Best lenses for your money...

MLynnL · Jun 10, 2003

Last Friday I tested out my 300mm f/4L IS over the range of apertures and found it to be about as sharp at f/4 as it is at f/8. The quality started to drop off around 11 and continued downward from there. I will try to post some crops tonight. This was on a 10D so results may be different on a body with a smaller crop factor like a 1Ds.

Greg

Forrest said:
Well, it's discontinued, but a used ( or even new and sitting on
the shelf ) should be a lot cheaper than the current IS model.
It's definately sharper below f/8. Both 300 mm primes are
fantastic lenses, but the older one is razor sharp right out of the
gate.

DavidP #28649 · Jun 10, 2003

Where I could really see the differences were on very close-up shots. Ruler tests, actually. LOL. You could clearly see the sharpness was better on the 135/2.

At distances like what you're showing in those images, I'm not so sure that the differences would be as easily noticed.

And in "real world" shots, I'm not so sure it'd be noticeable even at close distances. It's quite easy to see differences when you're looking at markings on a metal ruler, though.

GregL281 said:
Yes I do have the 135 f/2 and I did compare it very closely to my
70-200 f/2.8L IS and it was very difficult to tell the diff. I
tested the 135 with TC’s yesterday
http://www.pbase.com/image/17657207 and I must say I am impressed
with the results. It did much better than I had expected.

Here is my comparison between the 70-200 and the 135 f/2

http://www.pbase.com/image/17587817

They are 100% crops from the center of the frame from my 1D with no
post processing. I was surprised by the results. I was actually
wanting to compare my 135 f/2 to yours to see if there is a diff.

--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

Yes, this is ON-TOPIC!

Ashley Cheng · Jun 10, 2003

Agree here too. However, don't think it's a bargain though... so put it in the last category of AdamT's list.

GregL281 said:
Greg

DavidP said:

Expensive, but SO worth it.

Click to expand...

MLynnL · Jun 10, 2003

You have to admit that the 70-200 is pretty darn impressive even against the mighty 135mm f/2L. I agree on closer shots that the 135 does look better but the difference still isn't that drastic. I compared the two using newsprint as a subject. The 135 does extremely well at f/2 on newsprint.

Greg

DavidP said:
At distances like what you're showing in those images, I'm not so
sure that the differences would be as easily noticed.

And in "real world" shots, I'm not so sure it'd be noticeable even
at close distances. It's quite easy to see differences when
you're looking at markings on a metal ruler, though.

GregL281 said:

Yes I do have the 135 f/2 and I did compare it very closely to my
70-200 f/2.8L IS and it was very difficult to tell the diff. I
tested the 135 with TC’s yesterday
http://www.pbase.com/image/17657207 and I must say I am impressed
with the results. It did much better than I had expected.

Here is my comparison between the 70-200 and the 135 f/2

http://www.pbase.com/image/17587817

They are 100% crops from the center of the frame from my 1D with no
post processing. I was surprised by the results. I was actually
wanting to compare my 135 f/2 to yours to see if there is a diff.

Click to expand...

--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

Yes, this is ON-TOPIC!

Forrest41926 · Jun 10, 2003

MLynnL said:
Last Friday I tested out my 300mm f/4L IS over the range of
apertures and found it to be about as sharp at f/4 as it is at f/8.
The quality started to drop off around 11 and continued downward
from there. I will try to post some crops tonight. This was on a
10D so results may be different on a body with a smaller crop
factor like a 1Ds.

Sounds like you have a great lens, or mine could be a little better...? Mine is detailed but not sharp at f/4, impressive at f/5 ( 2/3 stop down ), and nothing short of amazing at f/8. But the older, non IS, 300/4L I rented was unbelievably sharp at f/4. After seeing what's possible, I was hoping mine would get that sharp faster...

On the other hand, the IS can let you stop down more if you aren't shooting into the shadows, and the new lens focuses much closer, which let me get my hummingbird moths:

Adam-T · Jun 10, 2003

Apart from the wide angle issues I've had, my Pro rig is covered and the only lens I would like to replace is my 75-300IS , not for optical reasons as it's superb, but the slooooooooooooooooow Micro USM, lack of Fulltime MF and self zooming drives you nuts sometimes .. ;-) ...

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

My Ugly mug and submitted Photos at -------->
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=27855

Adam-T · Jun 10, 2003

i've never used the IS version but the battered non-IS I tested out-rezzed the D60 at F4, something even the 100USM Macro didn't quite do at F2.8 ..

So how do I know that it outrezzed the camera then? - because bar focal length, I couldn't tell the difference between the shots with that and my 80-200L and the 135L F2 I tried (all wide open) for sharpness.. Of course Colour, contrast and Bokeh also are superb on all three, I had the 80-200L on a 1DS and it showed my how much more there is to this lens than the D60/10D is letting me see, no doubt there is even more from the 300-Non-IS and especially the 135L on the 1DS too..

the 300 Non-IS and 80-200L are long out of production but both are state of the art in their fields unless the 300 F2.8 is significantly better.

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

My Ugly mug and submitted Photos at -------->
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=27855

DavidP #28649 · Jun 10, 2003

At 100% in PS, I'd say it was more dramatic than most lens comparisons I've made.

But then, I haven't compared many BAD lenses.

When I have the light, I'll almost always choose the 70-200/2.8 IS instead of the 135/2.

GregL281 said:
You have to admit that the 70-200 is pretty darn impressive even
against the mighty 135mm f/2L. I agree on closer shots that the
135 does look better but the difference still isn't that drastic.
I compared the two using newsprint as a subject. The 135 does
extremely well at f/2 on newsprint.

--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

Yes, this is ON-TOPIC!

DavidP #28649 · Jun 10, 2003

If you shoot concert photography, it's a bargain at twice the price!

Ashley Cheng said:
Agree here too. However, don't think it's a bargain though... so
put it in the last category of AdamT's list.

--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

Yes, this is ON-TOPIC!

BobHo · Jun 10, 2003

--
Bob

Hilbert · Jun 10, 2003

What great pictures and what a cool animal. I've never seen one of those before, pretty neat.

Forrest said:
Forrest41926 said:

Last Friday I tested out my 300mm f/4L IS over the range of
apertures and found it to be about as sharp at f/4 as it is at f/8.
The quality started to drop off around 11 and continued downward
from there. I will try to post some crops tonight. This was on a
10D so results may be different on a body with a smaller crop
factor like a 1Ds.

Click to expand...

Sounds like you have a great lens, or mine could be a little
better...? Mine is detailed but not sharp at f/4, impressive at
f/5 ( 2/3 stop down ), and nothing short of amazing at f/8. But
the older, non IS, 300/4L I rented was unbelievably sharp at f/4.
After seeing what's possible, I was hoping mine would get that
sharp faster...

On the other hand, the IS can let you stop down more if you aren't
shooting into the shadows, and the new lens focuses much closer,
which let me get my hummingbird moths:

MLynnL · Jun 10, 2003

I was out in my yard a few weeks ago in the evening taking pictures of a spider that had built a web on my BBQ pit. As I was walking in I saw one of these guys flying around my lantana. I had no idea what it was and started taking pictures of him with my 50mm macro. I actually ended up getting some very nice shots. He was so nice to photograph because he just hovered in one place for a while and didn't mind me being close at all. Very cool pictures

I had never heard of humming bird moths before and I have never seen one since the one I saw a few weeks ago. Do you get them where you are frequently? I will have to dig around and see if I can find my shots so I can post a couple.

Greg

Forrest said:
Forrest41926 said:

Last Friday I tested out my 300mm f/4L IS over the range of
apertures and found it to be about as sharp at f/4 as it is at f/8.
The quality started to drop off around 11 and continued downward
from there. I will try to post some crops tonight. This was on a
10D so results may be different on a body with a smaller crop
factor like a 1Ds.

Click to expand...

Sounds like you have a great lens, or mine could be a little
better...? Mine is detailed but not sharp at f/4, impressive at
f/5 ( 2/3 stop down ), and nothing short of amazing at f/8. But
the older, non IS, 300/4L I rented was unbelievably sharp at f/4.
After seeing what's possible, I was hoping mine would get that
sharp faster...

On the other hand, the IS can let you stop down more if you aren't
shooting into the shadows, and the new lens focuses much closer,
which let me get my hummingbird moths:

Adam-T · Jun 10, 2003

You have a wonderful lens collection (most of them by the looks of it) and a 1D and a 10D.. just curious, have you thought about getting a 1DS ??

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

My Ugly mug and submitted Photos at -------->
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=27855

GR · Jun 10, 2003

Canon
17-40L
28-135IS
70-200L f/4

Sigma
15-30EX
70-200EX 2.8
50-500EX

RobE said:
I'm curious as to the opinions out there on what the top 3 lenses
are relative to their cost.

I'm sure most would agree that the 50mm F/1.8 II is hard to beat at
$65. I personally have a good 35mm F/2 I paid $220 for. My
24-85mm is nearly as sharp as the 35mm F/2 and it was
70-200 F/4 at $540 is a sharp and contrasty lens as well, and a
bargain compared to the 2.8 versions.

So my top 3 would be:

1. 50mm F/1.8 II ($65)
2. 35mm F/2 ($220)
3. 24-85mm ($300)

50/1.4 · Jun 10, 2003

RobE said:
I'm curious as to the opinions out there on what the top 3 lenses
are relative to their cost.

I'm sure most would agree that the 50mm F/1.8 II is hard to beat at
$65. I personally have a good 35mm F/2 I paid $220 for. My
24-85mm is nearly as sharp as the 35mm F/2 and it was
70-200 F/4 at $540 is a sharp and contrasty lens as well, and a
bargain compared to the 2.8 versions.

So my top 3 would be:

1. 50mm F/1.8 II ($65)
2. 35mm F/2 ($220)
3. 24-85mm ($300)

--
'A Hard Day's Night' was the 3rd best 'Marx Brothers' movie ever made.

MLynnL · Jun 10, 2003

I doubt I will get a 1Ds. I just have a tough time justifying spending that kind of money on a camera body that will most likely be replaced with something better in the next year or two. I shelled out the big bucks for my 1D. I got the thing shortly after it came out and now they sell for less than half that price. I expect that the same thing will happen with the 1Ds before too long (but maybe not). I will probably go for whatever replaces the 1Ds unless it is just astronomical in price. To be completely honest the 1D gives me very little to want in a new camera. I did notice something else this past weekend that I was a little surprised about. The 1D renders greater detail than the 10D does in the exact same lighting with the exact same lens and camera settings. It is a pretty significant difference. I am guessing that it is the AA filter that is mucking things up since all logic says that the 10D should yield greater detail (higher pixel density). I am sure the 1Ds will get more detail out of my lenses (or at least it better) but I would rather spend my money on lenses right now. There are still a couple I want, and I want them more than I want a higher resolution body.

Greg

Forrest41926 · Jun 10, 2003

MLynnL said:
There are still a couple I want, and I want them more than I want a
higher resolution body.

I agree with everything you say ... but I think the 'Ds is more than just a high-res body. A 24/1.4L and 24/3.5 TSE are of limited use on a D60, but on film, 24 mm is a magic number...

Adam-T · Jun 10, 2003

MLynnL said:
about. The 1D renders greater detail than the 10D does in the
exact same lighting with the exact same lens and camera settings.

Well Fingers crossed, I'll find out on thursday.. you inadvertently answered a question I posted as a new thread - ""Which is the better camera for testing lenses"" as the 10D & D60 can't tell the difference between an 80-200L and a 135L F2 both at F2.8, they are indistinguishable

I just wondered as the 1DS totally knocked me out for image quality - thanks

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

My Ugly mug and submitted Photos at -------->
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=27855

DavidP #28649 · Jun 10, 2003

And to think you were trying to get me to buy a 10D.

Have you compared say the 10D + 500/4 IS vs. using the 1D + 500/4 IS + 1.4x TC?

GregL281 said:
I doubt I will get a 1Ds. I just have a tough time justifying
spending that kind of money on a camera body that will most likely
be replaced with something better in the next year or two. I
shelled out the big bucks for my 1D. I got the thing shortly after
it came out and now they sell for less than half that price. I
expect that the same thing will happen with the 1Ds before too long
(but maybe not). I will probably go for whatever replaces the 1Ds
unless it is just astronomical in price. To be completely honest
the 1D gives me very little to want in a new camera. I did notice
something else this past weekend that I was a little surprised
about. The 1D renders greater detail than the 10D does in the
exact same lighting with the exact same lens and camera settings.
It is a pretty significant difference. I am guessing that it is
the AA filter that is mucking things up since all logic says that
the 10D should yield greater detail (higher pixel density). I am
sure the 1Ds will get more detail out of my lenses (or at least it
better) but I would rather spend my money on lenses right now.
There are still a couple I want, and I want them more than I want a
higher resolution body.

--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

Yes, this is ON-TOPIC!

DavidP #28649 · Jun 10, 2003

Given a close subject (a metal ruler), I can tell the difference between the 135/2 at f/2 and the 70-200/2.8 IS at 135mm and f/2.8

The 135/2 is sharper.

Adam-T said:
Well Fingers crossed, I'll find out on thursday.. you inadvertently
answered a question I posted as a new thread - ""Which is the
better camera for testing lenses"" as the 10D & D60 can't tell the
difference between an 80-200L and a 135L F2 both at F2.8, they are
indistinguishable

--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

Yes, this is ON-TOPIC!

Best lenses for your money...

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts