if you are not a pro you will be wasting money on L glass that can be spent on other things. If you plan on only viewing photos on the PC/MAC or printing 4x6s of the CAT/DOG office party etc.. you will not notice any difference between a 24-85 picture and a 24-70L. get a 28-135 IS it would stay on the 10D and would be the best investment for a general purpose lens.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
do not waste your money on L glass
- Thread starter draxjobs
- Start date
S
Scott Olds
Guest
Somehow the Catographers think that L glass is the only way to shoot if you want a viewable picture. but they have never tried a non L glass. some guy posted a portrait with a cheap 24-85 that is much more impressive that the catography I have been seeing with 24-70L
P
Paul Pope
Guest
Most people will never see the difference in print on a 10D...
the 28-135 IS and 24-85 are my recommendations for general all round lenses for people with 10D's.
Where it makes a difference is in sharpness ad paticularly at longer focal lengths and under studio lighting.
Somebody could be quite happy with a 50 1.4 and 24-85 and a 75-300 IS for 99% of their photography needs and its quite possible that they couldn't tell the difference if they saw the same shots taken with L glass.
That said investing in L glass isn't a waste of money because sooner or later people train their eyes and want the higher quality glass but for everyday stuff ...you don't need it ...sure is nice though ...
the 28-135 IS and 24-85 are my recommendations for general all round lenses for people with 10D's.
Where it makes a difference is in sharpness ad paticularly at longer focal lengths and under studio lighting.
Somebody could be quite happy with a 50 1.4 and 24-85 and a 75-300 IS for 99% of their photography needs and its quite possible that they couldn't tell the difference if they saw the same shots taken with L glass.
That said investing in L glass isn't a waste of money because sooner or later people train their eyes and want the higher quality glass but for everyday stuff ...you don't need it ...sure is nice though ...
S
Scott Olds
Guest
but having watched this forum for a long time I know that his statement, although well meaning, will hit the L Addicts right square between the eyes.
I hate to admit it but I LIKE the 28-135. It is my default walk around for my 1D. Do I shoot sports with it? No way.
While L implies better optical quality, it does tend to be better AF as well as bigger apertures. Useful in many situations but not all.
I keep a 75-300 as a backup to my 100-400. My 100-400 had to pay a visit to Canon once and I got used to using the 75-300 for a while. At f8, it turned out surprisingly good shots. They weren't up to the 100-400 (which won't come close to better primes) but I'm more interested in the content of the shot not the absolute technical perfection.
There is a difference between accuracy and precision and that is the case here.
I hate to admit it but I LIKE the 28-135. It is my default walk around for my 1D. Do I shoot sports with it? No way.
While L implies better optical quality, it does tend to be better AF as well as bigger apertures. Useful in many situations but not all.
I keep a 75-300 as a backup to my 100-400. My 100-400 had to pay a visit to Canon once and I got used to using the 75-300 for a while. At f8, it turned out surprisingly good shots. They weren't up to the 100-400 (which won't come close to better primes) but I'm more interested in the content of the shot not the absolute technical perfection.
There is a difference between accuracy and precision and that is the case here.
Jason Stoller
Veteran Member
I agree with Paul. I would also go further to say that as you grow as a photographer and if you care about the quality of what you do, you will become your own worst critic. You will become more demanding of yourself and your equipment. I really do not think whether your a pro or not should or will determine for you if you want L glass or not. Like Paul said you train your eyes and want higher quality. Its not a necessity to own L glass. Its all dependant on you and what you want out of your photography.
Jason
Jason Stoller [email protected]
We are just Beta Testers who pay the Camera Companies to test their new products!
Jason
--
Jason Stoller [email protected]
We are just Beta Testers who pay the Camera Companies to test their new products!
Ahh the K1000 days and the 50mm prime. now that will force you to concentrate on the art of photography
Honestly I find it pretty funny whe the Catographers harp on the Quality of L glass but the photos they show off would be just as "good" on a 24-85 or 28-135 and the pictures. Most will never move on from that level so its pointless to go and blow 1.3k on something that will offer no function maybe that money can be spent on photography courses at the local adultschool and they will get much more bang for the buck in learning some basic photography skills.
Frank Nichols
Senior Member
I would like to suggest a couple additional considerations, at least for me:
1. If you can afford the L glass, look at it as an investment. L glass holds it's values much better and will be asier to sell if you decide to change.
2. If you can afford L glass and are learnign, it helps to reduce the number of variables - i.e. it is shaper, focuses faster, and typically is faster.
3. If you are lazy (like me) with composition, a sharper image will stand up to more cropping than a softer image.
All of this assumes you can afford the lens. If you are takind a second mortgage just to get L glass, then I suggest you pass and get the recommended lenses instead.
Frank
I plan on living forever - so far so good!
1. If you can afford the L glass, look at it as an investment. L glass holds it's values much better and will be asier to sell if you decide to change.
2. If you can afford L glass and are learnign, it helps to reduce the number of variables - i.e. it is shaper, focuses faster, and typically is faster.
3. If you are lazy (like me) with composition, a sharper image will stand up to more cropping than a softer image.
All of this assumes you can afford the lens. If you are takind a second mortgage just to get L glass, then I suggest you pass and get the recommended lenses instead.
Frank
--
I plan on living forever - so far so good!
I dont view consumer electronics as investments. Realestate good solid stocks and liquid cash is my investment instruments of choice
If you really want to learn get yourself a Prime or 2 (not L) and spend the money you would blow on L glass towards basic photography courses. Learn to manual focus for a while to learn anticipating the moment. BTW Average Consumers will not notice the focus/sharpness difference
Im not surprised
It is not about being able to afford L glass but about maximizing the use of a Resource (money) Now if you want to walk around with the big red ring as a status symbol to take shots at the office party then go ahead and spend the money if it brings you enjoyment.
Jason Stoller
Veteran Member
I remember those days! I shot a K1000 with a 50mm for quite some time, but I also shot a Twin Lens Rollei for a long time as well.
Jason
Jason Stoller [email protected]
We are just Beta Testers who pay the Camera Companies to test their new products!
Jason
--Ahh the K1000 days and the 50mm prime. now that will force you to
concentrate on the art of photography
funny whe the Catographers harp on the Quality of L glass but the
photos they show off would be just as "good" on a 24-85 or 28-135
and the pictures. Most will never move on from that level so its
pointless to go and blow 1.3k on something that will offer no
function maybe that money can be spent on photography courses at
the local adultschool and they will get much more bang for the buck
in learning some basic photography skills.
Jason Stoller [email protected]
We are just Beta Testers who pay the Camera Companies to test their new products!
ashton lamont
Leading Member
Just when I'd conditioned myself to avoid L glass you say it makes a difference under studio lighting :-(
Studio portraiture is my main interest at present and as much of the shooting is done with strobes and at f8 I thought my lowly 28-135mm would suffice. I'm assuming 1) its accepted widsom that at f8 its hard to tell a quality difference 2) I've no need for f2.8 type shots and indeed the strobes would have to go perhaps below their lowest power output to match that 3) contrast and colour differences between lenses don't matter that much since final tweaking is always done in Photoshop
I use the 50mm mark one (80mm on D60) occasionally and was thinking of adding the 100mm macro for its length & of course ... macro work
So is there a reason why studio shooting is particulary demanding on a lens, or if I avoid "training my eyes" will I get by?
Pete
Studio portraiture is my main interest at present and as much of the shooting is done with strobes and at f8 I thought my lowly 28-135mm would suffice. I'm assuming 1) its accepted widsom that at f8 its hard to tell a quality difference 2) I've no need for f2.8 type shots and indeed the strobes would have to go perhaps below their lowest power output to match that 3) contrast and colour differences between lenses don't matter that much since final tweaking is always done in Photoshop
I use the 50mm mark one (80mm on D60) occasionally and was thinking of adding the 100mm macro for its length & of course ... macro work
So is there a reason why studio shooting is particulary demanding on a lens, or if I avoid "training my eyes" will I get by?
--
Pete
Frank Nichols
Senior Member
Your comments are all valid and well taken - except, I believe you are the frist person I have seen refer to L glass as consumer electronics!
An one sure tatic for minimizing expense is to be able to recoup expenditures - also, what is the real cost of ownership of L Glass in the long run? Many people mistake high initial cost for high cost of ownership.
A good comparison might be on bicycles. If you are going to take up bicyling you could go to your local discount store and buy a touring bike for $150-$200 US (or less.) Or you could buy a Canondale (hmm... interesting name) or better. One is expensive to buy but will last a life time or longer, the other is inexpensive to buy but you will be lucky if it lasts a year or two.
Frank
I plan on living forever - so far so good!
An one sure tatic for minimizing expense is to be able to recoup expenditures - also, what is the real cost of ownership of L Glass in the long run? Many people mistake high initial cost for high cost of ownership.
A good comparison might be on bicycles. If you are going to take up bicyling you could go to your local discount store and buy a touring bike for $150-$200 US (or less.) Or you could buy a Canondale (hmm... interesting name) or better. One is expensive to buy but will last a life time or longer, the other is inexpensive to buy but you will be lucky if it lasts a year or two.
Frank
--
I plan on living forever - so far so good!
Well, are you sure you want to put the 50/1.4 in the same category as the 24-85 and the 75-300 ?
Jung57676
Forum Enthusiast
Bad analogy. bike has parts that require more care and wear out. Lenses don't. Most people I suspect won't wear out their 24-85.
Bjarne B. Dollerup
Well-known member
Try to shoot indoor sports with anything but a 2.8 lens. It doesn't matter whether it's a prime 200/2.8 or a 70-200/2.8 L. You will find that you really need that kind of glass to get the autofocus to work when you are photographing basketball or other indoor sports.
I fully realize that the L lenses are expensive, but the also hold their value well. I have had mind over 5 years now and I have little want to change them.
Bjarne
I fully realize that the L lenses are expensive, but the also hold their value well. I have had mind over 5 years now and I have little want to change them.
Bjarne
Frank Nichols
Senior Member
hmmm,
Maybe, but my 20 year old Canondale is in much better condition than my 5 year old Rebel lens. And the resale value is much better ( percentagewise) also.
Frank
I plan on living forever - so far so good!
Maybe, but my 20 year old Canondale is in much better condition than my 5 year old Rebel lens. And the resale value is much better ( percentagewise) also.
Frank
--
I plan on living forever - so far so good!
David Knight
Leading Member
I sure wouldn't. The 50 f/1.4 rocks though I have to admit since getting my 24-70 it doesn't see much action.Well, are you sure you want to put the 50/1.4 in the same category
as the 24-85 and the 75-300 ?
There is an element of truth in what you say.
But how many times have you taken a shot, and then after developing/printing realised what a great shot it is, and then only to find that there isn't enough detail there to enlarge it.....its happened to me and I'm sure its happened to others.
Oh and by the way the 24-70L is weather sealed, and so are a few others like the 70-200L/IS.
If you can afford it, then why not....you certainly won't be wasting your money.
If you can't afford L glass, then there is no great concern, as Canon has some very good non L lens out there...you just have to understand there limitations(usually speed and detail).
But how many times have you taken a shot, and then after developing/printing realised what a great shot it is, and then only to find that there isn't enough detail there to enlarge it.....its happened to me and I'm sure its happened to others.
Oh and by the way the 24-70L is weather sealed, and so are a few others like the 70-200L/IS.
If you can afford it, then why not....you certainly won't be wasting your money.
If you can't afford L glass, then there is no great concern, as Canon has some very good non L lens out there...you just have to understand there limitations(usually speed and detail).
zidar
Senior Member
Also, don't waste your money on a car that goes 195 mph cause the speed limit (at least in America) is normally below 75. Don't waste your money dating super-models cause normal-looking women are usually nicer and don't need a hit of coke every ten minutes. Don't buy a $7,000 bicycle if you are more than 4 pounds overweight. A bike for $1500 will do just fine. Don't buy a $9,000 Rolex Daytona Chronograph - a Timex Ironman for $39.99 is more accurate. etc. etc.
Zidar
Alaska
--
It's not about stuff.
http://www.pbase.com/zidar
Zidar
Alaska
--
It's not about stuff.
http://www.pbase.com/zidar
Jason Stoller
Veteran Member
My Easy Rider Gold Rush Titanium recumbent sure seems to be holding its value. My 1D has dropped in purchase price but my lenses seem to be maintaining a level close to where I bought them.
Jason
Jason Stoller [email protected]
We are just Beta Testers who pay the Camera Companies to test their new products!
Jason
--
Jason Stoller [email protected]
We are just Beta Testers who pay the Camera Companies to test their new products!
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum