23
My cheap lens got a better shot of the Orion Nebula than my expensive one
I was out last month with my new $800 telephoto and my old $150 kit lens, just for fun. I took the same 30 second shot of M42 with both, and the cheap one's photo had way less star trailing and weirdly more color. Turns out the kit lens has way less glass inside, so it cools down faster and doesn't get as much heat haze. Has anyone else had a basic piece of gear totally surprise them like that?
3 comments
Log in to join the discussion
Log In3 Comments
wendyprice24d ago
Hold on, that's giving the cheap lens too much credit. More glass usually means better correction for flaws, and that expensive lens is built to last. @emma_dixon70, a can opener is one thing, but optics are complex. Your kit lens got lucky with the conditions that night. The expensive one will give you sharper detail and less distortion on a stable, cool night. You just caught it on a bad night while it was settling.
7
the_lee24d ago
That part about the glass cooling down and heat haze is a bit off. The real issue is probably the lens elements moving as they cool at night. More glass means more things that can shift out of place. Your cheap lens is just simpler, less to go wrong.
6
emma_dixon7024d ago
Funny how that works, the simple tool often does the job better. It's like my old manual can opener that never jams, unlike the fancy electric one. Less stuff to break, I guess.
6