TonyK_in_Texas
Senior Member
Special situations call for special equipment. Shooting indoor sports with available light is a special situation.
TonyK
--
TonyK
-
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
Henrik Tived
Well-known member
That is really funny - i'll have to tell my friend to give back his new L-lens - which he bought after comparing his 24-85 with my then 28-70L printing the images on 8x10" showed a clear difference in contrast and colour
he will be truly disappointed to know that his eyes has deceived him and while we are at I might as well join him in the cue to hand over mine
hey, if you don't want or can't buy an L-series lens then don't nobody is forcing you, it is all hype!
Henrik
too much to carry!! but a lot of fun to use
he will be truly disappointed to know that his eyes has deceived him and while we are at I might as well join him in the cue to hand over mine
hey, if you don't want or can't buy an L-series lens then don't nobody is forcing you, it is all hype!
Henrik
--
too much to carry!! but a lot of fun to use
Arnie Mauer
Leading Member
Strange, though. When you go here: http://www.usa.canon.com/html/canonindex.html
you have to click "Consumer" to get to the lenses ;-)
- Arnie
D
Dave Kunze
Guest
She doesn't have the time or inclination to spend hours climbing the PS learning curve. I hooked up a HiTi photo printer to her computer last week and she's turning out prints faster than Wallyworld! The combination of the Canon S400 (which is the first digital camera that actually fits in her purse - a very big deal to her) and the HiTi printer have really hit her "sweet spot" for photography. She can now control the process from beginning to end without help from me.
I love seeing her come into the room with a big smile on her face saying, "Look what I printed out!".
kunza
I love seeing her come into the room with a big smile on her face saying, "Look what I printed out!".
kunza
L
Lee Rothman
Guest
I would have to completely agree. It makes more dollar sense NOT to invest in professional level gear for consumer use. Hard for some to swallow but sometimes the truth is hard to accept. Well put though. Glad you had the guts to say it out loud.........
Juli Valley
Forum Pro
Why someone would buy a DSLR if 4 x 6 prints and web photos were the goal except for the lack of shutter lag which was the chief pain of consumer cameras for me.
))Andrew Chiciak
Senior Member
I have used the 50 1.4, 28-70L, and 28-135 extensively in professional situtations and have not been able to see a difference in print or screen
except that the 28-135 has been sharper in some cases.
See my other post for examples:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1014&message=4911039
except that the 28-135 has been sharper in some cases.
See my other post for examples:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1014&message=4911039
W
William C
Guest
Is there another what to view, photos? PC/MAC or prints is the only
ones I know off. Since I do both, buy "L" lens
The smallest size I print is at 10.5x8 and if I like the photo will go
11x17 or larger. So I buy "L" lens
Not interested in Cat/Dogs photos or office party photos. Interested
in landscapes, cityscapes, animals, people and travel. So I buy "L" lens.
But like you said I not a Pro. So why should I get a pro application like
PhotoShop when I should use the free software that came with the
camera. PhotoShop is a Pro software. Buying lens should be for the long
term, because you can switch camera bodies but you will keep you lens.
Frankly I think your message was a waste of bandwidth.
My Two Cents
Bill
--
“What actually happens in the real world is what photographers needs to know.”
Michael Reichmann – Luminous Landscape
Andrew Chiciak
Senior Member
That's all well and good...just show me a picture thats really sharp from a 28-70 at F2.8
Andy C
--As it happens I am a Pro and need lenses which aren't the weak link
in the chain and perform at F2.8 BUT It's not ONLY pros which need
this, there are a LOT of people who shoot concerts, sport, Theatre
and other low light venues who benefit from fast aperture zooms and
even faster aperture primes who need to stop action as well as
shoot in low light. fast lenses are also excellent for creative DOF.
There aren't any consumer primes over 100mm and consumer Zooms are
very slow after that (usually F5.6 etc) - also OLD fast high
quality L glass is almost as cheap as higher end consumer glass -
witness the 80-200L F2.8 and 28-80 F2.8-4L ..
Buy lenses to suit your Photography not to be a Status symbol or to
satisfy an inverse snobbery reaction, also some of us want our
lenses to work hard and last a lifetime of EOS bodies, the old Ls
have certainly proved that Quality matters...
