| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/17/2005 05:21:45 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
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. |
And that is what I like is the speed. |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 05:58:54 PM · #52 |
Quick and dirty test between the Canon 75-300mm f/4-5.6 lens and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens.
Both used on the 1D Mark II on a tripod, mirror lock-up and remote release at 70mm and 200mm, both lenses stopped down to f/8, shooting JPG so as not to introduce variations due to RAW processing. No PS processing except for 100% crops and saved for web.
At 70 & 75mm there is not much difference that I can see
 70-200  75-300
At 200mm the difference is obvious
 70-200  75-300
Message edited by author 2005-03-17 17:59:30.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 06:02:38 PM · #53 |
Shame on you! That lens is so overpriced, it isn't even funny!
I'm talking about a L-class lens. Weather sealed, f2.8 mininum. |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 06:29:54 PM · #54 |
Well.. I'm convinced. I can only buy L glass. It's the only glass that will take photos that are acceptable to the "in" crowd.. which is where I have to be to be anyone. .. Just.. one.. problem.. damn things were a bitch to get on my Pentax.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 06:33:33 PM · #55 |
Canon's L lenses are worth the money to some people and not others. I would say that you need to justify owning these lenses based on what you do with the images you shoot.
If a majority of what you do is shoot for display on the web, don't spend the money for L glass. If you are printing 4x6, 5x7, and 8x10 prints, don't spend the money on the L glass. If you are resampling your images to larger sizes for prints larger than 8x10, don't spend your money on anything but L glass. |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 06:43:02 PM · #56 |
L lenses -- much faster autofocus and much better image quality versus non-L lenses.
However, it depends on the focal length.
if you're into wide angle, then even the best L lenses from Canon can't compete with a manual focus prime from Contax (i.e. a Zeiss Distagon 21 mm or 28mm) which can be mounted with a special adpator. Canon L lenses, the best, are in the telephoto range, particularly primes @ 300mm, 400mm and 600mm. The 135 mm L lens is also really really good, one of the sharpest around.
For mid range, 24-70mm L -- some pepole actually argue that a zoom from Tamron, the 28-75mm, comparese very favorably -- check out //www.fredmiranda.com and its review on the Tamron. Yeah, the Tamron is not as well built, not weather sealed, but image quality according to many on the site is equal to the 24-70mm L and it is also a constant F2.8.
Problem with Sigma lenses is their build quality -- they can come out with a lens that is great, and another lens that is crappy. You'll have to check out 3-4 of them to determine which one to keep.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 07:00:09 PM · #57 |
Some sample galleries of the 70-200mm F4L:
//photography.consultku.com/SA_2004
(mostly 70-200mm F4)
And this is mostly 70-200mm F4 L with 1.4x II extender (slightly softer images):
//photography.consultku.com/7_24_2004
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 07:15:58 PM · #58 |
Actually your wild guess would be totally wrong. I have done such tests and quite crappy lenses actually do deliver the goods when stopped down to aperture sizes like f/8. Of course when you use them wide open the result is quite different. If you are shooting in good light though and have the luxury of shooting at f/8 or f/11 then yes the lowly kit lens will be quite difficult to distinguish from the elite L lenses in its range.
Back when I had the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX I did comparisons with the EF 28-70mm f/2.8L. The Sigma got toasted at f/2.8 by the L but when stopped down to f/5.6 and f/8 the Sigma was right there with the L. Of course you donĂ¢€™t really buy an f/2.8 lens to only use it stopped down.
You might be surprised by how many different lenses I have owned and shot with.
Tom
Originally posted by nsbca7:
|
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. [/quote] |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 07:19:34 PM · #59 |
nsbca7
I am still waiting for that info about the 600 f/4 IS
Thanks,
Tom
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 07:25:14 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by jonr:
Shame on you! That lens is so overpriced, it isn't even funny!
I'm talking about a L-class lens. Weather sealed, f2.8 mininum. |
Well there is the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 07:27:29 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Canon 24-70 f2.8 L
I have to have this thing,it is awesome ! |
I got this lens about a month ago , It hasent come of my camera since |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 07:53:05 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
Quick and dirty test between the Canon 75-300mm f/4-5.6 lens and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens. |
Thanks for taking the time to do this test, Nick. I'm quite amazed at what a cheaper lens can do when stopped down sufficiently. People act as though limiting a lens to f8-f11 makes it totally useless. I certainly don't and it's the reason why I'll not likely be giving up my 18-55mm kit lens anytime soon. |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 08:15:27 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by bledford:
People act as though limiting a lens to f8-f11 makes it totally useless. |
It all depends on what you are trying to take photos of. For instance, try taking sports/action shots at f8 in anything but really bright light ... under those conditions an f8 lens is pretty much useless.
For every day type photos, where speed is not an issue, it might be fine. For instance, with studio work, I like to shoot at around f8 anyway. |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 08:39:20 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by ovenbird:
nsbca7
I am still waiting for that info about the 600 f/4 IS
Thanks,
Tom |
Perhaps you should go back and look at the thread.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 09:15:00 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by bledford:
... People act as though limiting a lens to f8-f11 makes it totally useless. I certainly don't and it's the reason why I'll not likely be giving up my 18-55mm kit lens anytime soon. |
Depends on what you shoot...for example take the following photo
 ...shot at ISO 3200 at f/2.8 1/30s 200mm...that scene was lit by candles only...a 200mm f/5.6 lens would be useless here even at ISO 3200
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 09:18:47 PM · #66 |
| According to Popular Photo magazine Sigma 24-60 EX DG f2.8 lens is affordable alternative for Canon 24-70 L lens. |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 10:21:21 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
According to Popular Photo magazine Sigma 24-60 EX DG f2.8 lens is affordable alternative for Canon 24-70 L lens. |
Popular Photo gave rave reviews for the Sigma 50-500 when it first came out also. I bought one. And sold it. That lens comes about as close to being as sharp as an L lens as pig slop is to silk.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 10:30:44 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by soup:
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. |
Not all L lenses are sealed. Check #17 on this FAQ Page at PhotoZone to see which are. In fact, read the whole page, lots of good info on Canon lenses there.
Edited to correct the link: Apparently you can't link directly to the FAQ page so, if you get the "Your Guide to Photo Equipment" page, look for a link about halfway down on the right that says Canon EOS Lens FAQ, that should take you to the page cited above. My bad. Sorry.
Message edited by author 2005-03-21 20:13:41.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 10:45:28 PM · #69 |
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) |
How many have you shot with ? |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 10:55:04 PM · #70 |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 11:02:37 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by gusto:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by pitsaman:
According to Popular Photo magazine Sigma 24-60 EX DG f2.8 lens is affordable alternative for Canon 24-70 L lens. |
Popular Photo gave rave reviews for the Sigma 50-500 when it first came out also. I bought one. And sold it. That lens comes about as close to being as sharp as an L lens as pig slop is to silk. |
all with the BIGMA 50-500 available light iso 400
quite sharp if ya ask me, I musta got a good one
 |
The picture tells me little. (good picture) It's a web post. Borrow a 500/4L and shoot the two side by side. You'll sell yours.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 11:07:14 PM · #72 |
All I know is when my 70-200mm L glass gets here you will be able to find my tamron 28-300mm XR Di LD out on eBay. The extra 100mm of the Tamron is of no use to me if I get back and find lack of detail in a majority of the long end shots.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 11:18:56 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by awpollard:
All I know is when my 70-200mm L glass gets here you will be able to find my tamron 28-300mm XR Di LD out on eBay. The extra 100mm of the Tamron is of no use to me if I get back and find lack of detail in a majority of the long end shots. |
I felt the same way about my Canon 75-300IS thats why I picked up the 70 -200 2.8 IS ,but I still have the lens and do use once in a while!
The L glass is just built way better! |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 11:53:11 PM · #74 |
This is what L glass will get you.
As shot, no in camera or post process sharpening done.
Same image cropped. Unsharpened.
|
|
|
|
03/18/2005 12:00:34 AM · #75 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
This is what L glass will get you.
As shot, no in camera or post process sharpening done.
Same image cropped. Unsharpened.
|
600 mm lens ? |
|
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 04:11:30 AM EDT.
