| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/17/2005 12:13:05 PM · #26 |
I started out with a set of inexpensive canon prime lenses, 28mm, 50mm 100mm, they were terrific. After a while I managed to save up enough for the Sigma 17-35 EX and compared to the primes it was terrible. The sharpness was just not good enough to match the prime lens.
However, I had paid quite a substantial amount for it so I persisted with it for a while, well until the autofocus broke, repaired and broke again (all in about 6months.
When I saw a 16-35 'L' on eBay for £670 I grabbed it with both hands, sold the Sigma to help pay for it. Now I have the usability of a zoom with the sharpness equal to the primes, and it keeps working.
I was so impressed by the 'L' glass that I immediately started saving for my next piece. I got it just last week, a 100-400 IS 'L'. Its everything I expected (including bloody heavy).
I'd take 'L' or primes anytime.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 12:39:15 PM · #27 |
When I was shooting film the sigma ex came pretty close to the "L" Canon, but since the digital sensor will pick up more detail than film, the difference will be greater. Unless you plan on selling your images as stock or blowing them up past an 11x14, I wouldn't bother...
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 12:40:28 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Falc:
I started out with a set of inexpensive canon prime lenses, 28mm, 50mm 100mm, they were terrific. After a while I managed to save up enough for the Sigma 17-35 EX and compared to the primes it was terrible. The sharpness was just not good enough to match the prime lens. |
I'll give one thing to Canon - the L brand is a guarantee of quality as it should be. With Sigma you do have to do your research because some (including the 17-35) are not highly rated, despite the EX tag.
On the other side of the coin - I like to shoot with old manual lenses, wierd Russian and East German glass and of course the lensbaby. My #1 priority isn't sharpness.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 01:30:02 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Considering the..........................
I would purchase an L lens over an inferior product - even if that meant having only one lens. |
Zeus', what would your 'one' lens be? Would the Canon 70-200 L USM (non-IS) be a good choice?
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 01:31:24 PM · #30 |
24-70 f/2.8L
Edit: Shoot, I'm not zeuszen...sorry for barging in...but that will be my next lens (or perhaps the 16-35 if you like the wide end)...
Message edited by author 2005-03-17 13:33:14.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 01:40:24 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
24-70 f/2.8L
Edit: Shoot, I'm not zeuszen...sorry for barging in...but that will be my next lens (or perhaps the 16-35 if you like the wide end)... |
Anyones response is fine, I was just personalizing it a tad because I was quoting zeuszen.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 01:45:05 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by casualguy:
Anyones response is fine, I was just personalizing it a tad because I was quoting zeuszen. |
I'm also interested in hearing his choice.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 02:00:51 PM · #33 |
The L lenses are only worth the extra money if they have some feature that you need in order to get the pictures that you want. For example if you REALLY want to take some picture that requires a 600mm focal length and an aperture of f/4 then the L lens is probably worth it. If you REALLY want to take a picture with f/1 or f/1.2 then probably an L lens will be worth it to you.
Generally the L lenses are special purpose lenses that require advanced designs and are also usually more ruggedly built. Unless you have a special need for these features then an L lens is probably not money well spent.
If you are in a situation where you can use an "ordinary" focal length and aperture then you probably won̢۪t see much if any difference in picture quality between an L lens and a decent non-L lens.
Tom
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 02:04:52 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by casualguy:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Considering the..........................
I would purchase an L lens over an inferior product - even if that meant having only one lens. |
Zeus', what would your 'one' lens be? Would the Canon 70-200 L USM (non-IS) be a good choice? |
Yes, I believe, it would be an excellent choice. The EF 24-70 mm L f/2.8 comes to mind as well, depending on your individual uses (with the EF 17-40 mm L being the better buy - cost to value).
My own limited arsenal pretty much represents what I consider a basic start-up package.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 02:07:12 PM · #35 |
i can't testify for image quality - but the L series lenses are weather proofed - so i hear. that could mean a much longer life span over a cheaper non-sealed lens. potentially making them a better value. depending on what type of conditions you shoot in, not having to worry about sand, salt, and water may well be worth the price.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 02:10:09 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by ovenbird:
The L lenses are only worth the extra money if they have some feature that you need in order to get the pictures that you want. For example if you REALLY want to take some picture that requires a 600mm focal length and an aperture of f/4 then the L lens is probably worth it. If you REALLY want to take a picture with f/1 or f/1.2 then probably an L lens will be worth it to you.
Generally the L lenses are special purpose lenses that require advanced designs and are also usually more ruggedly built. Unless you have a special need for these features then an L lens is probably not money well spent.
If you are in a situation where you can use an "ordinary" focal length and aperture then you probably won̢۪t see much if any difference in picture quality between an L lens and a decent non-L lens.
Tom |
I agree, in principle, but I do not consider the focal lengths discussed here so far 'specialty' glass. F/1.0 and f/1.2..., well, I'm beginning to wonder what the 'f' would stand for. ;-)
Message edited by author 2005-03-17 14:10:46.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 02:30:24 PM · #37 |
Spending the money on L glass is a personal choice based on need and one's budget. That said, I made the following decision when I bought my camera: go for quality. Like a lot of people, when I first started I bought lower end lenses; however, at one point I caved and acquired my first high end glass and it was like night and day -- really. The shots were simply crispier, contained more color and contrast. Accordingly, little by little, I traded in my lower end glass, and over time have acquired a small collection of higher end glass -- in this case, L lenses.
Ya know, as the adage goes, at the end of the day, our photo systems are really built around our glass, rather than around our cameras -- think of it. Moreover, this is specially true in the age of DSLRs, given the relatively rapid advances in camera systems.
On another note, here's a comparison between the 16-35 vs 17-40. Of course, this comparison address image quality, not the low light capabilities of the two.
Message edited by author 2005-03-17 14:35:31.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 02:31:35 PM · #38 |
Don't forget about:
- better micro contrast (subtle but very noticeable)
- better bokeh (more attention to the blades, more blades)
- color rendition (also in relation to the micro contrast)
- less distortion (saves you a lot of time in pp)
- hopefully less flare
- less to no chromatic abberations
Subtle differences but imho (very) important.
If you are in the market for this kind of lenses and are not sure about your decision: Don't order blind from a website, relying on tests and other people's opinions. Find a good & friendly dealer who lets you testshoot the lenses (+review the pics) and when you find the one that suits you, buy it from him (don't hesitate to bargain).
Don't just look at those photo's on your screen. Apply as much or as little postprocessing as you normally would. And print them, 8x10 minimum.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 03:24:22 PM · #39 |
So how for a Canon EF mount camera are you going to get 500mm and f/4 or 600mm and f/4 or 400mm and f/2.8 without going L? Sure you can get a slow mirror lens or some piece of junk telescope from ebay for a lot less and get the focal length but not at those apertures. As far as f/1 and f/1.2, how are you going to get a 50mm f/1 or 85mm f/1.2 without going L? Furthermore, how many people really would use a 600mm f/4 or 50mm f/1 on a regular basis? For most people something with moderate focal lengths and apertures is fine (say 28-200mm range at say f/3.5-5.6).
Here̢۪s an interesting idea for you. Take the kit lens that comes with say a digital rebel and compare it at f/8 to an L lens of your choice in that FL range at f/8 and see how drastically different your results are.
I suggest that the quality from the two setups under these conditions will be very close.
Tom
Originally posted by zeuszen:
I agree, in principle, but I do not consider the focal lengths discussed here so far 'specialty' glass. F/1.0 and f/1.2..., well, I'm beginning to wonder what the 'f' would stand for. ;-) |
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 03:35:51 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by jonr:
L is 90% marketing and 10% reality.(IMHO) Yes, they are very good, (almost all of them), but not that much better. You would probably get a better deal in the Sigma EX line. (EX = L) |
Sorry but EX is mo match for L.
People who want to sell prints ,L lenses are must to have.
The detail and crisp quality wall to wall can't be reproduced with just regular glass. |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 03:38:33 PM · #41 |
There is more to bokeh than merely the number of diaphragm blades.
Tom
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Don't forget about:
- better micro contrast (subtle but very noticeable)
- better bokeh (more attention to the blades, more blades)
- color rendition (also in relation to the micro contrast)
- less distortion (saves you a lot of time in pp)
- hopefully less flare
- less to no chromatic abberations
Subtle differences but imho (very) important.
If you are in the market for this kind of lenses and are not sure about your decision: Don't order blind from a website, relying on tests and other people's opinions. Find a good & friendly dealer who lets you testshoot the lenses (+review the pics) and when you find the one that suits you, buy it from him (don't hesitate to bargain).
Don't just look at those photo's on your screen. Apply as much or as little postprocessing as you normally would. And print them, 8x10 minimum. |
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 03:39:47 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by DanSig:
I started with a 300D and budget sigma lenses, the 18-50DC and the 55-200DC at first my pictures were bad because I didn´t know how to use a DSLR but when I learned that my pictures didn´t improve that much, then I bought L glass and I DID see major difference in quality. I bought the 17-40L, 50mm f1.4 and the 70-200L f2.8 IS so I covered the same range as the sigma lenses and the details ans sharpness was stunning compared to the sigma lenses.
ofcource there was a BIG difference in price, $2500 compared to $200 for the sigmas.
buying an L lens just to have a L is stupid.. but buying a L because you want to take extra sharp pictures with extreme details then that´s a good reason to spend the extra $
I compared the sigma 55-200 and the 70-200L by taking a picture of the same object at the same time, just put my camera on a tripod and switched lenses between pictures.
then I made a 400% crop of both pictures and there were NO details in the sigma picture just blur but the canon picture was pin sharp.
