilization is lens stabilization/OSS only!

[@camstanley]

@@CongThanhContent No way! I thought active meant it used both the lens and built in ibis at the same time? So active is really just the IBIS without the OSS? That’s crazyyy, thank you bro!!

[@camstanley]

I think you’re right then lol maybe lens stabilisation isn’t relevant anymore cause that ibis is amazing

[@amermeleitor]

Well, you are mostly right. But it depends. A pro sports photographer may need a fast long tele zoom, but 90% of photographers don't need that. Not even professional photographers. My wedding was shot with two Nikon DSLRs, kit lens, a 50mm 1.8, and a f4 zoom. And the results were great, even in the very low light scenarios. A full frame camera with small not so fast lenses is my ideal setup. Smaller overall than apsc for the same outcome.

[@CongThanhContent]

For sure! Sports photographers are a different breed though 😂 I would recommend anyone getting a telephoto lens as their first lens unless they were only interested in that type of photography from the get go. Gosh I maybe use my 70-200 twice a year 😂

[@BurneraccountXD69]

I'd like to add a few things here. What I'd recommend to most people is to buy older lenses, especially canon EF lenses as they are currently really cheap. When I tried to give this advice on an online forum the other day, I was basically laughed at and told "Why wouldn't you use lenses made for your camera? If you want to use Canon EF lenses, just buy a Canon EF camera. Native glass is always a better experience." Those kind of people are really obnoxious and seem to be completely unaware of how money works. Maybe you could do a video on lens adapters at some point actually, just a thought.

[@CongThanhContent]

That's a great idea, when I transitions from canon to Sony that's I did till I could sell all my canon gear off. There's lots of great cheap DSLR lenses out there. Albeit usually bigger, but could be had for sooooo cheap. Those people just want to be purists and definitely over think their gear

[@BurneraccountXD69]

@@CongThanhContent true, oh and I'd also recommend including adapters that have built in ND filters as well. Fotodiox makes a Sony E Mount to Canon EF adapter with a built in variable ND filter and autofocus, and I've heard pretty good things about it.

[@Princeton_James]

Totally agree. I just got the Fuji 50mm 1.2 R WR. It was so slow. That was a lot of people's criticism. I wanted to like it but couldn't. I adapted my old Sigma EF 50mm 1.4. wow. Faster and better in every way (other than weight). I'll save my 900 and return the Fuji.

[@carlosIC]

100% agree, I use an old camera and even if I put an expensive lense it wont help. If I could upgrade something of this Canon T6 it would be the focus. I even use a photo as a focus cheeker / bigger screen

[@cyb]

Trust this channels who hunts and buys their gears.

[@citizinse]

You let my secret of the Tamron sleeper lens out.

[@CongThanhContent]

Better buy some back ups before they sell out!

[@citizinse]

@@CongThanhContent The 1.2L's are the backups.

[@benjamindover4337]

I've been telling people this and most just don't get it. The whole "spend 3x as much on lenses as your body" thing is outdated. These days most lenses are incredible, even cheap ones. But the new bodies have feature updates that change the game. So really, it's the opposite now.. spend 3x as much on body as you spend on lenses.

[@folkartandcamera]

I find lenses now, in 2024 to be way, way better on average than 1974. Even the second/third tier stuff can be really good. I do find, however, that I don't regret buying quality. Lesser lenses almost always end up in the trade-in pile. Thanks for the content!

[@JayLensphotography]

Well, I think it depends what you do. In my case I need a fast lens because I deal with a lot of low light situations. And if you photograph just for hobby then yes kit lenses and all that is good enough. But for a pro photographer I think they would want the sharpest of the sharpest lenses they can get for the best results and prints. So even tho there might be truth in what you're saying. I also think it depends on what the photographer is going to use it for. And what I did notice is for the cheap lensen to have an ugly bokeh and a lot of vignetting with not the sharpest image in the corners. But it really depends on the brand.

[@CongThanhContent]

Fair enough! I believe there's diminishing returns on how sharp lenses can be though. Sharp can be too sharp, which is why so many people opt for using haze and glitter filters all the time. Slapping a $100 piece of glass too make there $2000 lens look to look "worse". Printing I'd also say, unless you're printing over 15 inches is really hard to utilize all that sharpness. On social media and small prints all that resolution and sharpness goes out the door. You really have to pixel peep to notice. I 100% agree bokeh characteristics are definitely a great reason for buying lenses but even this I think could have it's own argument too, with all these new lenses having mostly perfect bokeh, smooth, circlar, no onion rings, etc. Everything really starts to looks the same or similar. Take the Helios 44, it's famous and is one of the most produce and used lens of all time because it's optically imperfect in its bokeh. I believe a pro can produce great results with any camera or lens, having better tools just allows them to be more consistent. Just my thoughts though!

[@JayLensphotography]

@@CongThanhContent You have pretty good points here! All in the end it's important that the photographer is happy with their pictures, no matter the costs of the gear :p. But nonetheless you have some really good points. And you just made me think about even for client work, it's the clients who choose the photographer and if that photographer uses an optical "imperfect" lens and uses it as his style and they like it. Then it's indeed worth buying. Hell you even made me consider buying those kinds of lenses now 😅. Anyways still great video and def left a like! (I was already subbed ;) )

[@CongThanhContent]

Thanks mate!

[@5000Helme]

Hmmm. Maybe the client doesn't see a difference. But believe me, me editing 800 wedding images benefit a lot from using a GM lense. It is the coating what makes a difference. But, and this might be the handshake, I don't buy them. I rent them. In my personal Kit there is only one GM prime (the 35).

[@Michal_Bauer]

In general yes. But since I got into wildlife I know that every genre has its own rules. I'm on Nikon and any body upgrade from my D500 for birds in flight is so expensive that I could get Sigma 500mm f4 for those money. From the other side I prefer my Sigma 100-400 over Nikkor 200-500 which weighs a half more and costs twice as much. Older 300mm f4 is 500$ but it's nowhere as good for BIF as new PF which is light and 5 times more expensive. But in the end my all times favourite lens is my Sigma 17-50 2.8. I bought it new for less than 300$ instead of kit and those are the lens that made me stay in this hobby. I'm happy that kit lenses are getting better I know people who dropped photography beacuse of how bad they were.

[@stormtastic7083]

i only have 1 lens so i dont have this problem XD

[@MOTO_RIDERNGDABAW]

same hahah

[@CongThanhContent]

This guy has no GAS in the tank, I'm jealous 😂 (GAS: GREAT ACQUISITION SYNDROME)

[@stormtastic7083]

@@CongThanhContent my wallet just doesnt have gas😂

[@CongThanhContent]

Cheers to running on empty 😂

[@Princeton_James]

​@@stormtastic7083unfortunately my CC does. I've gotten into some trouble with this mentality 😜

[@Mraz75]

Damn you are just right.. thank you for opening my eyes..

[@Male_Parent]

I love my LAOWA lenses though. They make some really unique lenses.

[@CongThanhContent]

Laowa makes great stuff! I have a few of their ultrawides and probes. Their usually fairly compact since they don't have autofocus too! I like them alot!

[@johntupper1369]

Panasonic s & sigma contemporary best value imho

[@CongThanhContent]

Panasonic makes greats stuff! I think value to performance, viltrox honestly might be the best, but they do have a pretty limited line up. I think sigma contemporary is better than Tamron in terms of image quality and build quality for primes, but overall I prefer the odd zoom ranges from Tamron!

[@johntupper1369]

@@CongThanhContent no firsthand exp with viltrox/tamaron but they seem to have found an audience

[@douglaspianta4187]

I have 3 lenses. If i ever get abother I'll sell one of the ones i have. I have an astro lense, a bird photography lense, and a general purpose lense. I don't see the need to get any others, and would rather spend the money on a better camera, photography lessons, or a trip somewhere to take photos.

[@aquss33]

Unsurprisingly another great video from this guy, such a shame it got just 300 views in 7 hours

[@CongThanhContent]

One of these will eventually hit!

[@Geedtyjkbfssvbhhgfvbgdetyhfrg]

Honestly my biggest beef with the kit lens is how minimal the zoom function is. 5x may sound like a big deal but in reality it's pretty weak.

[@aquss33]

I almost quit photography 5 years ago because of a bad kit lens, it was an 18-55 f/4-5.6 IS STM from Canon, actually a well reviewed lens considering its price point (65€ add on). In my opinion the biggest problem was horrid image quality, the photos looked amazing on a tiny screen but when put on a PC the disappointment was immeasurable. They were not soft, they were actually pretty sharp and there isn't much in the way of "optical imperfections" for example chromatic aberration and alike... very optically sound lens. it's just that the photos were extremely ugly and unappealing no matter how good the composition and the editing was, they just look like point and shoot snapshots or phone photos... Some cheap old vintage lenses were terrible optically and very unsharp yet people buy them en mass, people often overlook the fact that lenses can have a nice look to them aside from their optical prowess... But these kit lenses, they were just shit... Once I shot a few videos on the kit lens expecting them to look great as my DSLR was pretty good at video taking for 2018, it had 1080p50 uncropped with dual pixel AF which was the ballin' shit for just under 800€ at the time, safe to say - the videos were completely unusable, they were in focus all the time (cuz the camera was amazing) but they just looked like crap on a bigger screen. In 2021 after I had mostly quit photography and became depressed from spending so much money on shitty gear I finally decided to get the 50mm f/1.8 STM, suddenly I was happy with the pictures I was getting and the video that camera shoots looks amazing, a revelation - and not to mention that the 50mm was cheaper than the kit lens??!?!?! I wouldn't recommend anyone get a canon dslr with a kitlens EVER. Sorry for the long comment, I just have so much love for the nifty fifty (like many others) and so much hate for the 18-55 piece of garbage (also like many others)...

[@MacKingG]

​@aquss33 The 18-55 was my starter lens too. It is very sharp and punches well above its weight. Honestly, it sounds like your skill is not up to par, which being a beginner is ok. If you were impressed by the 50 1.8 then you were looking for the one thing the 18-55 can't really provide, and that is a fast aperture and lower depth of field. Understanding what you want out of your gear, before making a purchase would go a long way in preventing the disappointment you went through. Glad you rediscovered your love for photography.

[@aquss33]

​@@MacKingG I mean, my skill surely wasn't up where it is now back in 2018 and 2019 when I used to use the kit lens, that is of course correct, but what I wanted to say is that even now when I've gotten photos to win competitions and be printed in a couple of smaller magazines I still can't take a photo that I think looks "good" with the kit lens, even if it's the same exact one as before. Again, it's not unsharp or optically bad. It's just kinda ugly and bland - kinda mid. It's not the slow aperture. I can go and shoot with a 24mm f/2.8 for example and stop it down to 5.6 or 8 and at all the same settings it looks so much better than the kit lens. Sharpness is surprisingly almost the same. On the other hand the 50mm 1.8 has high levels of chromatic aberration making it "worse" than the kitlens in that regard. It still looks better even at f/5.6. I think I've taken better shots with some old ass FD mount manual lens that cost 20€ than with this kit lens. You aren't wrong to say that my lack of skill was a component in me hating this lens but I truly believe there's more to it as I've grown as a photographer through other lenses none of which, no matter how blurry or broken, managed to make me as disappointed with my photos as the 18-55 stm. I tried using it recently on a photography trip to the mountains as it was the only lens I had an ND filter for (I normally do wildlife so I don't own many NDs, this one was a pretty expensive one as well) so I used the kit lens for some waterfall shots which I've done before with other lenses. Stable tripod, perfect focus (manual focusing with digital zoom in to check), 2 sec exposure, 2 sec timer, razor sharp image, f/8, ISO 100 bla bla bla... all the good stuff... the photo looks bland - like a snapshot from some cheap point and shoot (aside from the actual photo on a composition and subject level looking good, don't wanna dis the shot, it was nice, but the quality and the "look" it had was artificial and just mid, though I've lost the shot as the SD card broke and there was no wifi to do a backup). There's a certain magic to other lenses and I fell that it's one of the only lenses that fully lacks it. Also, like 2 of my friends quit cuz they bought a kit lens (though they were the older version with slow focus as well) and got back when they got some real glass (some of which was cheaper than the kit lens, not to mention older)... idk what to tell you, I'm no lens expert, but I fell that there's a reason people dislike the canon kit lens as a pro/amateur tool... (p.s. it was fine for like the first 2 months of using it, I just didn't have more money to spend on glass so I had to use it for like 2 more years lol). Not dissing on people using the kit lens, it's not bad, it never was. It's kinda just mid, it lacks magic of photography.

[@MacKingG]

@aquss33 I will 100% agree that it lacks any magic. It is a perfectly capable baseline lens that will produce a sharp but uninspired image. No argument there. Another thing to consider is the feel and vibe other lenses give, some through better aperture, and some through sheer build quality. I feel like that goes a long way in inspiring a photographer, making you want to shoot more and look for the magic. It has been well over 15 years since I've touched one but now you make me want to get one just to see what it is capable of, now that I am much more capable!

[@CongThanhContent]

On occasion I'll still use my kit lens when I think it's a situation when I could actually break one of my good lenses 😂 it has stood the test of time and never let me down so far

[@DCDavid19]

Here before this hits 100k views

[@CongThanhContent]

Welcome aboard 🫡

[@AzarathGirl123]

Its funny how sony is the one with the worst image stabilisation of the big 3 yet they are the most eager at removing optical stabilisation in lenses

[@CongThanhContent]

I mean the key thing about mirrorless cameras is to make the camera smaller. By removing stabilization in lenses, reduces the size by half in alot of cases. Not to mention the savings in bag space. Canon on the other hand has only been making lenses bigger lol. Nikon has actually made some really awesome stuff that I find really intriguing though!

[@AzarathGirl123]

​@@CongThanhContent lol, Nikon is the worse offender when it comes to big and heavy lenses compared to canon. Reduced weight and size is great but not at the cost of stabilization performance, at least not in my book. In fact, if you look at 16-35 or 24-70 f2.8, canon lenses are smaller than Sony's and they even have optical IS, but canon lenses are heavier. So it's not a size issue but a weight issue The way I see it is that Sony is so bad at optical IS that they've given up unless strictly necessary

[@CongThanhContent]

The Sony 24-70 GM ii is 695g vs Canon's 24-70 RF is 900g...? (29% heavier) Sony 16-35 GM ii is 547g vs Canon's 15-35 is 840g. 53% heavier. Canon's lenses are literally larger and heavier... Also referring to Nikon, I'm talking most about the lenses there choosing to pursue aswell as camera specs. Also their new Nikon ZF looks pretty gnarly too

[@AzarathGirl123]

@@CongThanhContent you're listing weight specs and then doing size comparison? Look up the specs and you see canon and Sony lens dimensions are usually with a 5mm difference, which means they managed to sneak in the IS unit into an almost identical chasis. Canon lenses are literally not larger. They are heavier because they provide a better IS system

[@CongThanhContent]

Literally look at two images of them side by side. You can physically see they are larger. From girth and length. Obviously length wise they will be similar since since they are they are same focal lengths, but even then Canon's are measurably bigger. If anything are you just looking at the spec sheet and just seeing that diameter size is the nearly the same and not actually looking at the physical size comparison? You can clearly see Sony lenses taper down significantly towards the mount. Now regarding to this video, I still think these are too much lens for the majority of people. Regardless of the brand.

[@ChrisThe1]

I think canon is pushing the envelope more than other companies. The macro is 1.4x, the 135 has IS and focuses crazy fast for a prime, the wide goes to 10mm; they're all minor improvements, but at least it's a quantifiable advantage, unlike what most competitors are doing. Sad that their cameras are trash though.

[@CongThanhContent]

Id actually argue for lenses. LAOWA takes the cake for expiremental lenses. They made a 2x macro in 2017, and now have a 50x for macro. They also have tons of wild focal lengths down to 9mm FF rectilinear. And a 10mm FF with autofocus, aswell as a entire line up of f.95 lenses. Not mention tons of other legendary lenses like their probe lens! Canons new 24-105 f2.8 is probably the coolest lens I've seen from them for a while but that is the chonkiest of lenses

[@keithlivingston3495]

Laowa is ahead of cannon

[@WiFuzzy]

Yup. Interesting video. And mostly true if all you want to do is post stuff on social media. Oh... you have a cell ohone for that. It has a kit lens. This is a Sony guy justifying his Brand. Buy a Canon with Ibis and you have Hundreds of lenses that are used and can be adapted. From cheap to L glass. most will be quality glass and cost close to that Sony kit lense. That is how you start in Photography or video. Bang for the buck. And when you good at it. He wont be able to tell you what system you used. But you will save thousands. And no. 10 years ago Sony had next to nothing for lenses..... before you type it.

[@CongThanhContent]

Lol canon guy justifying his brand even though they locked RF mount to only expensive canon lenses realized that no one could afford to their cameras so they finally "open their mount" for alternatives after years of people requesting it (....still waiting it's 2024). But yeah theirs "lots of lenses" for RF if you want to pay $1000+ for their entry level stuff. EF could be used but then your also paying +$200 just got the adapter and then using bigger DSLR lenses for no real reason. Also you could of have always done this on Sony camera too. They did have the A line mount line. Which is basically all Zeiss glass that absolutely slapped. Not mention EF still works on Sony. And there's actually third party options. But yeah tons of "options" for Canon 😂 Also let's be honest. The reason why kit lenses have a bad rep is because of the Canon 18-55 STM kit lens. Like plastic mounts? Come on. 😂 Side note: Canon Mirrorless really still is best suited for people who are already in canon ecosystem with a ton of canon glass, that is transitioning into mirrorless. It's really not well suited for new photographers or budget friendly at all. Expecting novice photographers to adapt lenses for affordable options....? Its only in 2024, that their entry line is starting to grow.