DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Favorite lens features (IS, L-series, etc.)
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 49 of 49, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 09/29/2006 10:53:55 PM · #26
As long as it produces good imagesm I can care less about brand or features.
 09/30/2006 12:36:36 AM · #27
It's not a question of whether or not I view the extra $200 as "serious" or not. My main concern is picture quality, so of course I'm just as interested in the biggest and best bang for my buck as the next person. It's more a question of whether or not I or anyone else can tell the difference when the print is processed (if you know what I mean). I've never invested in "good glass" simply because when I shot film I really had absolutely no idea what I was doing. Now that I'm more comfortable with what I'm doing, I'm ready to consider it without breaking the bank or kicking myself in the ass later for *not* doing it. While you make a good point about resale value of the Canon lens, I would hope that I would have any of the lenses I purchase for a long time. Like Leroy, I'm more concerned about the quality of the result than the name on the equipment. My question was more in attempting to determine whether an "L" lens (at $200 more) resulted in a much better image than a NON-L lens (I'd really love to see a side by side comparison of the same shot with different lenses).
 09/30/2006 12:43:22 AM · #28
I'll take a couple for your comparison tomorrow. I can duplicate two of my primes with two L lenses so then you can look at something tangible.
 09/30/2006 12:43:59 AM · #29
Originally posted by amandak:
My question was more in attempting to determine whether an "L" lens (at $200 more) resulted in a much better image than a NON-L lens (I'd really love to see a side by side comparison of the same shot with different lenses).


Bang for the buck, I believe the Sigma Pro series is definitely worth looking into. Comparable lenses often come in much less expensively than the Canon L-series.
 09/30/2006 12:47:17 AM · #30
Thanks - I'm really interested in seeing a comparison! And I'll take a look at the Sigma Pro series as well.
 09/30/2006 12:49:28 AM · #31
Originally posted by amandak:
Thanks - I'm really interested in seeing a comparison! And I'll take a look at the Sigma Pro series as well.


Like Canon with its "L" the Sigma pro lenses have an "EX"
09/30/2006 12:51:46 AM · #32
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by amandak:
Thanks - I'm really interested in seeing a comparison! And I'll take a look at the Sigma Pro series as well.


Like Canon with its "L" the Sigma pro lenses have an "EX"


Thanks!
 09/30/2006 12:53:04 AM · #33
I would actually like to get a lense for mine.. Cept hey don't have them here in Aus yet >.>
 09/30/2006 10:58:30 PM · #34
I didn't make it out shooting today so you get some boring shots of books to look at instead.

These are straight from the camera. No changes made in the raw convertor, no changes made in photoshop. Simply open the raw, convert to 100% quality jpeg and save. These files are quite large.

All were shot using a tripod, mirror lockup, and a remote. Draw your own conclusions.

edit: I uploaded the full size images, it looks like dpc shrinks them. Oddly enough, it didn't shrink the file size so this was 25 meg of portfolio space chewed up for naught. thumbs are deleted. Download zip above if you care to.

Message edited by author 2006-09-30 23:48:49.
 09/30/2006 11:26:36 PM · #35
Thanks so much for taking the time to do this! I honestly think they all look pretty damn close in terms of quality (at least to my eyes)! By the way, you've got excellent taste in reading material!! :)
 09/30/2006 11:35:32 PM · #36
Let me post 100% crops that the server won't smash down. The differences are readily apparent if you can view the full size image.

edit: download them here if you want:

link removed

Message edited by author 2006-10-02 08:57:34.
 10/01/2006 12:44:20 AM · #37
Hmmmmm....to me #4 looks clearer/sharper than #3 or #2; and #5 more than #1 - am I overlooking something??? Is there something in particular I should be paying attention to when I'm trying to evaluate the results??? Thanks!
 10/01/2006 01:21:56 AM · #38
All I want is faster lenese. a wide angle 1.4 or something so I could handhold shots in the dark.

a 20 mm 1.4 would be somethin I would fork out a ton for. Light from flashes is usually gross and If I can do anything to get the light of the environment I want to do it.

So a wide aperture is all I want.
 10/01/2006 02:44:51 AM · #39
Originally posted by amandak:
Hmmmmm....to me #4 looks clearer/sharper than #3 or #2; and #5 more than #1 - am I overlooking something??? Is there something in particular I should be paying attention to when I'm trying to evaluate the results??? Thanks!


You wanted to see side by side, L versus non-L, so there ya go heheh. If you can't tell the difference, don't spend the money. The 50mm you can get for $80 and you can see it looks identical to the same image taken at 50mm with the $1200 24-105L. However, to me there is a world of difference between a shot taken at 105mm with either L lense and a shot taken with the Sigma 105mm.

The 50mm was probably not a good one to toss in there. It's one hell of a good lense as is the 85mm prime.
 10/01/2006 10:47:37 AM · #40
[quote] However, to me there is a world of difference between a shot taken at 105mm with either L lense and a shot taken with the Sigma 105mm. [/quote]
What do *you* see as the difference?

[quote]The 50mm was probably not a good one to toss in there. It's one hell of a good lense as is the 85mm prime. [/quote] Agreed. I have this lens and like it alot!
 10/03/2006 10:18:36 AM · #41
Thanks for the great discussion. I'll echo Amanda's question: what do you see as the difference in 105mm taken by the L and the Sigma?

Here's another question: Many have said they'd like the fastest lens possible. This sounds great, but is it only helpful when you're taking shots at those large aperture ranges (<4.0)? Why shell out the $$$ for <4.0 when only a fraction of shots are taken at <4.0?