THAT IS A REASON TO GET L :) |
Do you have those photos available to look at? I am very interested in this topic - I am debating getting an L as my main lens.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 03:44:29 PM · #43 |
I really think it depends on the particular lens. Some of the Sigma EX lenses are very good. I have seen outstanding output from lenses like the Sigma 50mm f/2.8 macro EX, 120-300mm f/2.8 EX, 180mm f/3.8 macro EX to name a couple. Having used both the Sigma and Canon 180mm macro lenses head to head the EX certainly gives the L a hard run for its money. I don̢۪t think a skilled photographer would have much if any trouble selling prints produced from most of the EX lenses.
Just my 2c
Tom
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Originally posted by jonr:
L is 90% marketing and 10% reality.(IMHO) Yes, they are very good, (almost all of them), but not that much better. You would probably get a better deal in the Sigma EX line. (EX = L) |
Sorry but EX is mo match for L.
People who want to sell prints ,L lenses are must to have.
The detail and crisp quality wall to wall can't be reproduced with just regular glass. |
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 04:03:10 PM · #44 |
Canon 24-70 f2.8 L
I have to have this thing,it is awesome ! |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 04:25:31 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Originally posted by jonr:
L is 90% marketing and 10% reality.(IMHO) Yes, they are very good, (almost all of them), but not that much better. You would probably get a better deal in the Sigma EX line. (EX = L) |
Sorry but EX is mo match for L.
People who want to sell prints ,L lenses are must to have.
The detail and crisp quality wall to wall can't be reproduced with just regular glass. |
Of course EX is no match for L. What I was saying is that both lines are supposed to be the 'better' than the non-L/EX. I would probably only buy L too, shame that Canon doesn't seem bring out a EF-S 17-40.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 05:03:01 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by jonr:
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Originally posted by jonr:
L is 90% marketing and 10% reality.(IMHO) Yes, they are very good, (almost all of them), but not that much better. You would probably get a better deal in the Sigma EX line. (EX = L) |
Sorry but EX is mo match for L.
People who want to sell prints ,L lenses are must to have.
The detail and crisp quality wall to wall can't be reproduced with just regular glass. |
Of course EX is no match for L. What I was saying is that both lines are supposed to be the 'better' than the non-L/EX. I would probably only buy L too, shame that Canon doesn't seem bring out a EF-S 17-40. |
I tried the sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX a year ago and was not very impressed. I bought a Canon 200mm f2.8 L a week ago and I am amazed at how good this lens is, there is no comparison at all!!
Neil |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 05:04:42 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by ovenbird:
So how for a Canon EF mount camera are you going to get 500mm and f/4 or 600mm and f/4 or 400mm and f/2.8 without going L? Sure you can get a slow mirror lens or some piece of junk telescope from ebay for a lot less and get the focal length but not at those apertures. As far as f/1 and f/1.2, how are you going to get a 50mm f/1 or 85mm f/1.2 without going L? Furthermore, how many people really would use a 600mm f/4 or 50mm f/1 on a regular basis? For most people something with moderate focal lengths and apertures is fine (say 28-200mm range at say f/3.5-5.6).
Here̢۪s an interesting idea for you. Take the kit lens that comes with say a digital rebel and compare it at f/8 to an L lens of your choice in that FL range at f/8 and see how drastically different your results are.
I suggest that the quality from the two setups under these conditions will be very close.
Tom
|
I going to take a wild guess and say you have never made this test. At f/8 it will be closer then say a shot taken at f/2.8 but there will still be a quite noticable difference. Take this from someone who has shot with Sigma EX lenses, Canon non L zooms and primes and L zooms and primes. The difference is there and is noticable with the naked eye. You can not possibly know what your camera is actually capable of until you have shot with the sharpest lens available.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 05:06:06 PM · #48 |
The only trouble with Canon L glass is once you have one nothing else will do!Just my opinion.
70 - 200 f2.8L IS 24- 70 f2.8L and the 16- 35 f2.8L and the 100 2.8 macro would be a very sweet lens package.
Dam L glass disease!
are they worth it? I would say they sure are ! |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 05:14:59 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by jonr:
..... shame that Canon doesn't seem bring out a EF-S 17-40. |
There is the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 USM IS lens
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 05:17:28 PM · #50 |
One thing to remember is that L-lenses are fast f/2.8 or less or f/4 or less in the super telephoto range. Regular non-L lenses are slower in the Canon line.
Message edited by author 2005-03-17 17:17:52.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/16/2025 02:48:29 PM EDT.