As it happens, the 28-135IS you mention plays an important role -
indoor architecture and museums etc where Tripods aren't allowed or
flash is undesirable - if they made a 24-135IS L F2.8 with the
same quality as the 28-70L, I'd Jump at it ..
Of course you can get great results using consumer glass, but don't
knock those who NEED the features and quality L lenses offer
--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist
My Ugly mug and submitted Photos at -------->
http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=27855
Andy C
Jason Hutchinson
Forum Pro
Of course, Canon doesn't make a lens wider than 20, or longer than 300 that's not L. So, everyone buying wide angle or super telephoto lenses is wasting their money. Unless you're a pro of course.
Jason
Jason
As I see it there is a lot of mis-information on both sides of this debate.
It is true that people may be buying more lens than they really need. It certainly would be kind of silly for somebody new to photography to buy a 10D and $5,000 worth of lenses. I do believe in the "natural selection processes" in a free economy. If somebody has the money for something and they can afford it and want it, then it is not "wrong" for them to buy it even if it is a luxury item. Some people have been very successful by buying the best, that may even be how they could afford to buy "L" lenses for a hobby.
I also see people carping about people buying expensive DSLR's in the first place and how "smart" they are for waiting. Did these people ever stop and think that maybe the reason that these people could AFFORD the expensive cameras is that they are "early adopters" that SUCCEEDED precisely because they were early adopters and not pack followers. The same goes for "L" lenses. Maybe these people can afford "L" lense because they did not buy cheap stuff that broke on them.
Furthermore it TOTALLY ingores the issue of F-number and lower light performance. If you want F2.8 in a zoom then you are into either Canon L lenses or 3rd party lenses. I have not seen a 3rd party ZOOM that performs nearly as well at F2.8 as the Canon L lenses.
A large part of what somebody is buying in an "L" lense is good performance at wide aperture.
IT IS TRUE that if all one is ever going to shoot at is F8, then there is little difference in sharpness between a $1000 L lens at a $200 cheapie consumer lens.
NOW TO THE PEOPLE that think an "L" lense is and Investment.
I think it is wrong to think of any lens as an "investment." With rare exception they will be worth less than you pay for them. Overally the lenses will go down in value slower than a DSLR and their lifetime will be longer on average than the bodies. If an expensive car holds a higher percentage of its value than a cheaper care, it can still gone down in value in absolute dollars more than the cheaper car.
The lenses will be improved on over time and get USED and worn, but not has quickly as DSRLs will be obsoleted. It is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that you will ever get back what you paid for a lens (OR ANYTHING ELSE you ever buy other than Stock or Bonds). A 28-70F2.8L when down in value when the 24-70F2.8L was released. The 80-200F2.8L went down in value when the 70-200F2.8L was released and in turn the 70-200F2.8L lost some luster when the 70-200F2.8L-IS came out.
Many people buy more lens than they need caught up in the enthusiasm. There can also be a snobbish attitude toward those with a "consumer" lens. Everybody does not have to buy the very best to have a great time with photography.
There was a time not long ago (before buying my D30 for a whopping $3,000 back in 2000), that I thought a Tamron 28-200 was a nice lens. I took a few thousand pictures with it and enjoyed the lens. But with the D30, I decided to get some better optics (better being a Sigma 17-35, Canon 28-135IS and a 50F1.8) and YES even on a 3MP DSLR I could see the difference. These differences would hardly be dectectable on an uncropped 4x6 print. The 50F1.8 showed me how sharp things could be with a prim. Then I needed low light and got a 70-200F2.8L and 1.4X and 2X teleconverter for long range. I found I needed even lower light performance for indoor sports and got a 85F1.8 prime and while I was at it I upgraded my 50F1.8. While the 70-200F2.8L with teleconverters was OK for outdoor sports, I wanted more zoom range and IS so I got the 100-400IS.
This could be said about buying a camera in the first place. If you are not a pro, any money you spend on a camera is "wasted" in terms of return on investment.
It is true that people may be buying more lens than they really need. It certainly would be kind of silly for somebody new to photography to buy a 10D and $5,000 worth of lenses. I do believe in the "natural selection processes" in a free economy. If somebody has the money for something and they can afford it and want it, then it is not "wrong" for them to buy it even if it is a luxury item. Some people have been very successful by buying the best, that may even be how they could afford to buy "L" lenses for a hobby.
I also see people carping about people buying expensive DSLR's in the first place and how "smart" they are for waiting. Did these people ever stop and think that maybe the reason that these people could AFFORD the expensive cameras is that they are "early adopters" that SUCCEEDED precisely because they were early adopters and not pack followers. The same goes for "L" lenses. Maybe these people can afford "L" lense because they did not buy cheap stuff that broke on them.
This statement is clearly wrong. If you are looking at images on a big monitor you are much more likely to see more things wrong than you ever did with film. People are looking at their images all blown up to 100% or more in Photoshop which is like looking at them blown up to some like 30x20 inch prints. You need very sharp lenses to support this.
This can be true or false depending on what you are doing. First of all a DSLR is probably a waste of money if all you ever want is 4x6 prints of the full image. If you are going to CROP the shot, then you need a better starting image. Heck, it all one is going to do is make 4x6 Prints, stay with a cheap 3rd party zoom.
Furthermore it TOTALLY ingores the issue of F-number and lower light performance. If you want F2.8 in a zoom then you are into either Canon L lenses or 3rd party lenses. I have not seen a 3rd party ZOOM that performs nearly as well at F2.8 as the Canon L lenses.
A large part of what somebody is buying in an "L" lense is good performance at wide aperture.
IT IS TRUE that if all one is ever going to shoot at is F8, then there is little difference in sharpness between a $1000 L lens at a $200 cheapie consumer lens.
I have a 28-135IS and like it for what it is. I also have a Sigma 17-35F2.8 - F4, 50F1.4, 85F1.8, 70-200F2.8L, and 100-400F4.5-F5.6IS. If I am out and about and only want to have one lens the 28-135IS is usually my choice. But it I have all my lenses with me, I almost never will pick it as there is always a better lens for the given job.
NOW TO THE PEOPLE that think an "L" lense is and Investment.
I think it is wrong to think of any lens as an "investment." With rare exception they will be worth less than you pay for them. Overally the lenses will go down in value slower than a DSLR and their lifetime will be longer on average than the bodies. If an expensive car holds a higher percentage of its value than a cheaper care, it can still gone down in value in absolute dollars more than the cheaper car.
The lenses will be improved on over time and get USED and worn, but not has quickly as DSRLs will be obsoleted. It is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that you will ever get back what you paid for a lens (OR ANYTHING ELSE you ever buy other than Stock or Bonds). A 28-70F2.8L when down in value when the 24-70F2.8L was released. The 80-200F2.8L went down in value when the 70-200F2.8L was released and in turn the 70-200F2.8L lost some luster when the 70-200F2.8L-IS came out.
Many people buy more lens than they need caught up in the enthusiasm. There can also be a snobbish attitude toward those with a "consumer" lens. Everybody does not have to buy the very best to have a great time with photography.
There was a time not long ago (before buying my D30 for a whopping $3,000 back in 2000), that I thought a Tamron 28-200 was a nice lens. I took a few thousand pictures with it and enjoyed the lens. But with the D30, I decided to get some better optics (better being a Sigma 17-35, Canon 28-135IS and a 50F1.8) and YES even on a 3MP DSLR I could see the difference. These differences would hardly be dectectable on an uncropped 4x6 print. The 50F1.8 showed me how sharp things could be with a prim. Then I needed low light and got a 70-200F2.8L and 1.4X and 2X teleconverter for long range. I found I needed even lower light performance for indoor sports and got a 85F1.8 prime and while I was at it I upgraded my 50F1.8. While the 70-200F2.8L with teleconverters was OK for outdoor sports, I wanted more zoom range and IS so I got the 100-400IS.
DavidP #28649
Forum Pro
If you need an f/2.8 zoom, you're forced into an L lens.
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
Rob Martin
Senior Member
if that what it's worth......
--
------------------------------
if you take the time to do something urgent, make sure it is important .............................
