| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/22/2007 11:17:20 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by aguapreta:
Anyone ever drop an L in a puddle by accident and get water in it? How about mold or moisture (humidity) inside the lense?
|
When I dunked my 5D two months ago, my 24-105L was attached. It was fine. The 5D needed $450 to fix. Thank goodness for insurance.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2007 12:03:56 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by Telehubbie:
What I love about my L lenses are the speed and accuracy of the autofocus, especially in low light. It seems almost instantaneous to find the target and lock on, no hunting or going back and forth to find the right spot like on some other lenses I've owned. |
What amazed me with that was the difference in focus speed when I switched between a 1 series body and a 20D. I'd initially thought the focus speed was all about the lens and the motors, but the camera driving it makes a huge difference in the lock on speed, even in really bright sunlight.
I shot them both side by side with the same lenses for a couple of hours, it was pretty startling. |
|
|
|
02/22/2007 12:22:12 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Telehubbie:
What I love about my L lenses are the speed and accuracy of the autofocus, especially in low light. It seems almost instantaneous to find the target and lock on, no hunting or going back and forth to find the right spot like on some other lenses I've owned. |
What amazed me with that was the difference in focus speed when I switched between a 1 series body and a 20D. I'd initially thought the focus speed was all about the lens and the motors, but the camera driving it makes a huge difference in the lock on speed, even in really bright sunlight.
I shot them both side by side with the same lenses for a couple of hours, it was pretty startling. |
I agree when I went from the 30D to the 1DMKII with the same lens I was amazed at the difference. I thought it was all in the lens but the 1 series makes the L lens shine even more.
MattO
|
|
|
|
02/22/2007 12:25:16 PM · #54 |
@gordon - yes, a FF camera makes a HUGE difference. Take a 20D and 5D and the same lens (any lens) and look thru the viewfinder - the 5D is larger, brighter and just plain better!
It's the same for L lenses - just looking thru the viewfinder you can tell the difference in many cases.
My 'best' lens is the canon 10-22 3.5-4.5. I thought about getting the Tokina 12-24 for about 1/2 the price, but after a day using the Canon I'm now gonna buy the 17-55 2.8 IS.
Is L (or the EF-S equivalent) Pricey? Yes. Worth it? Hard to define that one. Better overall image quality, more dependable (you know you'll get the shot), getting the shot you won't get with lesser glass. The difference may be hard to explain, but you'll know it when you see it.
One thing is for sure - anyone that has ever bought an L lens, and can first hand experience the difference, will want and get more L glass. I have never met a person that had an L or 2 and now has none.
Message edited by author 2007-02-22 12:28:15.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2007 12:27:33 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
@gordon - yes, a FF camera makes a HUGE difference. Take a 20D and 5D and the same lens (any lens) and look thru the viewfinder - the 5D is larger, brighter and just plain better!
|
yeah, the viewfinder is brighter, but it was the AF speed that surprised me. It physically moved the same lens around and focused faster. |
|
|
|
02/22/2007 12:52:12 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Telehubbie:
What I love about my L lenses are the speed and accuracy of the autofocus, especially in low light. It seems almost instantaneous to find the target and lock on, no hunting or going back and forth to find the right spot like on some other lenses I've owned. |
What amazed me with that was the difference in focus speed when I switched between a 1 series body and a 20D. I'd initially thought the focus speed was all about the lens and the motors, but the camera driving it makes a huge difference in the lock on speed, even in really bright sunlight.
I shot them both side by side with the same lenses for a couple of hours, it was pretty startling. |
You're right. I thought they were pretty fast on my 20D, and then I tried them on a (borrowed) 1D MkIIN and was blown away even more. But still not too shabby on the 20D. |
|
|
|
02/22/2007 09:24:53 PM · #57 |
I thought I would post the following two links as I think it may clear some of the air on L glass as its turning me in to a believer esp the second link...
test one side by side comparisons
test two another great comparison (roll mouse over the image to see the difference between the lenses for this one) I really like this one as you can change the settings to see the differences...
-dave
|
|
|
|
02/23/2007 02:20:05 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by dknourek:
I thought I would post the following two links as I think it may clear some of the air on L glass as its turning me in to a believer esp the second link...
test one side by side comparisons
test two another great comparison (roll mouse over the image to see the difference between the lenses for this one) I really like this one as you can change the settings to see the differences...
-dave |
That second site is pretty cool. Do you know how they arrived at those images? Are they actual pictures taken? |
|
|
|
02/23/2007 05:47:20 AM · #59 |
The Tamron 28-75 that everyone raves about comes off badly against the 24-70L, especially wide open.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2007 11:28:43 AM · #60 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
The Tamron 28-75 that everyone raves about comes off badly against the 24-70L, especially wide open. |
I noticed that as well. However, check out the Tamron 17-50 2.8 against others in its range. Not too shabby. |
|
|
|
02/23/2007 11:31:31 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by error99:
Originally posted by Matthew:
The Tamron 28-75 that everyone raves about comes off badly against the 24-70L, especially wide open. |
I noticed that as well. However, check out the Tamron 17-50 2.8 against others in its range. Not too shabby. |
Isn't the 17-50 the same optics as the 28-75, but cut down for digital-only?
|
|
|
|
02/23/2007 11:34:48 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by Manic:
Originally posted by error99:
Originally posted by Matthew:
The Tamron 28-75 that everyone raves about comes off badly against the 24-70L, especially wide open. |
I noticed that as well. However, check out the Tamron 17-50 2.8 against others in its range. Not too shabby. |
Isn't the 17-50 the same optics as the 28-75, but cut down for digital-only? |
Not sure about being the same optics. But, yea, it's for apc crop only (won't work full frame). |
|
|
|
02/23/2007 11:45:46 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by jaysonmc:
Now with that, I think Canon has been over using the term a bit lately. Some of the new "L" glass isn't environmental sealed.
|
Weather-sealing isn't an across-the-board feature of L lenses. Indeed, up to about 2000, I believe, most weren't.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2007 11:47:14 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
@gordon - yes, a FF camera makes a HUGE difference. Take a 20D and 5D and the same lens (any lens) and look thru the viewfinder - the 5D is larger, brighter and just plain better!
|
yeah, the viewfinder is brighter, but it was the AF speed that surprised me. It physically moved the same lens around and focused faster. |
I seem to remember reading somewhere in some of Canon's literature that the 1-series bodies deliver an initially higher burst of energy to the lens to overcome the inertia.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2007 12:04:32 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by Mr_Pants:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
@gordon - yes, a FF camera makes a HUGE difference. Take a 20D and 5D and the same lens (any lens) and look thru the viewfinder - the 5D is larger, brighter and just plain better!
|
yeah, the viewfinder is brighter, but it was the AF speed that surprised me. It physically moved the same lens around and focused faster. |
I seem to remember reading somewhere in some of Canon's literature that the 1-series bodies deliver an initially higher burst of energy to the lens to overcome the inertia. |
That's all very well but how do you get it to fit on the end of your SiPix Blink?
|
|
|
|
02/23/2007 12:05:58 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by MAK:
Originally posted by Mr_Pants:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
@gordon - yes, a FF camera makes a HUGE difference. Take a 20D and 5D and the same lens (any lens) and look thru the viewfinder - the 5D is larger, brighter and just plain better!
|
yeah, the viewfinder is brighter, but it was the AF speed that surprised me. It physically moved the same lens around and focused faster. |
I seem to remember reading somewhere in some of Canon's literature that the 1-series bodies deliver an initially higher burst of energy to the lens to overcome the inertia. |
That's all very well but how do you get it to fit on the end of your SiPix Blink? |
A subtle blend of animal cunning and extreme violence.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2007 12:19:17 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
The Tamron 28-75 that everyone raves about comes off badly against the 24-70L, especially wide open. |
If you spend your time taking pictures of resolution charts, I guess the L is definitely a better choice.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2007 05:21:49 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Matthew:
The Tamron 28-75 that everyone raves about comes off badly against the 24-70L, especially wide open. |
If you spend your time taking pictures of resolution charts, I guess the L is definitely a better choice. |
I'm oddly reminded of the hardcore overclocker types who build stupidly fast PCs but don't run anything other than 3dmark on them!
splidge
|
|
|
|
02/23/2007 05:40:53 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Matthew:
The Tamron 28-75 that everyone raves about comes off badly against the 24-70L, especially wide open. |
If you spend your time taking pictures of resolution charts, I guess the L is definitely a better choice. |
Good comeback... not.
Given that the test was run using a camera with a 35mm sensor, the result is no surprise. The 24-70L is a superb lens and I'd be extremely surprised if a third party lens at 1/3 the cost would equal it in all regards.
Where you're going to see the difference is wide open at the edges and corners. When used on an APS-C camera and stopped down at all, you're not going to see much difference in normal shooting.
Look at both lenses at the extremes of their range, wide open. Notice that there's a dramatic difference between the two at the wide end, but at the long end the difference is less drastic. That's because the 24-70's weakest point is the long end. And it still smacks down the Tammy.
Like it or not, test charts *are* revealing. If you want a really revealing test, go out and make star images. That's worse. You'll gain a new appreciation for the differences between lenses.
All that said, the red band and the "L" in the name does not necessarily mean the lens is beyond reproach, nor does the lack of same mean the lens is somehow second-class. the L lenses are, however, on the average, much better performers than non-L or third-party options. |
|
|
|
02/23/2007 05:49:50 PM · #70 |
this will probably come across as somewhat jingoistic, but i absolutely swear by my canon f/2.8L lenses. they have NEVER let me down. the only evidence i have is the quality of my work and how it is received by those who hire me. at the time i was making the leap to go pro, the advice i got was that it would be better to beg, borrow, or steal in order to buy canon f/2.8L or better glass than buying to trade up. that was among the best advice i've gotten, and advice i have no problem passing along.
Message edited by author 2007-02-23 17:50:33. |
|
|
|
02/23/2007 05:52:56 PM · #71 |
I don't know abouot L glass but I used to use Yashica SLR cameras had a CARL ZEISS 70/200 F4 and that was razor sharp edge to edge great definition and colour. It outdid any other lens that I or friends had including canon/Nikon lens. I wes getting 20x24 with no loss of definition.
I am Glad to see Sony are now having their lenses made by Carl Zeiss.
just my 2c worth
|
|
|
|
02/23/2007 05:57:06 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
I don't think you should. FWIW, you are comparing it to a 50mm 1.8 prime, which in itself is a damn great lens. |
the 50 1.8 is a $70 lens. for a $70 lens it's fine. as a lens among all lenses, it's a $70 lens and worth what you pay for it.
BAD CA, especially wide open.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2007 05:59:25 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by Skip:
this will probably come across as somewhat jingoistic, but i absolutely swear by my canon f/2.8L lenses. they have NEVER let me down. the only evidence i have is the quality of my work and how it is received by those who hire me. |
But thats because you understand photography Skip. The photographer and the light are still more important than the equipment used.
Give yourself a P&S and pass your setup to a complete novice and see who takes the better shots.
bazz. |
|
|
|
02/23/2007 06:36:42 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by sir_bazz:
But thats because you understand photography Skip. The photographer and the light are still more important than the equipment used.
Give yourself a P&S and pass your setup to a complete novice and see who takes the better shots.
bazz. |
Yes, the photographer's eye, skill and experience make a significant contribution, but the better the photog you meet, the better the equipment they're using. Coincidence? I think not. Equipment matters - talk to a pro photog in any field of photography and they all tell you to use the best lenses and equipment you can afford.
If equipment didn't matter then why would anyone spend tens of thousands of dollars on lenses and cameras and flashes and the like if a $500 P&S would do the same job?
It's because equipment matters, it does make a difference. Perhaps in the final image/print, perhaps in the speed of focus to help get that moment just so, perhaps the confidence it inspires in the photographers mind, or bit of all those reasons.
Just sell a kidney or your soul and go shopping!
|
|
|
|
02/23/2007 06:38:01 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Originally posted by sir_bazz:
But thats because you understand photography Skip. The photographer and the light are still more important than the equipment used.
Give yourself a P&S and pass your setup to a complete novice and see who takes the better shots.
bazz. |
Yes, the photographer's eye, skill and experience make a significant contribution, but the better the photog you meet, the better the equipment they're using. Coincidence? I think not. Equipment matters - talk to a pro photog in any field of photography and they all tell you to use the best lenses and equipment you can afford.
If equipment didn't matter then why would anyone spend tens of thousands of dollars on lenses and cameras and flashes and the like if a $500 P&S would do the same job?
It's because equipment matters, it does make a difference. Perhaps in the final image/print, perhaps in the speed of focus to help get that moment just so, perhaps the confidence it inspires in the photographers mind, or bit of all those reasons.
Just sell a kidney or your soul and go shopping! |
Again, you're only partially correct.
It's only been the last dozen years or so that equipment has become the huge deal that people make it out to be. Various photographers have various needs, and some.. like sports photographers or wildlife photographers, have needs for equipment that will let them get the best out of their job.
However, there are enough pros and celebrated amateurs and hobbyists out there using lower-end equipment, that this maniacal (as I see it), idea that every pro uses the BEST equipment because they HAVE TO! is just plain misleading.
I'd venture that a good lot of pros using all this expensive fancy equipment do it just because it's a name, and it gives them some kind of higher standing with their peers.
Equipment *can* make a difference, but it's subjective in a lot of instances, and from my experience, there's a trend that is taking the soul out of photography and replacing it with the mechanics.
However, it's also not just photography.. but it seems to be happening in all facets of our technological world.
One main example that I have to bring up.. and it's brought up all the time, is jjbeguin and his Sony F828.. he produces more soul in an image than 30 professionals working for Sports Illustrated ever have in their career.
Message edited by author 2007-02-23 18:45:08. |
|
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: 09/06/2025 01:22:50 AM EDT.
