I was wondering what higher quality lenses have to offer. There's a huge difference in pricing, so I was wondering the benefits of higher priced lenses.
Zoom ? Clarity? What should I look for?

 

Not an expert , but most of the (prime) expensive lenses have a huge range like 18-300mm and are really fast, meaining that at 18mm of zoom the aperture could be 2.8 or so so you could get more light and use a faster shutter, for indoor shots. Also quality and different coatings that the glass itself have.

 

Faster, less distortion, better colors.

 

i actually learned that lens with bigger ranges, loose more quality. at best a 18-55 is good for an all around, and then a seperate 55-200/300 would be better for zoom purposes. and of course theres the wide angle. some of the more expensive lens' have vibration reduction, that can compensate up to 4 stops. some lens have built in motors for auto-focus as well, but that depends on wat your camera requires. of course, u get wat u pay for. quality parts=$$$$.
hope this helps.

 

Primes are a fixed focal length, ie 85mm, 135mm, 200mm. an 18-300 would be a zoom lens.

Without getting too technical, there are several reasons why the expensive, high quality lenses cost what they do. Most of my knowledge is with Canon gear so I'll add my input on those lenses. Nikon owners can add their own.

Canon's L series of lenses, instead of using just glass, incorporate fluorite crystal. This material not molded; it is grounded into it's shape. This process takes longer and is more complicated than the molding process. There is a video floating around the net showing how the 400mm f/2.8L lens is made and it shows each step of the manufacturing process.

If you every hold an L lens verses a low end third party lens, you'll feel a difference in the weight. Most L lenses are weather sealed (a few older models aren't). The barrels are made of metal, so they're built like a tank to absorb the punishment of photo journalism.

Generally speaking, the better, more expensive lenses will have a fixed max aperture, produce sharper images with more fibrant colors, and offer a faster and more accurate autofocus mechanism. If you use a Canon lens with USM and one without USM, you can definately tell a difference. The USM (ultrasonic motor) makes the autofocus virtually silent. Use a Canon 50 f/1.8 II and you can hear the motor whirring from 20-30 feet away in a quiet church. You can also notice how quickly a good lens will get an autofocus lock. My L lenses will lock instantly whereas the 50 1.8 takes a split second, longer in low light.

 

Thanks for all the helpful info. I have an XTi with the 18-55 it came with, and I bought a 75-300 in a package deal. The zoom lens is alright, but I notice the quality in the 18-55 is much better.
I see all of these posts " pics with new lens" and the clarity and colors are absolutely amazing. Dammit, I'm jealous. I wanna take cool pics too. I need to enroll in a photo class. My last was about 10 years ago.

 

the 75-300 is pretty soft, especially at 300mm. There's a decent amount of chromatic aberration, too. You'll see a huge improvement even if you upgrade to Canon's least expensive L lens (70 200 f/4.0L)

 

Its not only the glass... Its post processing too... You'll be suprized what PS can do to an over/under-exposed image...

I have an XTi as my backup body... Im very happy with it... I actually use it more than my 5D (out for repair my little niece dropped it by accident)... You get what you pay for in the build, sharpness, colors and so on with more expensive glass... IS (Image Stabilizer) is something you might want to look into... It does help with blurryness (due to camera shake) as long as your subject doesnt move...

As gr? has mentioned you might want to look into the "L" line up... They are expensive there is not question about that... Once you get one though its all over... Its almost as bad as being bitten by the "import bug"...

Well, I hope that helps...

 

I use a tripod and remote about 70% of the time and I noticed that with the 75-300 still can be a bit blurry. I try to sharpen it in PS, but it tends to look fake.