do not waste your money on L glass

Paul Pope · Apr 21, 2003

However in my opinion ...(this is a big statement for me a confessed L glass addict) I will say this about the 50 1.4 ...... it is the only non L glass in Cannon's line up that in my opinion consistantly outperfoms its L glass equivlent in this case the 50L 1.0 which I consider (and yes I own one) to be a most dissapointing lens...

GOiNK said:
Paul Pope said:

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.

Click to expand...

Well, are you sure you want to put the 50/1.4 in the same category
as the 24-85 and the 75-300 ?

Russ Jennings · Apr 21, 2003

I'm buying a 1Ds soon, and I decided to wait on lenses. I have a 28-200mm zoom, which I almost never take off my D60, and it'll be what goes onto the 1Ds. I think that the Body is the limiting factor in my photography at the moment. The D60's AF is really bad, and I lose a lot of shots due to this. Why spend more money on an expensive lens when the shots will still be out of focus? When the shots from the D60 are in focus, they have excellent clarity and detail. Who knows, perhaps 11 megapixels will start to show weaknesses in the lens. All I know is, at the moment, my $300 zoom lens is outperforming my $2200 camera body.

Russ

Russ Jennings · Apr 21, 2003

A little of both, but more the fisherman. He's throwing something out there, and waiting to see who bites.

Seth Honeyman said:
Adam-T said:

Seth Honeyman said:

sorry, fairly new to forums, what is a troll or trolling (I
appreciate it's not good)

Click to expand...

I didn't mention Trolls, but they are people who post messages on
forums deliberately to start a fight

Click to expand...

--
Regards - Seth

Juli Valley · Apr 21, 2003

The L glass usually comes with a wider aperture for lowlight subjects. You are right. At f 8 or 16, it would be hard to tell which is L and which is the 24-85.

DavidP #28649 · Apr 21, 2003

why? 'cuz you have to CARRY it, and it develops muscles.

So, I guess you ladies will have to stick to the non-L stuff.

It'd sure be nice to be able to routinely use f/8 to f/11 and ISO 200, and non-L glass.

Juli Valley said:
The L glass usually comes with a wider aperture for lowlight
subjects. You are right. At f 8 or 16, it would be hard to tell
which is L and which is the 24-85.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

Ulysses · Apr 21, 2003

Thank you!

Why don't more photographers post this line of reasoning? Gawwd...

Paul Pope said:
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.

--

Ulysses

Paul Pope · Apr 21, 2003

Ulysses said:
Why don't more photographers post this line of reasoning? Gawwd...

Paul Pope said:

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.

Click to expand...

--

Ulysses

Pixel Warp · Apr 21, 2003

Dave Kunze said:
kunza

Juli Valley said:

Not me. I print mostly 8 x 10s.

Click to expand...

--

Chris

http://www.pbase.com/chris_parrish

Ulysses · Apr 21, 2003

Hahahahahahah... Yeah, I got lost and didn't realize where I was.

)

The above was perhaps my first post here. Shades of things to come, perhaps?

I must have been compelled by your open and honest take on the glass thing. I'm ALL for great glass, and the 'L' seems to be amongst the best out there, but good gravy. If folks realized that their final outcome was more dependent upon their composition than upon L glass, things would go a lot smoother and more efficiently for them (at least that's what I'd hope for myself in a similar position).

Paul Pope said:
Ulysses said:

Thank you!

Why don't more photographers post this line of reasoning? Gawwd...

Click to expand...

--

Ulysses

Scott Sanders · Apr 21, 2003

I just dont get it. Yea, yea it holds its value better, but look at all the people who "invested" in a 28-70L. Its all gonna drop in value when we the new model comes out. I am not saying L lenses arent worth the money i am just saying its not an "investment".

jdobbs2001 said:
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.

--
Scott A Sanders

zidar · Apr 21, 2003

I almost bought one in Munich in 1971...$227. Now I buy Russian watches, a habit I do not recommend. I got a great Soviet Navy divers watch. It's as big as a saucer and the illumination paint is so bright you can read by it.

Zidar
Alaska
--
It's not about stuff.
http://www.pbase.com/zidar

zidar · Apr 21, 2003

Best deals on bikes for cheap is at garage sales in yuppie neighborhoods.

Zidar
Alaska
--
It's not about stuff.
http://www.pbase.com/zidar

DavidP #28649 · Apr 21, 2003

Well, my lens collection has lost less value than money I had in stocks the last few years.

Scott Sanders said:
I just dont get it. Yea, yea it holds its value better, but look
at all the people who "invested" in a 28-70L. Its all gonna drop
in value when we the new model comes out. I am not saying L lenses
arent worth the money i am just saying its not an "investment".

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

Jason Krellner · Apr 21, 2003

Scott Sanders said:
jdobbs2001 said:

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.

Click to expand...

--
Scott A Sanders

Olga Johnson · Apr 21, 2003

Ulysses said:
Hahahahahahah... Yeah, I got lost and didn't realize where I was.
)

The above was perhaps my first post here. Shades of things to come,
perhaps?

I hope so.

This forum needs open minds and balanced statements.

Olga

Mishkin · Apr 21, 2003

beware of that luminescent paint -- at least on old Russian watches, it's radioactive.

zidar said:
I almost bought one in Munich in 1971...$227. Now I buy Russian
watches, a habit I do not recommend. I got a great Soviet Navy
divers watch. It's as big as a saucer and the illumination paint is
so bright you can read by it.

Zidar
Alaska
--
It's not about stuff.
http://www.pbase.com/zidar

--
Mishkin

Ulysses · Apr 21, 2003

It's going to be a while before I make a purchase. I have some planned expenses coming up related to our new house and so forth. Gotta prioritize. Still, I'm hopeful that one day. . . .

Say, I had some more 420EX questions for you in the other forum and would definitely gain from your observations. Thx.

OlgaJ said:
I hope so. This forum needs open minds and balanced statements.

--

Ulysses

HANK K · Apr 21, 2003

Some of my best work to date & that was 25 yrs ago. I kinda miss the darkroom stuff, but don't ever plan on going back.

jdobbs2001 said:
Jason Stoller said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Glenn James · Apr 21, 2003

DavidP said:
Even $1500 is over my budget for a bike.

Yea, but I bet you don't say that about some of your lenses

The people I ride with drop $5,000 on a bike without batting an eye. Of course most of them, like me, take their riding seriously. They either race or did race, and put in 100 to 200 miles a week.

This gets me thinking. In cycling, we have a term for people that have the best equipment, wear the clothing that the pros wear, but can't handle themselves in a pack - "Fred". Is there a term for photographers that have all the best stuff but use full automatic mode because they don't know what an f-stop is and what happens when you change it?

Glenn

--

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/gjames

Michael Long · Apr 21, 2003

The primary reason you're not going to see much of a difference at 4x6 is you threw away 90% of the detail.

The secondary reason is that the 10D crops out most of the "bad part" (technical term) of the lens.

On a 1Ds or full-frame camera, "L" lenses have lots of exotic glass and elements to correct for edge and corner issues (softness, distortion, etc.).

On your 10D you may be right. Not everyone has a 10D. And in a few years more and more people will have FF.

do not waste your money on L glass

Paul Pope

Guest

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Ulysses

Guest

Paul Pope

Guest

Senior Member

Ulysses

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Ulysses

Guest

Well-known member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts