Favorite lens features (IS, L-series, etc.)

09/26/2006 11:42:53 AM · #1

I'm curious what others' thoughts are on lens features. Since I've only played with a few very inexpensive lens, I'd like to get a general feel for what I should shoot for next. So the question is:

Where would you spend your lens budget: lens with IS or L-series lens? Which gives you most bang for the buck?

Or, if you find that question too pointed, answer these: What's your favorite lens feature: L-series glass? Super big aperatures? Super close focal distance? Favorite zoom range? Do you like primes? (Always tell why!)

I'd like to ignore questions like "what's my budget exactly" and "what subjects am I photographing". Tell us your favorite lens features and why you like them.

Some stats:

The most inexpensive IS lens at B&H is: Canon 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM lens $419.95

The most inexpensive L-series lens at B&H is: Canon 70-200mm f/4.0L USM $584.95

The most inexpensive L-series with IS lens at B&H is: Canon 300mm f/4.0L IS USM $1120

Closely followed by: Canon 24-105mm f/4.0L IS USM $1149.95

bfox2

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

09/26/2006 11:47:58 AM · #2

The most bang for my buck is what covers the largest focal lengths in the least amount of glass. I just purchased the 24-105 IS L a month ago ish, and by november hopefully I'll gave the 100-400 IS L. 24-400mm in 2 pieces of (good) glass with IS is key, since I do a lot of traveling and hiking where I don't want to carry a ton of extra stuff.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

09/26/2006 11:51:25 AM · #3

Thanks

bfox2! I was worried my question was a little too vague, but that's exactly the type of answer I'm looking for!

bucket

Canon EOS-30D

09/26/2006 11:54:04 AM · #4

I debated this for a long time, knowing I wouldn't be buying lots of lenses...
I decided on the 17-40L and am very happy with my choice...I love the wider angle and the range, and the quality is amazing.

bfox2

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

09/26/2006 12:22:02 PM · #5

If you want wide, I'd second something like the 17-40 with your 350D, which will give you about 27mm equivalent.

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

09/26/2006 12:26:20 PM · #6

Fast lenses...the faster the better...at least that's what I crave...LOL

NstiG8tr

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

09/26/2006 12:35:18 PM · #7

Originally posted by smurfguy:

Where would you spend your lens budget: lens with IS or L-series lens? Which gives you most bang for the buck?

"L" lens with IS. One thing to remember about IS, it helps steady you not what you're shooting.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

09/26/2006 12:45:38 PM · #8

me too ... although you won't know it at the moment. i sold all my primes for a 24-70, but not because I prefer zooms - more like wanted to be prepared with any focal length on those times when i go to someone's house for a family photo shoot - you never know how big the rooms going to be.

my "ultimate" set of lenses would be:

24 L
35 L
50 L
85 L
135 L
400 L (my only choice with a max f/stop smaller than 2)

Originally posted by doctornick:

Fast lenses...the faster the better...at least that's what I crave...LOL

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

09/26/2006 01:57:05 PM · #9

Originally posted by doctornick:

Fast lenses...the faster the better...at least that's what I crave...LOL

Ditto. I don't want to buy anything slower than f/2.8, for three reasons:

1) The sharpest aperture of a lens is usually a couple of stops down from wide open. So if the lens itself starts at f/4, then the sharpest it's going to get is already losing a lot of light.

2) According to Canon documentation, their cameras focus faster / more accurately with an f/2.8 or faster lens.

3) Sometimes I just *need* that much light!

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

09/26/2006 02:36:35 PM · #10

Fast, small, lightweight, big zoom range, tack sharp, low distortion and CA, short minimal focus distance, great color contrast, nice bokeh, IS, multi-coated, and a beer holder!

diginux

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

09/26/2006 02:52:43 PM · #11

I only wish they would come out with a 24-70 f/2.8L that had IS. Then my collection would be complete.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

09/26/2006 03:14:45 PM · #12

it already weighs like 2 pounds ... why not just tie a brick around your neck

:)

Originally posted by diginux:

I only wish they would come out with a 24-70 f/2.8L that had IS. Then my collection would be complete.

09/26/2006 04:40:24 PM · #13

Ok, so what exactly does the term "fastest" mean? Is that largest aperture (thereby letting in most light, and allowing fastest shutter speeds)? Or is there more to it? Does glass quality make it faster without changing the aperture value? Is an L-series f/4.0 "faster" than a cheaper f/3.5?

Is there an explanation/comparison/example of the L-series quality vs. non L-series? I've heard nothing but excellent reviews of them, but I'm looking for tangible evidence... Are they really worth so much more? Luckily, I should be able to borrow an nice L-series zoom lens from a friend to see firsthand what all the excitement is about.

Right now the 50mm f1.8 seems like a steal at $80, and this will likely be my next lens. After that, I'll probably save up for the 24-105 f/4.0L IS. But for $1150, I'm skeptical of the relatively unappealing f/4.0 aperture...

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

09/26/2006 04:45:43 PM · #14

I just bought that 24-105 F4L. Great lense, sharp as hell through the middle and sharper than most on either end. I can hand hold at iso100 1/15s and get pictures that are sharp unless you look at them 100% uncropped size. At shutter speeds up around 1/320 with IS on it is the same as being tripod mounted.

All of that makes F4 unappealing only in the sense that you don't get the really nice looking bokeh you would at 2.8. The 24-70 2.8 costs the same, is damned heavy, no IS. so Bokeh or IS, up to you. I have much faster primes if I want to shoot with nice creamy bokeh behind the subject so it worked for me.

Canon has a lot of literature on their optics and coatings and what differentiates L models from standard lenses. Unless they are flat out lying, there are some tangible differences. You can (will) see it for yourself when you borrow whatever it is you are borrowing. Colors, contrast and sharpness/detail are outstanding.

Now, someone follow-up with a post about L glass fanboys and how a 200 dollar tamron produces just as good images.

mist

Canon EOS-60D

09/26/2006 04:50:07 PM · #15

Originally posted by smurfguy:

Fastest in that sense refers only to the maximum aperture. One lens is as "fast" as another at the same aperture value. Being an L lens doesn't make it able to warp physics, it just means that the lens is built to Canon's highest spec that they can make that particular lens type to at the present time. Good build quality and top edge glass.

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM II

09/26/2006 05:49:31 PM · #16

Thanks to all who replied! Extremely valuable info.

I'll write back with my impressions of the L series lenses I borrow (forgot eactly which they are - I know one has IS).

I've only shot with the Rebel XT stock 18-55mm and my new Sigma 70-300mm, both of which are very inexpensive lenses. So if I can't tell a difference, chances are I'm not going to spend the money going forward.

As a comparison of my two low-end lenses: I found the sigma much larger, heavier and harder to hold still than the stock lens - partially due to weight and partially due to longer focal length. And shooting macro is more difficult when the minimum focal distance is 3' as opposed to ~1'. Still, the Sigma shines when capturing animals from a distance, and does well at macro shots when you can hold it still.

The one thing I will say is that I feel like the stock lens doesn't get close enough (max 55mm) and the Sigma couldn't be used in a close indoor setting (like a birthday party) with it's minimum focal length of 70mm. I think my optimal zoom range would be 17-70 or 28-105.

Thanks again for your comments,
-Jeff

colyla

Canon EOS-50D

09/26/2006 05:54:52 PM · #17

I would love to try the Canon 24-105L lens as a walk-around lens. I use the tamron 28-75....but I hate changing down to the 18-55....I would rather just have one 'main' lens. I didn't know if there would be much of a difference between 24-28 for me.

NstiG8tr

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

09/28/2006 02:40:56 AM · #18

Originally posted by colyla:

Fly up to the Wisconsin GTG and I'll let you walk around awhile with mine LOL.

robshookphoto

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM

09/28/2006 10:35:46 PM · #19

my 200mm 2.8L lens just arrived yesterday, and i do not ever want to buy another canon non L lens. The focussing is amazing, it just snaps into place, it is amazingly sharp, it feels so well built, and it is just spectacularly better than my 70-300. It is sharper and focuses faster even with the 2X teleconverter on it.

OdysseyF22

Panasonic DC-G9

Olympus 12-45mm f/4.0 Pro

09/28/2006 11:09:06 PM · #20

I'll throw out my $.02, although I expect it will differ from most.

For starters, I'm concerned with a large apperature, as low light shooting is a primary concern of mine, and even when it isn't, I still want to know that I have the option. Second, I a good range of lenses is necessary. I like my Tamron 28-75 F/2.8 best of any lens I've ever seen. It's a perfect range and a great piece of glass. I see people drool over the Canon 24-70, and can't understand why. IMO, the Tamron is far superior - great quality, good build, lighter, less expensive. To compliment it, for the general shooter, a super-wide and good telephoto, like the 70-200 F/2.8, make for a great kit.

They say L-glass is the best in the Canon line, and I'll believe it. However, the Tamron version of "L-glass" is damn good too, and Sigma may be as well. I don't personally think Canon is the only company that can produce glass this good, even though many seem to think so. If I can save money getting a Tamron, you can bet I will, with faith that it will be equally good, or if not, then such a small difference that it's not noticable. IMO, you're paying more for the L-glass name than anything.

As far as IS goes, sure it's a really cool feature, and really helpful sometimes. But it also eats battery power faster. And my overall attitude is that photogs were getting along without it for years, and did pretty darn good. If you can afford it, sure, go for it. But I wouldn't base my decisions on IS or non-IS. Other factors are FAR more important. It's like heated seats in a car - nice, but by no means necessary.

It's interesting that you listed the Canon 70-200 F/4. People are always raving about it and how good it is. Honestly, I used one, and I was NOT impressed. I'd just as soon use my crappy little Canon 70-300 F/4-5.6 any day - it has better reach, takes equivilent images, and doesn't have that much of a F-stop difference in general use. Now the F/2.8 model is a different creature all together, much better and more worth the money. Get this and don't waste your time with the F/4.

Primes are also intersting. I have a love/hate relationship with them. On the down side, the lack of zoom just isn't right for all types of shooting, especially places where you can't run around to get it composed right. I find I do a lot of cropping when I shoot action & events with a prime. On the other hand, they can be a lot of fun in a more relaxed atmosphere, and force you to really slow down and consider composition much more than zooms. Their tendency to go to F/1.8 also makes them awesome to play with and get great bokeh. I've jused my 50 F/1.8 to shoot basketball a lot. I'm limited to action right at the basket, as close to me as it gets, but I can get some good shots there, and the huge apperature is great. But I'd still rather have a F/2.8 zoom. That said, for as infrequently as I use my 50mm, I won't sell it, as it's too important a piece of glass, if only for shaking things up now and then.

To sum it all up, for me, the most important features are F-stop and zoom range. Any features that come after those considerations either make a lens too expensive to be considered, or are just a nice perk.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D