D
Dave Knadler
Guest
What bugs me even more: People buying the 1D and $10k in L glass and then posting lame snapshots without embarrassment.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Ted B.47613
Senior Member
Ditto here.
--'Think Outside The Box.........Once you're in the box, it's too late.' http://home.attbi.com/~keylargographics
Ted B.47613
Senior Member
Now, just stick your nose up in the air or up into other people's business and your "IN".
--'Think Outside The Box.........Once you're in the box, it's too late.' http://home.attbi.com/~keylargographicsI've got the 17-35/2.8 - - don't use wide-angle enough to justify
the 16-35 (yet)
Yea! I got it
Yea! I got it, too. (though my non-IS had better contrast)
Score another one.
Yessir, got that beauty, too. Can you say "no DOF"? Sure ya can.
Wahoo, got that one, too.
Zoinks! Nope, not yet. I'll have to live with my 1.4x-II and
2x-II TC's for a while. I'll probably never own THAT lens.
Probably either the 200/1.8 or the 300/2.8 IS. Or perhaps the
400/4 DO IS.
I've also got the 135/2 -- great lens.
Oops, I also have the 28-135 IS. Guess I'll have to hide that one.
(I got it after most of my other ones . . . . sorta a "Grab one
lens and go" thing).
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
RolandKorg
Leading Member
And stupid.
Unless you're making some comparison between lenses, for the sake of testing, using controlled circumstances, no one will ever know what lens is used on any camera. This is not an argument that has anything to do with photographic merit, or the worthiness of any particular image. It's just a testing issue.
Not everyone needs to or wants to resolve the maximum amount of detail in every image. There are a jillion 'great' photographs not made under ultimate technical circumstances. I suppose that one would have to go back and test the lenses of Cartier-Bresson, Avedon, Steiglitz, Capa, Turner, and Weegee, just to make sure they resolved as well as your precious 70-200 2.8. If not, well those images are clearly worthless.
To stick with just your 'reasoning,' i would say that there are plenty of reasons to use a 1D, and many of them have absolutely nothing to do with lens resolution. That's it. Nothing more need be said.
If this was one of those Troll-type post thingies, and i bit, well.... still, someone will learn something from reading something on the thread. So, whatever. You've proved you can incite rancor. Big whoop.
Unless you're making some comparison between lenses, for the sake of testing, using controlled circumstances, no one will ever know what lens is used on any camera. This is not an argument that has anything to do with photographic merit, or the worthiness of any particular image. It's just a testing issue.
Not everyone needs to or wants to resolve the maximum amount of detail in every image. There are a jillion 'great' photographs not made under ultimate technical circumstances. I suppose that one would have to go back and test the lenses of Cartier-Bresson, Avedon, Steiglitz, Capa, Turner, and Weegee, just to make sure they resolved as well as your precious 70-200 2.8. If not, well those images are clearly worthless.
To stick with just your 'reasoning,' i would say that there are plenty of reasons to use a 1D, and many of them have absolutely nothing to do with lens resolution. That's it. Nothing more need be said.
If this was one of those Troll-type post thingies, and i bit, well.... still, someone will learn something from reading something on the thread. So, whatever. You've proved you can incite rancor. Big whoop.
Terry M
Leading Member
...even though ANY photographer can only stock his kit based on available resources (primarily, in this case, MONEY), so many of the people who buy cameras here and on other forums turn right around and complain that the the cameras are overpriced, underspec'ed, etc., when their glass may be more to blame than the camera body.
I, for one, would LOVE to have the privilege to "complain" about a 1D (or D60, for that matter). But I wouldn't, probably, because I'm sure the major limitations for these cameras' output if they were in My hands would be my OWN lack of skills.
How many others are honest enough to say that?
Paul is dead-on.
I, for one, would LOVE to have the privilege to "complain" about a 1D (or D60, for that matter). But I wouldn't, probably, because I'm sure the major limitations for these cameras' output if they were in My hands would be my OWN lack of skills.
How many others are honest enough to say that?
Paul is dead-on.
Mastrianni
Leading Member
Well, let's see what my stable of lenses for Canon consist of; 24mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, and 200mm 2.8L. This means, with the exception of the 200mm, I suck...or am stupid...or am just a bad photographer. Now let's look at the facts. All these lenses are sharper than their L zoom counterparts. I've never had a client question my choice of lenses...but, then, what do they know. The longer I shoot, the less equipment I seem to need, or need to qualify to other people why I use what I use. And in fact, one of my favorite photographers here in NY uses a Holga, exclusively. If 1/100th of the photographers on this forum could even hold a candle to him, they'd be doing good. Equipment is just a tool. I would never question the equipment another artist/photographer uses. I always limit my judgement to the work itself. It would behoove others to do the same. Use whatever you want, in whatever combination you want. It doesn't bug me. What bugs me is people overly concerned with "sharpness", as if it will really make a difference in the bigger scheme of things. It won't. These forums can be very xenophobic when one considers that 99% of the participants do not have daily access to what is really going on in the art centers of the world, and can be easily persuaded to purchase equipment that will, in the end, have no bearing on their output. Actually, I'm looking at a Sigma 15mm fisheye, myself. Crucify me, I'm gonna place it on a 1D. (the horror of it all)
Mastrianni
Mastrianni
D
David Birkin
Guest
i would think that the 28-135IS & 20-35 would be the only non-L zooms to use on a 1D. chances are if one is using a 20-35 it is for landscape...and who shoots landscape wide open?
wouldn't use a non-canon lens. call me a snob...i don't deny it.
i kind of did the same. was shooting 35mm EOS for
waiting for an EOS-3D. sure it will come eventually. slightly downgraded 1D...but like the EOS-3 is to the EOS-1v in the 35mm range.
in the meantime i can get a 50 f1.4 and try and learn a bit of "studio" type flash work...though with 550EXs.--BreezeBrowser RAW conversion times http://www.davidbirkin.com
Steve13285
Senior Member
To suggest that only Canon makes quality lenses is absurd and unsupportable. Your observations regarding lens manufacturers here are overly narrow. To suggest that all Canon "L" lenses are of great quality ignores several in that category that are universally regarded as cra*. Your observations with regards to "L" lenses are overly broad.
So you've managed to make a comment that is both overly narrow yet overly broad at the same time.
Still, you're entitled to your opinion, even if it's a goofy one.
Steve
So you've managed to make a comment that is both overly narrow yet overly broad at the same time.
Still, you're entitled to your opinion, even if it's a goofy one.
Steve
What's this? Shutterbug still has articals?
I droped my sub a couple of years ago due to all the advertising in that rag.
Maybe I will have to pick one up again.
I droped my sub a couple of years ago due to all the advertising in that rag.
Maybe I will have to pick one up again.
Just which "L" lenses are universally regarded as cra*. (I've been reading a lot, but must have missed this.)
Oh No I understand where he's coming from. I don't doubt it! I just don't think it's any of his business what someone wants to do with their viper.
And getting back to the whole lens thing, Not everyone is obsessed with F2.8 and the resolving power that an L lens provides. So Yeah, I may want the skinny Yugo tires on my viper, but at the end of the day, you're not driving it, I am, and it's my problem, not yours! Maybe I'm going to get the Z-rated tires when I can afford them; you never know the circumstanses, so don't judge.
Maybe he's just pissed that he spent all that money, and others don't see a need, or don't want too! It's none of his business.
Also, you don't need to buy everything at once. Not everyone has 20K sitting around like Paul! So slowly when they see a need they will buy those lenses and accessories, but for him to say it bugs him, is short sighted and narrow minded!
I agree with you that a New Amateur should not be spending 5000 dollars to buy a camera body, but then again, if he knows he's going to keep it for a long time, and that he's eventually buy the other accessories, it makes sense to buy the body now with the cheap lens and then later buy the L series or APO lens.
John, I understand that people post a lot of weird comments about sharpness and then you are justified to crucify them, but to make a statement like Paul did is plain old Annoying!
The D60 and 1D are very different cameras. The D60 is not suitable for action photography and it's not very good at focusing in the dark. Look at how many posts we get a day on this forum about that.
By the way, I do have L lenses, so I know what difference they can make, but I just don't agree with the generalization of Paul's Comment.
That's my other 2 cents!
Shervin
And getting back to the whole lens thing, Not everyone is obsessed with F2.8 and the resolving power that an L lens provides. So Yeah, I may want the skinny Yugo tires on my viper, but at the end of the day, you're not driving it, I am, and it's my problem, not yours! Maybe I'm going to get the Z-rated tires when I can afford them; you never know the circumstanses, so don't judge.
Maybe he's just pissed that he spent all that money, and others don't see a need, or don't want too! It's none of his business.
Also, you don't need to buy everything at once. Not everyone has 20K sitting around like Paul! So slowly when they see a need they will buy those lenses and accessories, but for him to say it bugs him, is short sighted and narrow minded!
I agree with you that a New Amateur should not be spending 5000 dollars to buy a camera body, but then again, if he knows he's going to keep it for a long time, and that he's eventually buy the other accessories, it makes sense to buy the body now with the cheap lens and then later buy the L series or APO lens.
John, I understand that people post a lot of weird comments about sharpness and then you are justified to crucify them, but to make a statement like Paul did is plain old Annoying!
The D60 and 1D are very different cameras. The D60 is not suitable for action photography and it's not very good at focusing in the dark. Look at how many posts we get a day on this forum about that.
By the way, I do have L lenses, so I know what difference they can make, but I just don't agree with the generalization of Paul's Comment.
That's my other 2 cents!
Shervin
Stuart Robins
Well-known member
Sean Lowrey
Leading Member
Well umm if I could only afford 1- "L" glass lens OR a D30 and a cheapo lens, which do you think I'd opt for???
Someone used the analogy of having a Ferrari with crappy tires on it.... I'd rather have a Ferrari with crappy tires than no tires.....
Not everyone can buy everything at once. Not everyone wants to wait... Not everyone is a professional photographer. Not everyone needs the best optics..why do you think they have different price points in lenses at camera shops?
You might be quick to judge others by the equipment that they own but in college and high schools my Minolta Non Pro equipped photos beat EOS-1's, F4's and Leicas.
Something to think about when judging people.... just because you "think" you have all the answers, you problably don't.
Sean
Someone used the analogy of having a Ferrari with crappy tires on it.... I'd rather have a Ferrari with crappy tires than no tires.....
Not everyone can buy everything at once. Not everyone wants to wait... Not everyone is a professional photographer. Not everyone needs the best optics..why do you think they have different price points in lenses at camera shops?
You might be quick to judge others by the equipment that they own but in college and high schools my Minolta Non Pro equipped photos beat EOS-1's, F4's and Leicas.
Something to think about when judging people.... just because you "think" you have all the answers, you problably don't.
Sean
--Sean http://www.mmsean.comCanon D60, 28-135mm IS USM, 70-200/2.8 L
Sean Lowrey
Leading Member
Sorry but I've been shooting a long time in the film world and if you're a newbie, how the heck would you know that f/2.8 gives you that extreme DOF? It's totally different film vs. digital in DOF.
Being ignorant isn't a sin. It's those who see ignorance as stupidity are the ones who truly are stupid.
Sean
Being ignorant isn't a sin. It's those who see ignorance as stupidity are the ones who truly are stupid.
Sean
B
Bob Williams
Guest
As the DSLR prices have tumbled, and the G1 limitations get
more and more irritating, I decided it was time to go to the
next step up. I bought a used T50 and a couple of lenses.
Good camera for a kid, but even with the Canon glass, it is
the least camera I have ever purchased. I bought a Yashica
TL Electro X, and five lenses. It is irritating to use, as you have
to use your shutter hand for both the meter switch, and the
shutter adjustment. It is strong enough to hammer nails tho,
and it takes excellent well metered pictures. I bought a couple
of Minolta bodies, and some lenses. They do well if you are
very careful, and use a lens they like. They are easier to use
than the TL, but they don't make as good of an image. The
lenses and motor drive make them a decent choice tho.
That is how you learn. You use the equipment. I paid 31$ for
the body that produces the best output, and about 120$ for
the five lenses I use with it. I paid the same for one of the Canon
lenses used for the T50. I paid more than that for the 300mm
lens for the Minoltas. It is good glass, but I wish I could get it
on the TL, instead of the Minolta bodies.
The best lens is the one you can afford to own and use. The
best body is the one that provides you with the tools you need
to shoot the way you shoot.
The D30 was and is a nice camera. The D60 looks to be a nice
camera. The 1D looks like a nice camera. Now, if I could just
get one of these companies to build a digital like the TL, I would
be happy. Full manual, accurate stopped down metering, and
the ability to use scope type lenses. This is what is needed for
my use. This would most likely not be good for Paul's use.
Yes, everyone needs to learn. Yes, it would be nice to have an
L class lens long enough to shoot the sparrow in the top of the
tree. I fail to see the virtue in buying a lens that cost as much as
my car.
Quit knocking the people that are learning! They have the equipment
they could afford. Maybe they needed the speed of the 1D
for their purpose, and have to use whatever lens they can afford
at the time. In the end, that is the very best lens there is.
It beats the expensive glass they can only look at in the ads
all to heck, day in and day out. Film bodies like I am using,
do not provide the learning experience that digital does. The
feedback is just not there fast enough. Most of the bad shots
I get, the reasons for them are lost in the woods where they
were taken, when the film is processed days later.
more and more irritating, I decided it was time to go to the
next step up. I bought a used T50 and a couple of lenses.
Good camera for a kid, but even with the Canon glass, it is
the least camera I have ever purchased. I bought a Yashica
TL Electro X, and five lenses. It is irritating to use, as you have
to use your shutter hand for both the meter switch, and the
shutter adjustment. It is strong enough to hammer nails tho,
and it takes excellent well metered pictures. I bought a couple
of Minolta bodies, and some lenses. They do well if you are
very careful, and use a lens they like. They are easier to use
than the TL, but they don't make as good of an image. The
lenses and motor drive make them a decent choice tho.
That is how you learn. You use the equipment. I paid 31$ for
the body that produces the best output, and about 120$ for
the five lenses I use with it. I paid the same for one of the Canon
lenses used for the T50. I paid more than that for the 300mm
lens for the Minoltas. It is good glass, but I wish I could get it
on the TL, instead of the Minolta bodies.
The best lens is the one you can afford to own and use. The
best body is the one that provides you with the tools you need
to shoot the way you shoot.
The D30 was and is a nice camera. The D60 looks to be a nice
camera. The 1D looks like a nice camera. Now, if I could just
get one of these companies to build a digital like the TL, I would
be happy. Full manual, accurate stopped down metering, and
the ability to use scope type lenses. This is what is needed for
my use. This would most likely not be good for Paul's use.
Yes, everyone needs to learn. Yes, it would be nice to have an
L class lens long enough to shoot the sparrow in the top of the
tree. I fail to see the virtue in buying a lens that cost as much as
my car.
Quit knocking the people that are learning! They have the equipment
they could afford. Maybe they needed the speed of the 1D
for their purpose, and have to use whatever lens they can afford
at the time. In the end, that is the very best lens there is.
It beats the expensive glass they can only look at in the ads
all to heck, day in and day out. Film bodies like I am using,
do not provide the learning experience that digital does. The
feedback is just not there fast enough. Most of the bad shots
I get, the reasons for them are lost in the woods where they
were taken, when the film is processed days later.
Steve13285
Senior Member
elmo,
I probably used too strong a word, but considering the price of these lenses, I'm not sure.
Many people regard Canon's 17-35L as average at best and not very sharp. Some think it's ok, but many are unsatisfied. I wouldn't call it a bad name if it were $500 or less.
In fact a great many people feel the Sigma 17-35 is a much better lens, and at half the cost. The Sigma 15-30 is also very well regarded and has gotten VERY high ratings from every independent review I've read (pop photo this month is one). These lenses cost 1/2 to 1/3 of the Canon "L" and are at least equivalent in quality of build and image if not better.
The Canon 35-350L is an OK lens, but it's considered by many to be unworthy of the "L" classification. Again, it's not a cra* lens per se, but for the money you could do better with another lens - or even better go for the 100-400L IS (I'm a fan of Canon lenses by the way, I just have not signed the loyalty oath.)
YMMV, but IMHO I think a claim that all Canon "L" lenses are perfect and only Canon Lenses are worthy of a professional is incorrect.
Steve
I probably used too strong a word, but considering the price of these lenses, I'm not sure.
Many people regard Canon's 17-35L as average at best and not very sharp. Some think it's ok, but many are unsatisfied. I wouldn't call it a bad name if it were $500 or less.
In fact a great many people feel the Sigma 17-35 is a much better lens, and at half the cost. The Sigma 15-30 is also very well regarded and has gotten VERY high ratings from every independent review I've read (pop photo this month is one). These lenses cost 1/2 to 1/3 of the Canon "L" and are at least equivalent in quality of build and image if not better.
The Canon 35-350L is an OK lens, but it's considered by many to be unworthy of the "L" classification. Again, it's not a cra* lens per se, but for the money you could do better with another lens - or even better go for the 100-400L IS (I'm a fan of Canon lenses by the way, I just have not signed the loyalty oath.)
YMMV, but IMHO I think a claim that all Canon "L" lenses are perfect and only Canon Lenses are worthy of a professional is incorrect.
Steve
Yes, you've named two of the L lenses that have received mixed reviews. All is relative, as you seem to agree. Some have gotten bargain prices (in relation to the 16-35L) on the 17-35L.
I've actually been considering purchase of a 35-350L. I think the one camera/one lens arrangement would be preferable to two cameras, for baseball, soccer, etc. Many working photographers (newspaper and magazine, mostly, I gather) swear by them, even as they acknowledge that they are not Canon's sharpest zooms. Given the (current) digital cropping factor, edge falloff should be less of a problem.
I haven't seen much written about alternatives in this range. And, though more expensive than 3rd party, the Canon lenses hold their value better, I think.
I've actually been considering purchase of a 35-350L. I think the one camera/one lens arrangement would be preferable to two cameras, for baseball, soccer, etc. Many working photographers (newspaper and magazine, mostly, I gather) swear by them, even as they acknowledge that they are not Canon's sharpest zooms. Given the (current) digital cropping factor, edge falloff should be less of a problem.
I haven't seen much written about alternatives in this range. And, though more expensive than 3rd party, the Canon lenses hold their value better, I think.
Steve13285
Senior Member
Why wouldn't you go for the 100-400IS? They are comparable from a price perspective. You lose on the low end but make up considerably with performance.
If you think the 35-350 is a better "general purpose" lens I think you'd do better to get a second lens for the lower end of the spectrum. This lens is BIG and HEAVY. Also not very fast.
If you're set on the 35-350 they have a couple used at BHPhoto for $1239.
Steve
If you think the 35-350 is a better "general purpose" lens I think you'd do better to get a second lens for the lower end of the spectrum. This lens is BIG and HEAVY. Also not very fast.
If you're set on the 35-350 they have a couple used at BHPhoto for $1239.
Steve
L
Louis
Guest
Above all; it's the final image.
I don't care which camera or lens was used.
It could be a pin-hole, a disposable or a top-of-the-line.
Louis
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum