|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/28/2011 04:59:31 AM · #1 |
Since I started DPC, I owned around 6 lenses (With Canon Cameras) I now have an L lens, I borrowed it from my friend who is not using this lens anymore, and he has a good reason, which I might disagree (in some level)
Here are the lenses I owned, and samples from them
Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8-4 Compact High Speed Zoom for Canon
DPC top score = 6.847
Soft looking images, and horrible sun glare problems. I learned to use it well, got a ribbon out of it. I sold it with one of my previous Canon Cameras.
Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro for Canon
DPC top score = 7.410
Best 300 I ever owned. Served me well, and I am very sorry I don't have it anymore.
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II
DPC top score = 7.627
First F1.8 I owned. I now have 85mm but 50mm was a very good lens. I literally had to keep it wrapped with bubble wrap to carry with me.
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
DPC top score = 7.895
This is my main lens for low light sport shooting or portraits. I LOVE all the results coming out of this lens.
Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM
DPC top score = 7.769
My very first, and only as of now, IS lens. Daily use, it's an awesome lens, very nice crisp results from it.
Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8L USM
DPC top score = 7.052
This is the lens I borrowed from my friend. It's an L lens, around 1,500 bucks...
My first good shot with it today
I used Topaz CleanUp but original is very nice, crisp and sharp. It could be sharper for the lens though.
I always thought any L lens would score much higher and be consistent than other lenses. Reviews of the L lens I have say there is a softness issue with it. It's not a game breaker, but when people pays that kind of money, probably expect higher guilty results.
...also, I am not sure if it's necessary to have expensive lenses, since there are others out there, much cheaper, as good as expensive bunch.
Cheers
Leo |
|
|
|
05/28/2011 05:40:19 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8L USM
DPC top score = 7.052
This is the lens I borrowed from my friend. It's an L lens, around 1,500 bucks...
My first good shot with it today
I used Topaz CleanUp but original is very nice, crisp and sharp. It could be sharper for the lens though.
I always thought any L lens would score much higher and be consistent than other lenses. Reviews of the L lens I have say there is a softness issue with it. It's not a game breaker, but when people pays that kind of money, probably expect higher guilty results.
...also, I am not sure if it's necessary to have expensive lenses, since there are others out there, much cheaper, as good as expensive bunch.
|
It should be noted that the 28-70 2.8 is old technology and this lens was replaced by the far superior Canon 24-70mm f2.8. If you look at the number of owners of the 28-70 - it less than 1/10th the number that own the 24-70.
I think relating a camera or lens to the scores received on DPC it gets is not necessarily the best idea to determine the quality of the camera....unless of course you would be willing to swap your 40D and lenses for my 'second place all time DPC camera'. List of top camera's all time with my Panasonic Lumix DMC-FS5S. ;-) |
|
|
|
05/28/2011 12:37:20 PM · #3 |
I don't mean to rant about the lens, I don't even own it, I borrowed it. He (my friend) said he paid 1,500 dollars for the lens, I thought it should give better results, like all "L" lenses (I think they all give good results with an exception of a very few?)
...also, my other point here was to show that we really don't need expensive lenses to create nice photos. All my lenses have great votes in DPC (some, if not most, people check out and compare high scores here in DPC... I check both Amazon reviews and DPC scores, they do tell me a lot about the lenses)
Let's see if I can get a ribbon with this ribbonless L lens ;) |
|
|
|
05/28/2011 01:55:44 PM · #4 |
Leo, you make a good point for the pixel peepers. A good image is a good image. I like my non-L primes although some of the L versions have qualities I would like...better bokeh, more rugged, and faster. My "best" lens is my Zeiss 25mm f/2.8, 1/4th the cost of Canon's L equivalent. I admit would like shallow DOF of 24mm 1.4L, but I would't trade my Zeiss for the Canon version.
BTW, the 24-70 f/2.8 is truly a great lens. I suspect the image and build quality would win you over. I gave up on it because of the weight, aggravated a wrist injury at the time. |
|
|
|
06/06/2011 10:18:34 PM · #5 |
I've returned "Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8L USM" back to my friend. Much earlier than I planned but the images coming out were not acceptable, even for my standards. He will send the lens to some place to be looked over and see if it can be fixed. It's not a focusing problem, it's the lens itself, I think something wrong with the glasses.
I am pretty sure I will never be able to afford an L lens, however, even free it doesn't matter how good the brand is or model is, image quality is very important at the end. Reverse can be said for cheaper lenses which produces excellent results. |
|
|
|
06/06/2011 10:35:39 PM · #6 |
I like to buy the good lenses that others sell for a song when upgrading to L glass. My $250 18-135 IS has been an awesome purchase. After a few years, 2 out of my 3 main lenses are now new purchases and the wife has the hand me downs. One of them used to belong to  Scalvert and I'm hoping it has a little of his mojo still in it for her.
Message edited by author 2011-06-06 22:39:16.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/24/2025 07:50:06 AM  |
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: 08/24/2025 07:50:06 AM EDT.
|
