"L"s Do you really need one? An Observation

[Jack O'Neill]

2 weeks ago did not no know what bokeh is, I'm sure the bottom of a coke bottle would do just fine for you; while some of us know what fine optics can produce compared to cheap glass. A lens does not have to have a L on it to get good results in bright daylight at slower f stops, if however you shoot in lower light and need fast lenses that can actually give you a sharp image wide open, then there are very few that can compare to Canon's L line of lenses. It's obvious that you have a lot to learn about photography and the gear that goes along with it. Joining this forum to just post flamebait after flamebait is no way to make friends around here that's for sure, on the other hand if you stop posting the flamebait and avoid getting banned by Phil, there is a lot a newbie can learn here.

Jack
--
http://www.pbase.com/joneill

 

[Thomas Gardner]

Since I do this professionally, I saw the merit in owning pro
glass. Of course if your a hobbiest or if your a "landscape"
photographer (Your wife supports you!!) You probably don't need the
best, mediocre will do!!

Now, now! Be nice I do scenics and only the best glass will do. Now if Canon will only give me the 3D, I'll be a happy camper

--
If you don't want to believe me, ignore me

 

[Christopher Fritz]

I own this lens and 2 months ago, purchased the 17-40 f4L. Even at 40, the L lens is much better. M+uch less sharpening required in PS, much less chromatic aboration problems, and much better color. Also, this "L" lens does not extend by itself when it is pointed down.

Just my observation,
Chris

Vince

For those who ask "What lens should I ....."
There is lots of very good glass... by many makers... in all types
and sizes out there that are NOT "Ls". Anyone in these "digital
days" with a reasonably good working knowledge of PS or PS
Elements2 (or similar) can produce a finished product(photo) of
outstanding excellence.Most could not tell if the original shot was
taken through an "L" or a"CocaCola" bottle...for that matter.I
think it's just for your ego to say"I have an xxxxxx"L".The end in
this case does not justify the means.Soooo..Do you really need one?
I think not!! Use what you got and enjoy the end result...great
pics and a fatter bank balance!

Why are my thoughts worth 2 cents and yours only one?

--
Chris

 

[TangoMan]

not stand up to. Breaking a lens on assignment could be
devistating.

You sure loose the vista! LOL

 

[Ken Rimple]

As a followon to what Serge says:

Read "The Camera" and "The Negative" and you'll see he points out the advantages of these cameras for portability and more spontaneous "hand-held" action shots. But when he really wanted extremely sharp, well composed, detailed compositions, he went to the large format cameras and composed at the ground glass. And that's the work he would become known for and put his reputation on.

Some of the portraits he did in the books were done with Hassleblads (MF), and others were done with Leicas (35mm). I think even one was with a Nikon SLR, but don't have the book in front of me.

He even (gasp) used flash and bulb techniques too.

Ken

Funny you mention Ansel Adams. As I'm sure you know, he took most
of his nature shots with a large format camera. I suspect many
people told him about how cheap and convenient 35mm SLR cameras
are, how they can be carried in a pocket instead of on a mule's
back -- "and you have No Idea how much trouble you'll give yourself
keeping this animal fed and healthy". They might even have
mentionned that it doesn't take 15 minutes to take a picture with a
SLR and that you get many more choices of focal length. And of
course, these photography books he's making aren't all that big so
nobody will ever notice the difference in quality.

Yet he used a large format camera. How strange.

As a side note, I would be glad if you could tell me how photoshop
can make a lens two stops faster, or make my hand (and my subject)
stop moving when I have to shoot at 1/8th instead of 1/30th...
Because the 24/1.4 happens to be an 'L' lens, and, you know, it's
heavy and expensive as hell, and I could definitely use more cash
in my bank account and less weight on my shoulders...

Serge Boucher

--
Ken Rimple
Newtown Square, PA
PhotoSig portfolio: http://www1.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=377180
Pbase portfolio: http://www.pbase.com/krimple
BreezeBrowser Galleries online at http://www.rimple.net/albums

Did you get the memo?

 

[Steven Noyes]

What you stated sounded out of frustration and I agree with much of what you said but for different reasons. First you have to remember:

1) "L" series are simply built better. I buy a lens based off of mechanical reliability as well as optical superiority. I have never killed an "L" lens, but I have gone through a couple cheap plastic EF lenses. I choose not to do that again.

2) "L" series have better flare control on average. Not to say that hte 85 1.8 does not have great control, but on average an "L" will beat a normal lens.

3) "L" series are simply built better. Yep that is very important to me.

4) "L" series are faster lenses. This allows tighter and faster focus.

That being said, I think that many people that rush off and buy one thinking that this will make them a "better" photographer need help

Steven

Most could not tell if the original shot was
taken through an "L" or a"CocaCola" bottle...for that matter.

--
Jason

--
Sils...

Why are my thoughts worth 2 cents and yours only one?

--
---
New and Updated!!!
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/spring_gc_trip
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/out_of_africa

 

[Doug D.]

I'm new to SLR's, however I do own 2 L lenses. the 70-200 F/4 L and I just got the 135 f/2 L. These 2 lenses by far focus the fastest, and produce the sharpest images compared to my other lenses, 50 1.8, 28-135, and Sigma 15-30.

To each his own, but I will be buying L lenses when the need is there in the future.

--
Doug D.
'Promise a rainbow, and someone will look to the sky.'

http://public.fotki.com/DougD/
http://albums.photo.epson.com/j/AlbumList?u=1681338
http://www.pbase.com/doug_d

 

[Sils]

1) "L" series are simply built better. I buy a lens based off of
mechanical reliability as well as optical superiority. I have
never killed an "L" lens, but I have gone through a couple cheap
plastic EF lenses. I choose not to do that again.

2) "L" series have better flare control on average. Not to say
that hte 85 1.8 does not have great control, but on average an "L"
will beat a normal lens.

3) "L" series are simply built better. Yep that is very important
to me.

4) "L" series are faster lenses. This allows tighter and faster
focus.

That being said, I think that many people that rush off and buy one
thinking that this will make them a "better" photographer need
help

Steven

taken through an "L" or a"CocaCola" bottle...for that matter.

Sils...

Why are my thoughts worth 2 cents and yours only one?

--
---
New and Updated!!!
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/spring_gc_trip
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/out_of_africa

--
Sils...

Why are my thoughts worth 2 cents and yours only one?

 

[Steven Noyes]

You seem to think that EVERYTHING can be fixed in PS. Flare can not. It can be helped but not fixed. Contrast can not. It can be helped but not fixed. Color, I will give you. Sharpness can be visually increased but the detail is LOST forever. Hand shake because you had to shoot at 1/20 second and not 1/60 of a second CANNOT be fixed if PS.

So you equated a coke bottle to an "L" lens because MANY things can not be fixed in PS. Most can be helped but not fixed. Is always better to start with a good capture and make it great the start with a bad capture and make it good.

This is not to say that many "L" series lenses are bought to feed egos. But to say that the 50 f1.8 is the same as the 50mm f1.4 (not even an "L" lens) is ludicrous. The 85mm f1.8 is built even better than the 50mm f1.4. and the "L" lenses are built better still.

It is like the difference between a EOS Rebel and an EOS 1v. Why aren't all pros rushing to buy a Rebel? They will get the same image.... There must be a reason there are so many delusional people out there. Could it be that there is a difference in quality that some are will to pay for.

Steven

--
---
New and Updated!!!
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/spring_gc_trip
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/out_of_africa

 

[Sils]

was not wriiten clearly enough to convey my true meaning. I now wish that this thread "goes away"!It serves no purpose to belabor this.I do think however, that you understood my intent more then many others. They got defensive real quick..Thanx

You seem to think that EVERYTHING can be fixed in PS. Flare can
not. It can be helped but not fixed. Contrast can not. It can be
helped but not fixed. Color, I will give you. Sharpness can be
visually increased but the detail is LOST forever. Hand shake
because you had to shoot at 1/20 second and not 1/60 of a second
CANNOT be fixed if PS.

So you equated a coke bottle to an "L" lens because MANY things can
not be fixed in PS. Most can be helped but not fixed. Is always
better to start with a good capture and make it great the start
with a bad capture and make it good.

This is not to say that many "L" series lenses are bought to feed
egos. But to say that the 50 f1.8 is the same as the 50mm f1.4
(not even an "L" lens) is ludicrous. The 85mm f1.8 is built even
better than the 50mm f1.4. and the "L" lenses are built better
still.

It is like the difference between a EOS Rebel and an EOS 1v. Why
aren't all pros rushing to buy a Rebel? They will get the same
image.... There must be a reason there are so many delusional
people out there. Could it be that there is a difference in
quality that some are will to pay for.

Steven

--
---
New and Updated!!!
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/spring_gc_trip
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/out_of_africa

--
Sils...

Why are my thoughts worth 2 cents and yours only one?

 

[John Mason]

a coke bottle or L - same difference - hmmm - trollish - but just in case a serious question:

1. L lenes normally are more light sensitive, better built, and sharper

You cannot create sharpness with photoshop. Go to http://www.photodo.com to look at the various lens resoloving power and you'll see for a given lens type the L lenses are usually some of the best. You'll also see that some of the "coke bottle" competitors really don't resolve nearly as well (and some are terrible).

2. There are some non-L lenses that are really sharp. The 50mm 1.8 is both cheap and really sharp. Some 3rd party lenses are really sharp. Once again http://www.photodo.com will show this.

The tone of your post that the lens quality doesn't matter at all and that all lens issues can be eqaulized later in Photoshop certainly has not been my personal experience. In fact, the digital versions on the 35mm format like the 10D, D60, D60 with it's 1.6 crop factor leads to point number 3:

3. The smaller the sensor on a digital camera, the more the lack of sharpness of any lens affects your final print. This is because you are cropping the print lowering the resolution capability of the lens by the amount of the crop factor.

So, actually, for the 10D user, having a good quality lens like an L lens is even more important than the full frame 1Ds user.

--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN

 

[Jason Conner]

The quality of L lenses is definitely superior. In a professional context, the cost of equipment failure justifies the upgrade and the reliability is essential.

For a hobbyist, it doesn't make that much of a difference. For a pro, the quality is a competitive and practical advantage.

There's a big difference between using your camera every day to make a living and just using it recreationally. For an active pro who shoots every day, it would cost as much to buy an L as it would to replace then non-Ls that break, suck dust and need service, or wear out. At about $500 for a 28-135mm IS, it would only take a couple of replacements to pay for something like a 24-70mm L that will reliably endure many years of daily use.

L lenses can often take a serious beating that consumer lenses can
not stand up to. Breaking a lens on assignment could be
devistating. Breaking a lens also is expensive. Many pros can not
both shoot effectivly and baby their equipment so durrability is
essential.

An added bonus is L Lenses are generally faster and sharper. These
aren't the only optical characteristics to look at. Flare control,
color, and contrast are all very important as well.

 

[John Duesterhoeft]

Nope.... but they sure are fun to drive!!!

For those who ask "What lens should I ....."
There is lots of very good glass... by many makers... in all types
and sizes out there that are NOT "Ls". Anyone in these "digital
days" with a reasonably good working knowledge of PS or PS
Elements2 (or similar) can produce a finished product(photo) of
outstanding excellence.Most could not tell if the original shot was
taken through an "L" or a"CocaCola" bottle...for that matter.I
think it's just for your ego to say"I have an xxxxxx"L".The end in
this case does not justify the means.Soooo..Do you really need one?
I think not!! Use what you got and enjoy the end result...great
pics and a fatter bank balance!

Why are my thoughts worth 2 cents and yours only one?

 

[thomas molnar]

Couldnt resist.

Tom - purduealum91

 

[Gregg Humphrey]

Sils wrote:
"Most could not tell if the original shot was
taken through an "L" or a"CocaCola" bottle...for that matter."

Garbage in, garbage out.