Will a lense make a difference?

[Patrick's Dad]

I'm a chap who enjoys his Sony Alpha 1000 DSLR for it's convenience and simple features.
I bought it body only and generally use a Sigma 70 - 300 1:4 - 5.6D (whatever that means)
I get some pretty good photos with it and some very good ones by my standards.
My question, would a newer and better lens improve the quality of my shots assuming my skill level stays the same?
I like photography enough to warrant spending a few hundred on a new lens if my photos would be better for it.

Ta all

[Greg964]

Patrick's Dad said:

...would a newer and better lens improve the quality of my shots assuming my skill level stays the same?

Fractionally.
If you bought a 2.8 lens some images may 'pop' more due to a shallower depth of field and you'd get perhaps a little more sharpness.
But if you've got no time for some reading and a bit of experimenting, then its probably not worth the investment.

[jagdpanther]

Greg964 said:

Patrick's Dad said:

...would a newer and better lens improve the quality of my shots assuming my skill level stays the same?

Fractionally.
If you bought a 2.8 lens some images may 'pop' more due to a shallower depth of field and you'd get perhaps a little more sharpness.
But if you've got no time for some reading and a bit of experimenting, then its probably not worth the investment.

agreed

A lens can make a difference, but a top notch piece of glass can cost a whole lot of money whereas practice, education and skill comes for free other than time

[Podie]

In my experience, if you take the same shot with different lenses, it's always obvious which was taken with the better glass.

No reason you can't take great photos with cheaper glass, hell I've taken some corkers with the kit lens...

[rlw]

You are limiting yourself with a 75 - 300 zoom. You could use something like a 30 - 70 which will give you a chance to shoot closer objects or bigger scenes.

[Simpo Two]

Patrick's Dad said:

generally use a Sigma 70 - 300 1:4 - 5.6D (whatever that means)

The thing about photography is that if you want to progress, you have to learn. For every rung I go up, two more appear above me. So if you're not sufficiently interested to find out what '1:4 - 5.6D' means, then I have to think that no, you're not ready to spend £££ on glass just yet. For a start, what do you mean by 'quality of your shots'? It would be better to decide what is the limiting factor - you or your kit - and then tackle the weakest link.

That may not be the answer you wanted but hey, think of the money I just saved you

[RobDickinson]

Patrick's Dad said:

and generally use a Sigma 70 - 300 1:4 - 5.6D (whatever that means)

Ta all

If you dont understand what those numbers mean then find out. Find out what governs exposure and Depth of field too.

Having a greater understanding will allow you to get the best out of that lens ( typicaly at its poorest wide open and at extreems of focla length). and also allow yu to achieve the shots your after.

I'd do that befoer buying a better lens, improving your skill and knowledge is a lot cheaper, and you can still take sucky shots with a better lens.

[Patrick's Dad]

Fair comments.
I'll give it some thought.

Ta

[Simpo Two]

To be more constructive, 1:4 is the maximum magnifcation of the lens, 5.6 is the aperture of the lens (I suspect you've missed a bit, it's probably 1:4, f4-5.6, denoting that the aperture changes with focal length and is f5.6 at 300mm) and D indicates the extent to which it will communicate with the body - IIRC it passes distance information to the metering system.