| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/17/2005 10:56:28 AM · #1 |
I am wondering about opinion.
Are those L lenses really worth the price tag?
is the differance THAT noticable.. is it night and day, or is it 1:00 v.s. 3:00
what would you buy, L lens, or regular considering a limited budget
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 10:58:03 AM · #2 |
I could never justify buying an L lens for what I would use them for, considering my budget.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 11:07:39 AM · #3 |
Considering the investment in camera body, accessories etc., considering that image quality is what most DSLR owners are after, considering the difficulties to get that particular shot and, then, have it come out well defined, focused, without artifacts aberrations etc., considering how much and under what adverse conditions we use our equipment, yes...
I would purchase an L lens over an inferior product - even if that meant having only one lens.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 11:15:38 AM · #4 |
L is 90% marketing and 10% reality.(IMHO) Yes, they are very good, (almost all of them), but not that much better. You would probably get a better deal in the Sigma EX line. (EX = L)
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 11:16:01 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Considering the investment in camera body, accessories etc., considering that image quality is what most DSLR owners are after, considering the difficulties to get that particular shot and, then, have it come out well defined, focused, without artifacts aberrations etc., considering how much and under what adverse conditions we use our equipment, yes...
I would purchase an L lens over an inferior product - even if that meant having only one lens. |
But what if you bought a wideangle and "that particular shot" turns out to need a telephoto? Or vice-versa. You get nothing.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 11:16:21 AM · #6 |
I started with a 300D and budget sigma lenses, the 18-50DC and the 55-200DC at first my pictures were bad because I didn´t know how to use a DSLR but when I learned that my pictures didn´t improve that much, then I bought L glass and I DID see major difference in quality. I bought the 17-40L, 50mm f1.4 and the 70-200L f2.8 IS so I covered the same range as the sigma lenses and the details ans sharpness was stunning compared to the sigma lenses.
ofcource there was a BIG difference in price, $2500 compared to $200 for the sigmas.
buying an L lens just to have a L is stupid.. but buying a L because you want to take extra sharp pictures with extreme details then that´s a good reason to spend the extra $
I compared the sigma 55-200 and the 70-200L by taking a picture of the same object at the same time, just put my camera on a tripod and switched lenses between pictures.
then I made a 400% crop of both pictures and there were NO details in the sigma picture just blur but the canon picture was pin sharp.
THAT IS A REASON TO GET L :) |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 11:16:48 AM · #7 |
I think it varies from person to person and also what else is available in the same range.
For example I could see buying a 50mm F/1.4 but for the life of me cannot imagine buying a 50mm F/1.0L.
But choices get limited at longer focal lengths. If I want a 500mm or 600mm F/4, there is no real alternative. They only exist as an "L" lens. There are substitutes in other vendors like the Sigma Bigma, Tamron has something that zooms to 500mm I believe, but none are as fast.
I guess what I am getting at is it is more of a case-by-case decision, not a universal truth. |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 11:22:07 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by DanSig:
I started with a 300D and budget sigma lenses, the 18-50DC and the 55-200DC at first my pictures were bad because I didn´t know how to use a DSLR but when I learned that my pictures didn´t improve that much, then I bought L glass and I DID see major difference in quality. I bought the 17-40L, 50mm f1.4 and the 70-200L f2.8 IS so I covered the same range as the sigma lenses and the details ans sharpness was stunning compared to the sigma lenses.
ofcource there was a BIG difference in price, $2500 compared to $200 for the sigmas.
buying an L lens just to have a L is stupid.. but buying a L because you want to take extra sharp pictures with extreme details then that´s a good reason to spend the extra $
I compared the sigma 55-200 and the 70-200L by taking a picture of the same object at the same time, just put my camera on a tripod and switched lenses between pictures.
then I made a 400% crop of both pictures and there were NO details in the sigma picture just blur but the canon picture was pin sharp.
THAT IS A REASON TO GET L :) |
FUD. You're comparing the bottom end of the Sigma range to the top end of the Canon range. Compare like for like please.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 11:25:23 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by bod:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Considering the investment in camera body, accessories etc., considering that image quality is what most DSLR owners are after, considering the difficulties to get that particular shot and, then, have it come out well defined, focused, without artifacts aberrations etc., considering how much and under what adverse conditions we use our equipment, yes...
I would purchase an L lens over an inferior product - even if that meant having only one lens. |
But what if you bought a wideangle and "that particular shot" turns out to need a telephoto? Or vice-versa. You get nothing. |
Sacrifice. Of course, I'd miss many shots this way, but whatever I would get, I'd get without compromise.
If limited budget would restrict my choices, I'd prefer to spend much on one item, if I pay for quality, rather than little on several items of an inferior quality.
But I can also see other people making different choices.
Message edited by author 2005-03-17 11:32:06.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 11:35:00 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by bod:
But what if you bought a wideangle and "that particular shot" turns out to need a telephoto? Or vice-versa. You get nothing. |
Sacrifice. Of course, I'd miss many shots this way, but whatever I would get, I'd get without compromise. |
I'm the opposite. Not that I see my Sigma EX lenses as a compromise (they too blow away the low end Sigmas) but I'd hate to miss a killer shot because I didn't have the lens.
Sacrifice again : )
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 11:43:11 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by bod:
Originally posted by DanSig:
I started with a 300D and budget sigma lenses, the 18-50DC and the 55-200DC at first my pictures were bad because I didn´t know how to use a DSLR but when I learned that my pictures didn´t improve that much, then I bought L glass and I DID see major difference in quality. I bought the 17-40L, 50mm f1.4 and the 70-200L f2.8 IS so I covered the same range as the sigma lenses and the details ans sharpness was stunning compared to the sigma lenses.
ofcource there was a BIG difference in price, $2500 compared to $200 for the sigmas.
buying an L lens just to have a L is stupid.. but buying a L because you want to take extra sharp pictures with extreme details then that´s a good reason to spend the extra $
I compared the sigma 55-200 and the 70-200L by taking a picture of the same object at the same time, just put my camera on a tripod and switched lenses between pictures.
then I made a 400% crop of both pictures and there were NO details in the sigma picture just blur but the canon picture was pin sharp.
THAT IS A REASON TO GET L :) |
FUD. You're comparing the bottom end of the Sigma range to the top end of the Canon range. Compare like for like please. |
I can only compare what I have.. didn´t feel like buying the EX line of sigmas just to compare ;)
and I was just emphasising on how big the difference is between cheap and expencive lenses.
there is no use comparing a $1000 sigma to a $1000 L lens, the question as I unerstood it was if it was worth spending a lot of money to get the L lenses instead of getting cheaper ones that are not L. |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 11:45:05 AM · #12 |
| If you are shooting for yourself probably not, unless you want the best possibile image. If you shooting for a living, then they are worth every penny. |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 11:46:23 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by bod:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by bod:
But what if you bought a wideangle and "that particular shot" turns out to need a telephoto? Or vice-versa. You get nothing. |
Sacrifice. Of course, I'd miss many shots this way, but whatever I would get, I'd get without compromise. |
I'm the opposite. Not that I see my Sigma EX lenses as a compromise (they too blow away the low end Sigmas) but I'd hate to miss a killer shot because I didn't have the lens.
Sacrifice again : ) |
You may well be right. I'm far too ignorant of Sigma EX lenses than to argue, blanketly, in favour of Canon L's.
I also own a Volvo, and service it with Volvo parts only, for the same reasons. After all, they made the car in the first place and should know it a little better than a company specializing in filters for fifty different makes.
If, god forbid, I ever get an error 99 or error 1 with my 10D, I want to have it taken care of by Canon without having to be told to re-chip my lens or something of that sort.
But I'm like that...
Message edited by author 2005-03-17 13:20:57.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 11:47:19 AM · #14 |
| I think an L lens is very desirable. I don't think everyone should rush out and mortgage the house to buy an L, however, they are the optimum tool for Canon systems. As Zeuszen says - "I would purchase an L lens over an inferior product - even if that meant having only one lens." I would say, that is very good advice and will not necessarily limit a persons vision, as some think who require an arsenal of (cheap) lenses. Consider your budget, unless your rich, beg, borrow or steal one if you can - they are very good. Lenses are the primary tool on your camera and getting the best one you can afford provides rewards in the images you will make. |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 11:56:01 AM · #15 |
This is a quote from a photojournalist on another forum:
P/S Before I started my career in Photography, During my laste years of highschool, I, [unfortunately] managed a retail photo gear outlet. Sigma was the butt of all jokes. No kidding.
Don't shoot the messenger, please...
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 11:56:13 AM · #16 |
thanks for all the comments, keep 'em coming. it is nice to hear peoples opinions.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 11:59:29 AM · #17 |
I have a couple of Sigma EX lenses and I'm very happy with them. The Canon L lenses are almost certainly a little better but how much better is a more useful question. In my opinion they're not enough better to justify the cost.
John
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 12:00:18 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
This is a quote from a photojournalist on another forum:
P/S Before I started my career in Photography, During my laste years of highschool, I, [unfortunately] managed a retail photo gear outlet. Sigma was the butt of all jokes. No kidding.
Don't shoot the messenger, please... |
Keep in mind, this is a quote from somebody who relies on his gear to put food on the table.
It depends on your situation.
And yes, nobody should rely on their gear...they should rely on their vision blah blah blah...tell that to the editor. :0)
I plan on buying a 70-200f/2.8L IS and 24-70f/2.8L within the next 6 months. A few months ago, I would have said "self, you're being an idiot" but the fact is I am going to go to school for photojournalism and this equipment will travel with me for years to come as I develop in my career-to-be...why buy twice?
Message edited by author 2005-03-17 12:02:40.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 12:00:39 PM · #19 |
I've taken the philosophy of getting 'good' lenses around me, these are not 'L' class, and I opted to get old versions of the lenses off ebay to keep the cost down. This way I have the abilty to take the images that I want albeit at the compromise of having the highest possible quality.
But as I journey on with my photography I will be in a better position to be able to judge how best to spend the big money, i.e. if I find myself constantly using my close-up filters and reversing rings then I look to purchase a 105mm 2.8 macro, if I'm using teleconverters a lot then a big f4 zoom will be desired, etc, etc.
I'd love to consider that I'm a photographer that can justify having the best equipment on the market, but I'm not and there is a hell of a lot more that I can learn about photography by having the equipment that I have rather than being restricted. As the years pass my equipment will improve as will my earnings from photography, so it all works out over time.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 12:00:58 PM · #20 |
I started a similar thread that I hope some of you might care to comment on, if you haven't already. (My thread subject was in regard to the Canon 70-200 L USM (non IS) being $400 more than the Sigma 70-200 APO EX HSM..... please check it out).
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 12:04:07 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
This is a quote from a photojournalist on another forum:
P/S Before I started my career in Photography, During my laste years of highschool, I, [unfortunately] managed a retail photo gear outlet. Sigma was the butt of all jokes. No kidding.
Don't shoot the messenger, please... |
Microsoft is the butt of all jokes in my industry. No kidding.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 12:05:00 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by jonr:
(EX = L) |
(EX = L) = BS
A Sigma EX is not in most instances even close to what you can achieve with an L lens. Fact, not speculation. If you want the highest quality and have anything close to a perfectionist streak in you then an L lens may be the way to go. Most EF lenses are very sharp, especialy the primes, but there are effects and a degree of sharpness you can achieve with an L lens that you will never get with any other lens made for Canon. Of course if all you care about is capturing the image and the highest quality is not something you are worried about then Tamron, Tokina, Sigma, Vivitar, Quantaray, ect.. have a wide variety lenses just for you.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 12:06:03 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by bod:
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
This is a quote from a photojournalist on another forum:
P/S Before I started my career in Photography, During my laste years of highschool, I, [unfortunately] managed a retail photo gear outlet. Sigma was the butt of all jokes. No kidding.
Don't shoot the messenger, please... |
Microsoft is the butt of all jokes in my industry. No kidding. |
Very true, although by using this analogy I'd have to reconsider the idea of buying a Sigma lens ;)
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 12:07:25 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by colda:
Originally posted by bod:
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
This is a quote from a photojournalist on another forum:
P/S Before I started my career in Photography, During my laste years of highschool, I, [unfortunately] managed a retail photo gear outlet. Sigma was the butt of all jokes. No kidding.
Don't shoot the messenger, please... |
Microsoft is the butt of all jokes in my industry. No kidding. |
Very true, although by using this analogy I'd have to reconsider the idea of buying a Sigma lens ;) |
Well, I wouldn't recommend you buy an L lens, colda! It might look funny on your D70...with all the duct tape holding it on there and everything.
Message edited by author 2005-03-17 12:07:52.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 12:08:45 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by colda:
Originally posted by bod:
Microsoft is the butt of all jokes in my industry. No kidding. |
Very true, although by using this analogy I'd have to reconsider the idea of buying a Sigma lens ;) |
Heh, good point. I think I kinda shot myself in the foot with that one : )
|
|
