| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/17/2005 07:39:32 AM · #1 |
There's been quite a few threads about L glass and it's virtues over the last few months. People seem to be divided on the benefits vs the cost...
I'm now a member of the 'L' club with the 17-40 F/4.0L and 70-200 F/2.8 L sitting just beside me in the camera bag.
I shot my first event with this combo (And the 50 F/1.8 wonderlens) yesterday. Thread and would like to share some thoughts that might clear the fog for anyone considering these wonderful bits of glass to fuel their adiction...
After agonising over the money for months, then finally giving in and financing the things I'm happier than a starved blowfly in a dung heap! Although I now have to actively seek out some more work to pay for them, but that's a whole other story involving a finance company and monthly payments. :-).
The L lenses are stunning, plain and simple. They are built like a brick shithouse, focus fast, and are sharp wide open. Not only that, but the contrast and colours really are a huge leap from the consumer level canon lenses, and third party lenses I tried.
Now, I know I've said in a couple of threads that I'm a firm believer in the idea of the photographer being more important than the hardware, and I'm not going back on that. Just because I've given in to the lure of the red ring on the big end dosn't mean I'll instantly become the worlds greatest photographer. And to be sure I've taken some terrible shots with my new toys in the last three weeks.
_BUT_ ... (Big but)
I took 450 photos yesterday, and every single one of those images had something in focus. It may have been the wrong thing, the background, or the tree overhanging the frame, but the camera always found something to lock onto. That alone is worth the asking price for me. The kit 18-55 and my 90-300 USM certainly didn't offer positive focus 100% of the time in varying light and conditions.
And the contrast? Did I mention that? Check out the wheel photo below, and the medal shot to see what I mean...
Anyway, enough from me, let some images do the talking already. With un-edited 100% crops so they're useful for seeing the image quality..
Medals: (settings with the shot)
100% crop from Medals..
OK, there is some flare, and it's maybe a little soft if you're picky. But this is at F/2.8, so this is as bad as it gets with this lens!!! I'm sure someone said in a thread just recently that no lens is sharp wide open. I can't be bothered chasing down the thread, but I hope that person reads this one.. :-).
Rifle Line:
100% crop.
Another vote for shooting wide open with the 70-200.
The 17-40 isn't quite in the same league, as it's far harder to create a sharp wide angle lens...
Parade:
100% crop
Not pixel perfect, but a little bit of sharpening in software and this would be as good as many other lenses could muster full frame, let or loan a 100% crop from a wide angle job. The contrast is great as well, The white concrete behind to the shadow detail on the uniforms is all there, colour perfect.
At the 40mm the 17-40 is far better, as you would expect...
100% crop
This was taken the night after I got the 17-40 and I was messing about in the lounge, hence the lack of nice background, but you get the idea; It's sharp. A little USM and it'd be perfect, but I didn't want to edit these crops...
Last, but not least. The colour/contrast of the 70-200...
100% Crop
This is at ISO400, F/5.6. Just look at the contrast, and that great looking starburst. And yet there is very little apparent flare or ghosting in the full frame image. Shadow detail is still there, as is the texture detail in the brighter areas, right up to the blown highlights.
This was literaly taken on the way home from picking up the 70-200. I had a friend with me from work, and he wanted to stop in and look for a book in a vintage car place in Christchurch. I couldn't leave the camera in the car as we were in a convertable, so I was messing about in the show room while he talked to the assistant.
Well, I've said my bit for the day... If you're considering starting your collection of L glass, by all means PM me and I can email you some full sized images. They were all shot in jpeg, so they're about 3 - 4Mb in size, so as long as you're not on a really slow dial-up it shouldn't be a problem.
Now, off to figure out how to make the first monthly payment next week!!! :-)
Cheers, Chris H.
|
|
|
|
04/17/2005 11:12:40 AM · #2 |
Very nice. I was pleased with my 55-200 f/4.5-5.6 II USM til I saw those. It's not only the sharpness but the bokeh isn't great with mine either....not that I would expect it to be. :)
Full size  100%
|
|
|
|
04/17/2005 11:26:50 AM · #3 |
| Another convert. lol Congrats to KiwiChris. Sometimes is just takes a leap of faith, but once you have an L on your camaera, you see the light. If a photogrpaher is really seriour or a pro the L glass is a must. It just sets you apart. You can see the difference and you give your self and your clients the best image possible today. L glass is not a settle for lens. |
|
|
|
04/17/2005 12:03:57 PM · #4 |
I've recently aquired yearning for L glass these are from my first L lens the 400mm f/5.6L
fullsize 100%
and I just got the 17-40 yesturday but haven't had much time to do more than play with that yet
Should have said its shot at iso200
Message edited by author 2005-04-17 12:14:47. |
|
|
|
04/17/2005 01:09:42 PM · #5 |
I have a terrible yearning instead to buy the 70-300 DO IS F4.5-5.6. It's so compact! It has a green stripe rather than red, but is as expensive as L glass. I've read some really good reviews lately, for example:
Comparison of 70-300 DO IS to 70-200/F2.8L and 70-300 non L glass
Anyone have that lens. It's over $1000 though! |
|
|
|
04/17/2005 01:47:18 PM · #6 |
I have the 70-200L IS f2.8.
this was taken using a HOYA closeup filter on the 70-200.
and this is a 100% crop
 |
|
|
|
04/17/2005 01:50:42 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
I have a terrible yearning instead to buy the 70-300 DO IS F4.5-5.6. It's so compact! It has a green stripe rather than red, but is as expensive as L glass. I've read some really good reviews lately, for example:
Comparison of 70-300 DO IS to 70-200/F2.8L and 70-300 non L glass
Anyone have that lens. It's over $1000 though! |
The huge advantage is its very light weight and compactness. Here is a review.
|
|
|
|
04/17/2005 02:12:38 PM · #8 |
I am purchasing the 100-400mm ef/l canon telephoto.
The reason I like this lens is because it is a much faster lens then my current 100-300mm Sigma.
The canon on the long reach is a 5.6f, and the sigma racked to 300 is a 6.8f.
when I am on the beach, or inside a gymnasium, or in the woods, I want that extra speed of my lens.
One thing to remember also is this. If you have an slr, STAY OT OF AUTO AND LEARN TO USE MANUEL. Auto mode take too many things into consideration, as well as the AF. Manual mode and manual focus, you have TOTAL control of every pix. And having that extra speed on the lens helps with your adjustments as you shoot.[
|
|
|
|
04/17/2005 02:28:30 PM · #9 |
| Check my profile for the two new images that show the 80-200L full and then 100% crop. |
|
|
|
04/17/2005 04:43:01 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by swinging_johnson_v1:
One thing to remember also is this. If you have an slr, STAY OT OF AUTO AND LEARN TO USE MANUEL. |
I know quite a few pros use Av and Tv - some use M but mostly for flash photography. I think "learn to use your camera!" instead of a particular mode...
M
|
|
|
|
04/17/2005 04:53:30 PM · #11 |
Sorry
could someone explain the difference between a full shot and a 100% crop?
Sorry if this is a 'too stupid to ask' question.
Kev
|
|
|
|
04/17/2005 05:00:06 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by kevrobertson:
Sorry
could someone explain the difference between a full shot and a 100% crop?
Sorry if this is a 'too stupid to ask' question.
Kev |
an image from the 20D in the largest JPG mode is 3072x2048 pixels, a 100% crop for this site would be a peace of that image that is 640x640 pixels.
if an image that is 3072x2048 fills your screen at the resolution 1024x768 then you are only viewing the image in 33%crop, if you zoom in so you are viewng the image in 100% resolution then you will only see part of the image on your screen, cut that part out and you have a 100% crop :) |
|
|
|
04/17/2005 05:28:46 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by DanSig:
an image from the 20D in the largest JPG mode is 3072x2048 pixels, a 100% crop for this site would be a peace of that image that is 640x640 pixels. |
Just a picky detail, that's the res. of the 10D / 300D .. The 20D is 3504x2336 which gives you just that little bit more cropping space.. (the extra 2mp is a little academic from a detail point of view...)
Message edited by author 2005-04-17 17:49:41.
|
|
|
|
04/17/2005 09:11:31 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
I have a terrible yearning instead to buy the 70-300 DO IS F4.5-5.6. It's so compact! It has a green stripe rather than red, but is as expensive as L glass. I've read some really good reviews lately, for example:
Comparison of 70-300 DO IS to 70-200/F2.8L and 70-300 non L glass
Anyone have that lens. It's over $1000 though! |
How are the seals on this lens?
Any of the compact zooms I have had, are dust magnets on the zoom out stroke (as the lens sucks back into the casing)...I'm already at the point where it has become a ritual cleaning the sensor every other day.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 02:33:51 AM EDT.
