do not waste your money on L glass

DavidP #28649 · Apr 21, 2003

What do you use for dust control?

Paul Pope said:
just that you unlike me have been known to use less then f/11 ;-)

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

Paul Pope · Apr 21, 2003

Nikon don't make DSLR's ....
sorry that you read Nikon don't update their DSLR's
Come on the D1x is a dinosaur ....

Mishkin said:
It looks like that special "L" letter by its own virtue drives
people crazy. I personally don't care if 70-200IS I own does or
does not have that "L" or red ring on it. It's its CAPABILITIES
that I bought it four. It's f/2.8, IS, color/contrast, build
quality that I bought it for, because I do use these very often.

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...

--
Mishkin

Jarmo Muukka · Apr 21, 2003

My reasons. I have been disappointed to my digital P&S. When I bought it exactly three years ago, it was great, so I thought at that time. Soon I found its shortcomings. I have found more and more its shortcomings and weaknesses. We compared S10, S100 (Ixus) and G1 at work, but to me G1 didn't perform as good as I thought it should perform. The images were quite close to each other (at least the ones we used for testing). Now I understand why. It's optics, sensor, in-camera processing (sharpening etc.) for example.

Then two months ago I noticed that 10D had affordable price and its image quality was great. That was it. I'm in and excited.

The waiting time has been long, but in a week I will have the 10D, rest of the lenses and a flash. Other stuff I have already.

Maybe you shoud start the thread. I won't steal your idea.

JMu

DavidP said:
That could be the subject of an interesting thread: why DID you
buy a digital SLR?

For me, I was SICK and TIRED of scanning negatives from my EOS-3.
Enough so that I was willing to give up that great camera for the
D30, warts and all.

Paul Pope · Apr 21, 2003

A assistant .... she can blow pretty hard

DavidP said:
Paul Pope said:

just that you unlike me have been known to use less then f/11 ;-)

Click to expand...

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

John338 · Apr 21, 2003

Jarmo Muukka said:
BTW, I don't have all equips yet, but I expect them to arrive here
later in this week.

JMu

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...

Looking at at a high % of the photographs on this site it would'nt make much difference if the photo's were taken with bottle glass, some are just gadget collectors and NOT photographers.

Forrest41926 · Apr 21, 2003

DavidP #28649 said:
When you've actually got time to change the lenses, or can easily
move to get the framing you want, primes are the way to go.

Or if you can take a bunch of shots with one lens, then switch to another lens and get a bunch more shots ... sort of like how a move is filmed. They don't record every scene in the order they're going to be played back...

DavidP #28649 said:
For certain types of shooting, zooms make more sense. At least
until the lights get very low or the focal lengths get very long,
then one must rely on primes again, as they are the only solution
available.

It really would be nice if they could make some f/1.8 zooms, huh?

Mishkin · Apr 21, 2003

I just wanted to point out that things could be different if there were no "L" and red ring, just more expensive lenses and less expensive lenses. Looks like letter "L" by itself makes a lot of stir. It's a product of some marketing genius at Canon.

Paul Pope said:
Mishkin said:

It looks like that special "L" letter by its own virtue drives
people crazy. I personally don't care if 70-200IS I own does or
does not have that "L" or red ring on it. It's its CAPABILITIES
that I bought it four. It's f/2.8, IS, color/contrast, build
quality that I bought it for, because I do use these very often.

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...

--
Mishkin

Click to expand...

--
Mishkin

Keith Dodson145047 · Apr 21, 2003

Forrest said:
He wrote books.

--
Keith
http://www.pbase.com/dod1011/galleries
(More images to come...)
(See my profile for gear)

'If Saddam survives the war but loses a leg how pi$$ed will his body doubles be?'

DavidP #28649 · Apr 21, 2003

Forrest said:
Or if you can take a bunch of shots with one lens, then switch to
another lens and get a bunch more shots ... sort of like how a move
is filmed. They don't record every scene in the order they're
going to be played back...

I've done that. Unfortuantely, directors have the option of starting and stopping the action at will. Hey, guys -- do that again, will ya? I had the wrong lens on when you did that. LOL.

Forrest41926 said:
It really would be nice if they could make some f/1.8 zooms, huh?

I'm probably glad they don't. I'd be broke, and my back would be broke, too.

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

Mishkin · Apr 21, 2003

DavidP said:
Now, if you want to carry my bag of L's that 2.8 miles (each way)
to Rainbow Falls if I ever come out that way, I'll let you use the
lenses there.

You'll only see me in the forum after that

You'll check my profile and see your lenses in it!

LOL

Forrest41926 · Apr 21, 2003

DavidP #28649 said:
DavidP #28649 said:

Or if you can take a bunch of shots with one lens, then switch to
another lens and get a bunch more shots ... sort of like how a move
is filmed. They don't record every scene in the order they're
going to be played back...

Click to expand...

DavidP #28649 said:
I've done that. Unfortuantely, directors have the option of
starting and stopping the action at will. Hey, guys -- do that
again, will ya? I had the wrong lens on when you did that. LOL.

I guess my mountains and rivers are a little more obedient... Or at least I can be sure that patience will indeed pay off in my situation.

But I think if I'm planning to come back with X shots of one type, and Y shots of another kind ... I might not get exactly the ones I wanted, but I can probably come away with enough decent shots to pick out 2 forest pictures, 1 boulder, and 3 mountains...

Cory Parris · Apr 21, 2003

I do a ton of photos at low light f2 @ 1/40th type of thing. Once you get to 800 each step of light makes a big difference in quality. I have heard only good things about the 20 2.8, however!
--
http://www.parrisphoto.com

Cory Parris · Apr 21, 2003

Do you have personal experience with the 20 1.8 from Sigma? I have never known anyone that actually owned it. Thanks!
Cory

Forrest said:
Forrest41926 said:

I think that this forum ignores the value of prime lenses. You can
get sharper photos from a $300 prime than you can from a $1400 L
zoom. The same holds true of low-light photography. A flexible
f2.8 zoom really pales when compared to a "inflexible" f2 or f1.4
prime. The ability to shoot at 800 rather than 1600 or 3200 will
make a huge difference in quality of the final photo. Canon makes
some really incredible prime lenses for a very low price. I have
the 35 f2 and the 50 1.4. The 85 1.8 and 100 f2 are also great
lenses. The only thing missing in their prime lineup is an
affordable ultrawide like a 20 1.8 for $500-600. Any Canon
engineers out there?

Click to expand...

Everything you said is spot on.

Except the 20/1.8; Sigma makes a pretty good one. It just has a
funny filter size.

--
http://www.parrisphoto.com

Cory Parris · Apr 21, 2003

I find I get better photos if I am required to move my feet and don't have the option to zoom. That being said, you, of course, have a valid point!
Cory

DavidP said:
For certain types of shooting, zooms make more sense. At least
until the lights get very low or the focal lengths get very long,
then one must rely on primes again, as they are the only solution
available.

Forrest said:

DavidP #28649 said:

I think that this forum ignores the value of prime lenses. You can
get sharper photos from a $300 prime than you can from a $1400 L
zoom. The same holds true of low-light photography. A flexible
f2.8 zoom really pales when compared to a "inflexible" f2 or f1.4
prime. The ability to shoot at 800 rather than 1600 or 3200 will
make a huge difference in quality of the final photo. Canon makes
some really incredible prime lenses for a very low price. I have
the 35 f2 and the 50 1.4. The 85 1.8 and 100 f2 are also great
lenses. The only thing missing in their prime lineup is an
affordable ultrawide like a 20 1.8 for $500-600. Any Canon
engineers out there?

Click to expand...

Everything you said is spot on.

Except the 20/1.8; Sigma makes a pretty good one. It just has a
funny filter size.

Click to expand...

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

--
http://www.parrisphoto.com

Amy Kleck111811 · Apr 21, 2003

From my reading, the 28-135 is one of the more popular lenses. Hopefully this will add some balance to the discussion on "which lens should I get". It's got to be agonizing sometimes.

I'll agree with the person who mentioned that part of the progression in photography is to be more and more critical of your work. At some point, graduating to the best glass will make sense.

Petteri Sulonen · Apr 21, 2003

Cory Parris said:
I think that this forum ignores the value of prime lenses. You can
get sharper photos from a $300 prime than you can from a $1400 L
zoom. The same holds true of low-light photography. A flexible
f2.8 zoom really pales when compared to a "inflexible" f2 or f1.4
prime. The ability to shoot at 800 rather than 1600 or 3200 will
make a huge difference in quality of the final photo. Canon makes
some really incredible prime lenses for a very low price. I have
the 35 f2 and the 50 1.4. The 85 1.8 and 100 f2 are also great
lenses. The only thing missing in their prime lineup is an
affordable ultrawide like a 20 1.8 for $500-600. Any Canon
engineers out there?

I was wondering if I'm the only Prime Geek on this forum. Glad to see I'm not!

I'd also like to add another point: portability and "intimidation factor". Medium wide to short tele primes are generally very light and compact compared to zooms (OK, there are exceptions like the monster of a 35/1.4). This means they're easier to carry and spook people out much less. Believe me, it makes a lot of difference after a few hours, if you can carry a camera with the strap wrapped around your wrist, or around your neck so that the bottom edge of the camera isn't digging into your chest.

Petteri Has No Zoom. Petteri Needs No Zoom.

(50/1.4, with 17/3.5 due to be delivered tomorrow and 28/1.8 on order)

PS. For some landscapes with the completely unsuitable 50 mm focal length, see http://www.seittipaja.fi/dawn-spring/index.html .

--
Portfolio: http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/
Photo lessons: http://www.seittipaja.fi/lessons/
Lessons mirror: http://www.ivydesign.com/petteri/

Larry H. Smith · Apr 21, 2003

"do not waste your money on L glass"

jdobbs,

My response to your "correction" thread was based on what was contained in your post there.

I came over here to see what had started-things, ...and found an obvioius red-flag in the thread's title (did not bother to read all 130+ posts ;-).

Any L-glass fan, reading only the subect title, would immediately note the implied "L-glass is a waste of money!", and react to it.

The fact that your "If" ("you are not a pro") and other "conditions" (casual shooting, computer display, etc.) make your position one that can be supported, whether agreed-with or not, is lost in the flames ignited by the title.

Such is the nature of web communication ;-)

The fact that threads denigrating L-glass ownership as in-some-way "frivolous" appear frequently here (as noted in my other response) gives some readers a short fuse on the subject. As you can probably tell, I have had enough of them myself.

Larry

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.

Stephen Eastwood · Apr 21, 2003

I got to get myself an assistant that blows well.

f 16 and still a depth issue looks like I will be at f22 soon LOL

Paul Pope said:
DavidP said:

Paul Pope said:

just that you unlike me have been known to use less then f/11 ;-)

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

--
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.nyphotographics.com

Tom Melanson · Apr 21, 2003

Forrest said:
Forrest41926 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

Click to expand...

If you are not a food critic, you will be wasting money on eating
at restaurants and fancy grocery store food. Two bowls of brown
rice and a piece of fruit is all you need to sustain your body.
Anything beyond that and you are WASTING your money. Eat cheaply
and stuff all your money under your matteress.

And then tell me where you live.

Tom Melanson · Apr 21, 2003

Juli Valley said:
I snagged the older version 80-200L 2.8 at $725 at KEH. It was
very clean, had the caps, hood and collar.

do not waste your money on L glass

Forum Pro

Paul Pope

Guest

Well-known member

Paul Pope

Guest

Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts