| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/23/2007 06:50:37 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
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. |
My point is not that the Tamron is better than the "L", but rather that the Tamron does give excellent results on an APS-C camera, especially considering the cost. Since the "L" costs 3 times the price of the Tamron, the Tamron should not be better or Canon would be in desperate need of some new lens designers.
If you have critical needs, such as shooting resolution charts, that would require the "L" lens, buy it. If your customers can tell the difference, buy the "L". If you just want a little red ring on the lens you use to take snaps of your dog, by all means buy the "L".
If you are talking about providing value to your clients, or just getting the biggest bang for your bucks, then you have to consider what value that additional $800 is providing. If the answer is "not much", you don't really need the "L". My guess is that many owners of the "L", if they answered the question honestly, would answer "not much".
|
|
|
|
02/23/2007 07:07:18 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
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. |
Yes there's an increase in output quality garnered from using better equipment just as there is from using primes over zooms, and/or RAW over jpeg. But still that doesn't mean that a complete novice using the best body/primes lenses and shoots RAW will make better images than a competent tog with lesser equipment but an understanding of light.
I'm sure there's a lot of people out there who buy $1000's of dollars of equipment because they think it will make them a better photographer when in reality they just suck as a photographer. ;)
There's an old anonymous saying that Photography is 50% photographer, 40% light and 10% equipment. Its still just as true today as it was in the film days.
bazz. |
|
|
|
02/23/2007 07:07:31 PM · #78 |
A side note. I bought Snap-on or Mac tools when I was working on aircraft. More expensive but dependable and durable. Yes, cheaper wrenches worked okay, sort of, but once I started buying quality I only used my cheaper ones if I had to...mostly used them to design a specialty wrench needed for a really tight area.
You can't pay me to use the kit lens that came with my 20D.
Okay, not quite true. Every now and then I put the filters and lenses from my Sony 717 on it and experiment. |
|
|
|
02/23/2007 07:12:14 PM · #79 |
| I, for one, is such an amateur with very little talent or skill. I need all the help I can get. |
|
|
|
02/23/2007 07:21:45 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
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. |
I agree with most of what you said, and i think it's cuse we live in a rich society that the option of L glass is a reality for many people. 40 years ago I don't think the average camera enthusiat, or pro, spent (relatively) as much on gear as we do today. BUT we don't need film, darkroom chemicals, flash bulbs and the time to learn to use them, like back in the day, so the focus is more on the equipment, and there is more than ever to choose from.
Ignoring the exceptions for a moment of photogs that do lots with little, the average working or hobbyist photog will find that better equipment pushes back the limits of what one can do - and that lets one do more than ever before, get shots you couldn't before, even if you had the vision of what you wanted.
Under difficult, marginal conditions is where the equipment difference makes a significant difference, and for a working pro that is expected to get the image every time, the extra cost is secondary. When you're selling your images your product is the image, and the better your product, even if it's hard to measure it, the better off you're going to be.
As a hobbyist there is little benefit to spending triple the cash on L glass as you may never need the extra durabilty and ruggedness, the slightly faster focus or sharpness edge to edge wide open.
Is L glass better? Yes.
Is it worth the extra money...depends.
Did you know?
If you shop at Walmart as compared to other grocery stores, a family of 4 will save $2500 a year on food. Now you can go buy that L lens without guilt!
|
|
|
|
02/23/2007 07:28:01 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Did you know?
If you shop at Walmart as compared to other grocery stores, a family of 4 will save $2500 a year on food. Now you can go buy that L lens without guilt! |
I *certainly* hope this was tongue in cheek ;)
Oh.. btw.. To save money, tomorrow I'm coming over to eat your food and borrow your equipment :)
Message edited by author 2007-02-23 19:33:04. |
|
|
|
02/23/2007 08:13:57 PM · #82 |
| Come on, let's face it. If money was no object we would all own at least one Italian car and have one of each L lens, whether they were really better or not :) |
|
|
|
02/23/2007 09:16:17 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by sir_bazz:
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. |
yes, equipment is just part of the equations. however, having shot my way up, i can atest (as others already have), it is an important part. i know now i am able to spend more time visualizing what i'm trying to capture than when i had to spend a LOT of time trying to figure how i was going to coax an image out of my lesser equipment... |
|
|
|
02/23/2007 09:45:46 PM · #84 |
Bert Hardy did a lot of his work with a folding camera one up from a box brownie
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 04:38:58 AM · #85 |
Go read this if you haven't already:
//www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm
My opinion:
If you are a hobbyist and money is no object then obviously buy whatever you like.
If photography pays your bills then premium equipment will pay for itself since on many occasions it will get the job done better and more efficiently.
If you are learning then your time is better invested in trying to improve your skills than worrying about your gear.
As Skip says getting better gear to some extent frees up time to think about the results rather than the equipment, but I reckon a lot of that comes with practice as well, when dealing with the equipment becomes second nature.
splidge
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 05:51:47 AM · #86 |
I'm not sure I'm buying into this argument.
I shoot with primes almost exclusively so pre-visualization is of utmost importance to getting the shot. Not only in terms of lens selection but having a preconceived idea of things like depth of field, working distance, field of view, lighting and shutter speed I'll need before I even get the camera out of the bag. Its more about being familiar with what each piece of equipment can do rather than it being a cheap or expensive item.
But thinking about, if I ever want to take random snapshots of a subject then maybe I'll need to upgrade to better equipment but at this stage I have no intention of becoming a wedding photographer. :P
bazz. |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 07:08:26 AM · #87 |
Originally posted by sir_bazz:
I'm not sure I'm buying into this argument. |
let me see if i can help you ;-)
when i'm shooting basketball, i have an idea as to what type of shot i'm looking for when someone starts to drive for a layup; there is just over one second to get a shot. a 300D would give me 3 frames, a 20D would give me maybe 5 frames, my mark 2 will give me 9. now, if i'm just trying to fill a whole in the paper, the 300D will probably have caught something, and the 20D really should have something. however, having a choice of NINE, i can look for the one where the ball, hands, face, feet, and body are all saying what i was looking for. when you have only a split second, it really helps when your equipment can respond.
now i just described the body. what about the glass? moreso than the sensor, that glass is going to impact the quality of the image, affecting everything from iso/noise to dof to shutter speed. in uncontrolled shooting conditions, the glass will really make the difference. in a gym, it can mean the difference between shooting a 1/125 or 1/320; unless you really love the sport and know what you're doing, you'll probably wind up with crap shooting action at 1/125.
i agree that you have to know your equipment, and that experience helps. but, as i mentioned before, it's a lot easier to realize your vision when you know your equipment is up to the job, than when you are constantly working to compensate for your equipment's limitations...
Originally posted by kiwinick:
Bert Hardy did a lot of his work with a folding camera one up from a box brownie |
Bert Hardy didn't shoot NASCAR ;-)
Message edited by author 2007-02-24 07:12:16. |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 08:27:56 AM · #88 |
Originally posted by Skip:
let me see if i can help you ;-)
|
Would a beginner with your 1D MkII and an L lens like the 85mm f1.2L IS have a better chance of getting "the shot" than someone like you with a semi-pro body like the 20D and a non-L lens like the 85mm f1.8 ?
I suspect the novice would be lucky if he managed to get out of Program Mode, Single Shot and ISO100.
I'm not trying to argue that better equipment doesn't help but rather that the photographer is more important than the equipment.
bazz. |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 08:42:22 AM · #89 |
Originally posted by Skip:
Originally posted by sir_bazz:
I'm not sure I'm buying into this argument. |
let me see if i can help you ;-)
when i'm shooting basketball, i have an idea as to what type of shot i'm looking for when someone starts to drive for a layup; there is just over one second to get a shot. a 300D would give me 3 frames, a 20D would give me maybe 5 frames, my mark 2 will give me 9. now, if i'm just trying to fill a whole in the paper, the 300D will probably have caught something, and the 20D really should have something. however, having a choice of NINE, i can look for the one where the ball, hands, face, feet, and body are all saying what i was looking for. when you have only a split second, it really helps when your equipment can respond.
now i just described the body. what about the glass? moreso than the sensor, that glass is going to impact the quality of the image, affecting everything from iso/noise to dof to shutter speed. in uncontrolled shooting conditions, the glass will really make the difference. in a gym, it can mean the difference between shooting a 1/125 or 1/320; unless you really love the sport and know what you're doing, you'll probably wind up with crap shooting action at 1/125.
i agree that you have to know your equipment, and that experience helps. but, as i mentioned before, it's a lot easier to realize your vision when you know your equipment is up to the job, than when you are constantly working to compensate for your equipment's limitations...
Originally posted by kiwinick:
Bert Hardy did a lot of his work with a folding camera one up from a box brownie |
Bert Hardy didn't shoot NASCAR ;-) |
That's great if you're shooting sports, a different combo may do the job just as well, or even better, in some respects, if that job is something slower. It's more about choosing the best tool for the job.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 09:08:37 AM · #90 |
guys, come on ;-) we're going around in circles...
even though we know the better photographer with the best equipment is 'most likely' to get the best shots, there will always be exceptions. and obviously a raw novice probably won't get as much out of the best equipment...at first. if you are working professionally, or aspire to work professionally, you owe it to yourself to get THE BEST equipment you can afford within certain parameters. the advice i was given (and since it worked, the advice i pass along), was that L glass was so more important than the body, buy L glass to begin with.
as to something slower, well, i shot this handheld with the 70-200
1/50, f/2.8, iso800
bottom line: if you want to get a shot bad enough, you'll either 1) figure out how to make your equipment get the shot, or 2) figure out how to pay for the equipment you need to get that shot.
;-) |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 05:54:04 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by Skip:
if you are working professionally, or aspire to work professionally, you owe it to yourself to get THE BEST equipment you can afford within certain parameters. the advice i was given (and since it worked, the advice i pass along), was that L glass was so more important than the body, buy L glass to begin with.
;-) |
Ahhhh I stumbled upon this picture a few minutes ago and understand what you mean now.
bazz.
|
|
|
|
02/26/2007 11:22:43 AM · #92 |
Originally posted by aguapreta:
What is the difference between "water & dust proof construction" and "water & dust resistant construction"? Some Ls are quoted as having one type of construction and some the other.
Anyone ever drop an L in a puddle by accident and get water in it? How about mold or moisture (humidity) inside the lense?
I do not own any Ls, but this is an atractive feature to someone who shoots out in the elements quite often, so I am curious. |
Hey... only one story from the good Dr Achoo of a lens drop into a puddle... anyone else have an experience with this?
|
|
|
|
02/26/2007 11:43:11 AM · #93 |
Originally posted by sir_bazz:
Originally posted by Skip:
let me see if i can help you ;-)
|
Would a beginner with your 1D MkII and an L lens like the 85mm f1.2L IS have a better chance of getting "the shot" than someone like you with a semi-pro body like the 20D and a non-L lens like the 85mm f1.8 ?
I suspect the novice would be lucky if he managed to get out of Program Mode, Single Shot and ISO100. |
In those conditions, whoever had the 85mm 1.8 would have the best chance of getting the shot, assuming there was enough light. It comes down to knowing the limitations and appropriate tool to use to get what you want. But it is a silly argument - give someone with no clue any equipment and they'll do badly.
Give two people of equivalent skill levels different equipment and put them in a marginal situation for the equipment and the person with the most appropriate gear has the best chance of getting the shot. It seems silly to try to refute that.
|
|
|
|
02/26/2007 11:46:52 AM · #94 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
In those conditions, whoever had the 85mm 1.8 would have the best chance of getting the shot, assuming there was enough light. |
curious as to why you say the 1.8 would be better than the 1.2 at gettign the shot. |
|
|
|
02/26/2007 11:50:23 AM · #95 |
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
Originally posted by Gordon:
In those conditions, whoever had the 85mm 1.8 would have the best chance of getting the shot, assuming there was enough light. |
curious as to why you say the 1.8 would be better than the 1.2 at gettign the shot. |
The f/1.8 focusses much faster and getting the focus spot-on at f/1.2 is tricky, to say the least.
|
|
|
|
02/26/2007 11:52:02 AM · #96 |
Originally posted by Mr_Pants:
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
Originally posted by Gordon:
In those conditions, whoever had the 85mm 1.8 would have the best chance of getting the shot, assuming there was enough light. |
curious as to why you say the 1.8 would be better than the 1.2 at gettign the shot. |
The f/1.8 focusses much faster and getting the focus spot-on at f/1.2 is tricky, to say the least. |
good to know. i doubt i would shell out the cash for the L for a prime at that focal length but i have looked at the 1.8.
Message edited by author 2007-02-26 11:52:11. |
|
|
|
02/26/2007 11:55:10 AM · #97 |
Originally posted by Mr_Pants:
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
Originally posted by Gordon:
In those conditions, whoever had the 85mm 1.8 would have the best chance of getting the shot, assuming there was enough light. |
curious as to why you say the 1.8 would be better than the 1.2 at gettign the shot. |
The f/1.8 focusses much faster and getting the focus spot-on at f/1.2 is tricky, to say the least. |
Yup, it's about knowing the limits of anything you are using. The 1.2L is amazing for situations that take advantage of its features. The 1.8 is great in different conditions. |
|
|
|
02/26/2007 12:02:22 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by Siinji:
Well...I´ve been hearing at reading reviews about Canon L lenses being absolutely fab and all.
I just bought a L lens (70-200/2.8 without IS). Before this one I already had a standard Canon wide-zoom lens + 50 mm/1.8 plastic lens and the 10-22/4.5-5.8 EF-S lens.
To tell the truth I can´t see THAT much a difference in L glass. It´s not a bad lens or anything, but I was just not ´blazed´ away by the quality, sharpness and vivid colors. For me it´s just....ok. Just cool to be able to zoom from 70 to 200 mm. And the construction feels thight and robust.
I think I´ve just found out that I´m really just not a lens-spec-type-of-guy. I´m much more ´blazed´ by good shots with good contrast and framing. I think the L-thing is WAAAYYY overrated.
Why am I not seeing these ´vivid-colors´ and ´super-sharpness´ that everyone is talking about? Am I alone here, or does anyone agree?
Maybe I´m just looking in the wrong places, when I´m percieving a photo... |
All about Canon lenses |
|
|
|
02/26/2007 12:08:45 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by sir_bazz:
|
This picture always amazes me, with all that CANON equipment, he uses NIKON straps. Strange... |
|
|
|
07/06/2010 10:45:35 PM · #100 |
| I recently went on a cruise with 2 canon lenses, and a canon 50D. Lense 1: 18-135 package lense, 2: 100mm L lense. I got the 100mm L lense for macro and portraits. Now I can not wait until I get the money for another L lense. Preferable a wide-angle zoom L lense. Reason: Looking at my pictures, the L lense pics were wonderful and noticably better than the package canon wide-angle zoom. The 100m L makes the other lense look so cheap. Sad. Even so, both take great shots compared to the G9 that I had before it broke. The P&S has so much noise and the image quality really sucked. Even though for years I did not realize that, until I got the 50D. I will never go back to a P&S. So, until you actually buy a great SLR and buy the good lenses, you can not begin to see the difference. So, for those whom are thinking of getting a camera, to either earn money or to enjoy taking shots for fun. Get the most and save to get it. 3 medium priced P&S cameras will get you a great SLR. If you had a camcorder, get a 50D. If you can afford a 7D, then get a 50D body and a wide-angle zoom L lense! And if you can get two of them. Send me one of them, for giving you a great tip. The lense that is. |
|