PS: I'm still waiting to borrow the L lenses, and will post comparison shots when I get a chance!
 10/03/2006 10:55:27 AM · #42
Originally posted by smurfguy:

Here's another question: Many have said they'd like the fastest lens possible. This sounds great, but is it only helpful when you're taking shots at those large aperture ranges (<4.0)? Why shell out the $$$ for <4.0 when only a fraction of shots are taken at <4.0?


There are a couple of reasons to buy faster glass even though you will not shoot it wide open much.

1. Brighter finder image - What you see in the finder will be brighter and easier to see. It's helpful in all situations, but especially so when shooting in low light.

2. Faster focusing - The more light to the focusing sensor, the faster they will lock on. Additionally, with f2.8 or faster lenses, some cameras are designed to focus faster.

3. The aperture is there if you need it, and likely you will.
 10/03/2006 11:16:27 AM · #43
Characteristics I like:
o fixed focal length - not for everybody, but I like that style of shooting
o wide aperature - essential if you want the option to feature a narrow depth of field and the ability to shoot in low light
o smooth out of focus - lens contruction and optics are key to getting smoth out of focus regions when shooting with a narrow depth of field
o sharp optics - some say the difference isn't obvious this days, but when you are trying to capture the details in your subjects eyes the quality of the lens does matter.
 10/03/2006 12:09:10 PM · #44
I like zooms over primes and will take the benefits of adjustable FOV over the loss of ultimate sharpness and speed.

I want:
Canon 10-22 3.5-4.5
Canon 17-55 2.8 IS
canon 24-70 2.8
canon 70-200 2.8 IS
canon 100 2.8 macro
and possbily canon 24-105 f4 IS
That is over $6000 in lenses though.

I have and/or plan to buy by year end:
Sigma 10-20 (soon - if pet pics go well i'll get the canon 10-22 instead)
sigma 18-50 2.8 (indoors, weddings, landscapes)
tamron 28-75 2.8 (soon, mostly as a backup to the 18-50 for weddings)
tamron 24-135 3.5-5.6 (walkaround and studio use)
tamron 70-210 2.8 (favorite lens for portraiture)
-total cost is under $2000

It's not so much I want IS it's the canon L lenses in the focal range i want happen to be IS lenses (i have a use for the 70-200 IS so i'll gladly pay a premium for it there). The canon lenses should focus better, faster and be sharper, and hold their value better if that matters.
 10/03/2006 12:12:59 PM · #45
Originally posted by smurfguy:

Here's another question: Many have said they'd like the fastest lens possible. This sounds great, but is it only helpful when you're taking shots at those large aperture ranges (<4.0)? Why shell out the $$$ for <4.0 when only a fraction of shots are taken at <4.0?


Canon's 30D and better cameras have extra focusing sensors that only turn on when a 2.8 or faster lens is attached - so you get better low light focusing as well as more accurate and precise focusing.

I shoot weddings and I shoot a wider than f4 all the time. For max sharpness with any lens you want to stop it down a bit - so a 2.8 lens at 5.6 should be as sharp as a f4 lens at f8 (2 stops down from wide open in both cases) so you've still got one stop faster to work with for either lower noise in ISO or faster shutter for less shake/blur.
 10/03/2006 12:15:49 PM · #46
Originally posted by amandak:
[quote] However, to me there is a world of difference between a shot taken at 105mm with either L lense and a shot taken with the Sigma 105mm.
What do *you* see as the difference?


A friend of mine has moved up to all L lenses from various sigma/tamron/tokina lenses. What he finds as the difference in 'look' (besides shparness issues if any) is color and contrast - each company uses their own grade of glass and selection of coatings. In theory, all sigma will be similar to each other in color and contrast, as will all canon or tamron - but a tamron to canon or sigma there will be some variations - you may like the look of one brand over the other, or if you mix and are picky will have to adjust one lens to match the others.

Message edited by author 2006-10-03 12:16:05.
 10/03/2006 07:58:27 PM · #47
I have to say that I'm certainly getting a great education as far as lenses go! :D I'm really glad routerguy posted pics for comparison - it's always better (for me, anyway) to see exactly what the results are/will be with different equipment. Now my question is this....can someone do the same with IS and NON-IS lenses for comparison? A hand-held shot in low light would be great. I hope to use some f/2.8 lens (haven't decided exactly which one yet) for indoor shots at weddings and indoor sporting events where I won't always have the use of a tripod. I've read that IS is good up to 3 stops, but have no idea what the difference *looks* like, especially when hand held in low light conditions. Thanks to anyone who is able and willing to do this!
 10/03/2006 08:16:01 PM · #48
since we are talking l glass---what would be better a 70-200-2.8 with a 1.5 or 2 converter or a 100-400 l?
 10/21/2006 07:20:36 PM · #49
I'm in love with my new Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS

I was a little skeptical about how well the IS (image stabilization) feature would work, but I did some tests and I must say it works REALLY WELL. I believe Canon's claim that lets you shoot with a shutter speed that is about 3 stops slower than normal. Of course, IS only helps reduce the effect of camera shake, and won't help with a moving subject.

I also love that it's f/2.8 throughout the zoom range.

And it's amazingly sharp, too. I'd have to say I'm more impressed with this lens (so far) than any of my other lenses.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 05/10/2025 02:38:55 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 05/10/2025 02:38:55 PM EDT.