--
------------------------------
if you take the time to do something urgent, make sure it is important .............................
Minxin Bao
Active member
Although I do not own L, only 28-135 IS, I still like to have an L. But just like him, my pocket does not allow me to do so. But I will say, for learning, 28-135 is enough. for hobby, depend on your pocket, for enthusiastic, buy one even sell your car.
That is my .02 c
That is my .02 c
P
Paul Pope
Guest
Glamour/Fashion/Portrait photography for the past 5 years has been more or less a sideline/hobby almost. 95% of my studio work is product in which sharpness is the #1 priority. This has rubbed off on me in such a way that even when I'm outdoors its affected my "style".
This does not bother me because I realise its happening and lately I've been trying to do things a little differently however I think the Ultrasharp Nuke Em' lighting style I've developed has its own appeal.
We are all different and approach the same subject in different ways and none of us are right or wrong just different thats what makes us artists.
To give you a example Stephen Eastwood is a very very good photographer and I really love his work, he photograph's similar subject matter to me but his style is completely different to mine. That doesn't mean he's any better or worse or more or less talented then me or anyone else he's just got a different approach.
For me sharpness is a virtue however what I was talknig about in this thread is that 95% of the people using these lenses simply cannot spot the difference in a print regardless of what they are tying to achieve in their photography to them L glass is a waste until the train their eye to reach the limits of normal glass.
If people were honest in this forum the vast majority of people here would admit that before DSLR's they had never owned a camera with a interchangable lens before and that the became interested in photography by using a P&S digital camera and sharing,emailing,discussing photos. Many of these people are not really that interested in photography at all but rather interested in the technical aspects of digital photography and the equipment itself in essence they are the digital photographic equivlent of computer geeks that is more interested in the gear itself and its operation then actualy producing something with it. Its a trap even I find easy to fall into and in fact there is absolutley nothing wrong with it. People collect cameras who do not take photograph's its a similar thing. These type's of people know that they don't need L glass but simply "want" it and I say good for them. If digital photography converts just one single person into the next Ansel Adam's or Herb Ritts regardless of how they started out in the hobby then in my opinion its worth the thousands of people that just like playing around with camera's.
Different strokes for different folks ....
This does not bother me because I realise its happening and lately I've been trying to do things a little differently however I think the Ultrasharp Nuke Em' lighting style I've developed has its own appeal.
We are all different and approach the same subject in different ways and none of us are right or wrong just different thats what makes us artists.
To give you a example Stephen Eastwood is a very very good photographer and I really love his work, he photograph's similar subject matter to me but his style is completely different to mine. That doesn't mean he's any better or worse or more or less talented then me or anyone else he's just got a different approach.
For me sharpness is a virtue however what I was talknig about in this thread is that 95% of the people using these lenses simply cannot spot the difference in a print regardless of what they are tying to achieve in their photography to them L glass is a waste until the train their eye to reach the limits of normal glass.
If people were honest in this forum the vast majority of people here would admit that before DSLR's they had never owned a camera with a interchangable lens before and that the became interested in photography by using a P&S digital camera and sharing,emailing,discussing photos. Many of these people are not really that interested in photography at all but rather interested in the technical aspects of digital photography and the equipment itself in essence they are the digital photographic equivlent of computer geeks that is more interested in the gear itself and its operation then actualy producing something with it. Its a trap even I find easy to fall into and in fact there is absolutley nothing wrong with it. People collect cameras who do not take photograph's its a similar thing. These type's of people know that they don't need L glass but simply "want" it and I say good for them. If digital photography converts just one single person into the next Ansel Adam's or Herb Ritts regardless of how they started out in the hobby then in my opinion its worth the thousands of people that just like playing around with camera's.
Different strokes for different folks ....
George Sears
Leading Member
I have the 'cheap' primes, 28 and 50 Canons, plus a 24/85. For a lot of things I can see the difference, but with inkjet/matte, the sharper one isn't always best, to me. I don't say anything but "Do what you do", and decide for yourself.
The 10D generates a resolution you can measure in what is essentially monochrome, the charts. To generate color, the pixels are shared, so that part of the resolution is fudged somewhat. So I don't think using a high res lens works out quite the way it would with film.
There's an awful lot of processing with the 10D. Mostly, it's great, even though it is something of an illusion, a 'treatment'. Unfortunately, I think you can push the images to a point where the processing gets to be a problem. Plus there is the fudged color. When I use an 'average' lens, the lens is almost certainly the limiting factor. When I use a decent prime, I can end up with a picture that is harsh. Honestly, some are too sharp, especially very complex textures with color.
I make a lot of 11 by 14 prints. If I USM a print from an average lens, the effect is sometimes better, to me, than a sharp lens version of a similar picture. I'm not running tests, I'm taking pictures, so it's subjective. If you start with a sharp picture, you can't control it. Yes, it's better in a pure sense, but you have less ability to create an illusion.
Overall, even with an average zoom, the 10D output is much better at 11 by 14 then the D30. I showed a couple of 10D pix to a guy last night, someone who had seen a lot of D30 pix (same lens). He was a little blown away, and the whole thing basically bores him.
It's a very advanced camera, and people probably need to sort out how it works with everything else. The camera processes, you post process, you pick a printer and paper. Lots of variables, not much time to sort it out. Yet.
George Sears
The 10D generates a resolution you can measure in what is essentially monochrome, the charts. To generate color, the pixels are shared, so that part of the resolution is fudged somewhat. So I don't think using a high res lens works out quite the way it would with film.
There's an awful lot of processing with the 10D. Mostly, it's great, even though it is something of an illusion, a 'treatment'. Unfortunately, I think you can push the images to a point where the processing gets to be a problem. Plus there is the fudged color. When I use an 'average' lens, the lens is almost certainly the limiting factor. When I use a decent prime, I can end up with a picture that is harsh. Honestly, some are too sharp, especially very complex textures with color.
I make a lot of 11 by 14 prints. If I USM a print from an average lens, the effect is sometimes better, to me, than a sharp lens version of a similar picture. I'm not running tests, I'm taking pictures, so it's subjective. If you start with a sharp picture, you can't control it. Yes, it's better in a pure sense, but you have less ability to create an illusion.
Overall, even with an average zoom, the 10D output is much better at 11 by 14 then the D30. I showed a couple of 10D pix to a guy last night, someone who had seen a lot of D30 pix (same lens). He was a little blown away, and the whole thing basically bores him.
It's a very advanced camera, and people probably need to sort out how it works with everything else. The camera processes, you post process, you pick a printer and paper. Lots of variables, not much time to sort it out. Yet.
George Sears
arthur53821
Senior Member
The post is mixing together sharpenss of the lens with how fast it is.
What is probably true is that under ideal lighting conditions (outdoors during the day, or studio lights) and if you don't intend to make enlargements bigger than 8x10, you probably don't need the L glass. But if you want to work in poor ambient lighting, or as pointed out sports photography, you will need the faster (and therefore more expensive and heavier) lesn.
What is probably true is that under ideal lighting conditions (outdoors during the day, or studio lights) and if you don't intend to make enlargements bigger than 8x10, you probably don't need the L glass. But if you want to work in poor ambient lighting, or as pointed out sports photography, you will need the faster (and therefore more expensive and heavier) lesn.
P
Paul Pope
Guest
You don't need L glass to take great 8x10's or even 20x30's...
If showed you 2 prints of exactly the same subject from the 10D @f/8 one shot with a 24-70L and one shot with the 24-85 even you Juli darling would not be able to tell the difference at ANY print size.
The real advantages are the faster lens if your into low light stuff OR L glass has a definte advantage in wide angle stuff ..but for 95% of what I see posted here its overkill ...that doesn't mean its not nice or that you all shouldn't TRY to get it ..it just means you don't NEED it.
If showed you 2 prints of exactly the same subject from the 10D @f/8 one shot with a 24-70L and one shot with the 24-85 even you Juli darling would not be able to tell the difference at ANY print size.
The real advantages are the faster lens if your into low light stuff OR L glass has a definte advantage in wide angle stuff ..but for 95% of what I see posted here its overkill ...that doesn't mean its not nice or that you all shouldn't TRY to get it ..it just means you don't NEED it.
Olga Johnson
Forum Pro
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum