Skimp on the camera, put your hard-earned money in glass. Good advice, we’ve all heard it and I am not about to contradict this truism. Here comes the but…
The truism is self-referentially ummm, true. The real question is when to use which particular ”better”lens. Maybe even when to bother investing in better glass. I’ll admit, I love great optics as much as any other photographer and I’ll admit I am extremely nuts when it comes to serious over-investment in lenses that cover the same range.
I have more ways to shoot 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm than I know off the top of my head. I am honestly embarrassed at how insane I am about that 28-85mm range. That count I won’t even bother to estimate, well that’s for one camera system. I’m just as insane when it comes to my other camera systems in the same range. Heck, if I narrow that down to merely the 40-60mm range it’s still dozens of lenses across systems (speaking in terms of angle of view).
What lens do I use for production of more pictures than any other over the last decade plus? A universally denigrated Canon 24-105 f/4L makes an absurd showing when I look at the number of useful images I’ve made. It ranks at over 50% in terms of both images made as well as actually used. What’s more, is that I use it on a 50-megapixel body with no qualms. Well, I use it mostly with no qualms unless it matters.
How can this be? Well, as I’ll demonstrate below that boat-anchor of a lens is pretty good where it matters in actual use. I don’t care much about the corners. I use it the most in its middle zoom range (28 to 85-ish) where it’s pretty strong. Here’s the run-down:
I usually get to stand where I want to stand so I don’t crop much. I don’t even rotate the image more than a degree.
Most images I shoot for verticals (and about half of horizontals) are cropped 4:3 by design, there go the corners and also why I use a 50mpix body
I typically use large to medium apertures where nothing but a fraction of the image is in focus anyway.
I shoot close (see above)
The only place that lens is noticeably weak is in the extreme corners and at 105mm in general and worse when shooting at minimum focus distance. So here we go with the ridiculous lens comparisons…
Canon 24-105L vs 17-40L
First up let’s make this easy by comparing it to another crappy lens nobody but I would ever use in 2023. Yes, it’s the even more bad 17-40L (sarcasm as it’s better than the far more expensive 16-35L 2.8 version 1 and version 2 in many situations). All illustrations made with my obsolete Canon R with the old 30mpix 5Div sensor just because I can mount anything on it. Feel free to download and pixel peep the screenshots at 4K resolution.
Is that moiré I see on the 30mpix image on the left? Wow, that must be pretty sharp to get moiré on a crappy old 5DIV sensor with an AA filter. Don’t pay a whole lot of attention to that given that if I move a millimeter forward or back it would go away (which is why it doesn’t show up much in the rest of the photos or real life).
Canon 24-105L vs RF 35 1.8 Macro
Yea, yea, I know, it’s not an “L” and it’s not expensive enough to be considered “good” but in use, that little gem is fantastic enough to ditch the EF 35mm 1.4L II if you don’t need the tiny bit of extra speed. At f/4 it’s superb.
Yep, we have a touch of moiré on both, luck. Here’s the point; They are both fantastically sharp where the lens is actually in focus anywhere near the center.
Canon 24-105L vs Voigtländer 35mm 1.4 Norton VM II
Yep, moiré again, you know the deal. Yes, this lens is terrible at 1.4 but quite good at f/4. I use it all the time for critical subjects at f/4-f/8 but truth be told I like the effect wide-open when shooting on my M cameras. It’s a dead ringer for the now lusted-after version 1 Summilux M 35mm (I think the design is a ripoff and I can’t tell the difference myself wide open).
The High-megapixel Myth
You’ve heard it before, if you upgrade your camera somehow your lenses get “worse” than they were. In other words, lenses that seem perfectly fine on a “low pixel count camera” will suddenly be much worse on a “high pixel count camera”.
Poppycock, all your lenses will produce more detail with more pixels. Yes, you will be able to see their flaws more clearly with more magnification. You’ll also realize that there is not as much DOF as you thought there was even on perfect lenses. Will all your prints somehow look worse at the same sizes? No, they will probably be better.
Conclusion
Is “good” glass better than lesser lenses? Absolutely but that has to be evaluated in context. My best glass is in a whole different universe in some circumstances. A perfect example is the Canon 100mm L macro vs the 24-105mm f4L when shooting flat objects up close near 100mm. The difference is obvious without pixel-peeping. How about non-flat scenes at moderate apertures? It’s hard to tell one lens from the other.
Stay tuned, I’m always up for ridiculous lens pet tricks. Next time maybe I’ll do 50mm. As always, use the right tool for the right job, and above all else use what you like and makes whatever you’re photographing more fun while producing results you like. Or maybe it will be funny to show how big of an epic fail the 24-105 is at 105 really close vs the 100mm L macro…