Why THOSE Lenses -- Here's why (with photos)

[SFishy]

Any lens is "great" if you like it and if it delivers the quality
you desire. If you get such a lens at 1/3 the price of the "other"
lens, so much the better. On the other hand, if you enjoy your
photography more using a very expensive lens and you have the
discretionary funds that will enable you to purchase it, that is
great also.

Don't disagree with you. Just sharing my choices and the whys. Like I said, had I had the discretionary funds it's hard to say what decision I would have made.

What is not great is when you purchase a lens that doesn't meet
YOUR requirements, NOT THE RQUIREMENTS OF OTHER PHOTOGRAPHERS. Or
when you purchase the less expensive lens and always think, "my
pictures would be better if I had the more expensive lens."

Also agree. You have to start of with your own requirements (as I stated in my post I did) and work from there. The only way to get a feel for whether it's "good" or not is by reading of others experiences.

And if you're always going to doubt yourself based on the price of the lens, you better be rich

The qualities you require are totally subjective parameters. My
mother-in-law is perfectly happy using the throw away cameras you
purchase at the supermarket check out stands. Show her a picture
of her latest granddaughter that is fuzzy, and badly exposed and
which has just about every other fault a photo can muster - she
will be happy with it if she can just recognize her grandaughter.
On the other hand, show her a beautiful, wonderfully composed and
technically excellent landscape and she has no interest in it. She
would much prefer the fuzzygraph of her granddaughter.

Obviously, what grandmother wouldn't? Now show her a technically excellent well composed shot of her granddaughter and which do you think she'll prefer?

Yes, my in-laws are all happy with their P&S digitals and their requirements are totally different. But this is the SLR LENS forum, so you have to assume coming in that at least SOME level of quality is desired by everyone here. Their expectations will still vary, but not as drastically as your example.

Your need for a lens depends entirely to what uses you will put the
image. You certainly don't need a 20D with an "L" lens to print
4x6 photos or to send a picture of the dog to Aunt Tillie.
However, you do need an excellent body and a great lens if you are
contemplating large prints for display.

No disagreement there. Getting into print is a whole new ballgame, and I do professional offset printing (not a lot, but some) with some of my photos so my requirements are probably HIGHER than a lot of people here. Other people will have different requirements, and I'm sure we even have some who do 4x6 photos of the dog to sent to Aunt Tillie... or maybe the Cat...



Amy

 

[sparkie]

Point out your color problems with my examples... the lighthouse I
bumped up contrast in post, but other than that it's pretty close
to life... and the little boy is spot-on.

Amy
--
Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep.



http://www.nyphotos.net ~ http://www.something-fishy.com/photography

this is subjective.. but skin tone on boy would have been slightly better on canon 24-70 or 16-35, looks a little washed out, and 2nd pic looks a little prone to flare, or just over-exposed. the canon's have slightly better contrast.. IMHO

 

[ChrisKrueger]

Wow, I'm a dolt. I read each of your posts, then quickly forgot about the primes as I posted my response.

I have the Canon 100/2.8, and it works out nicely with my 350D, as I can set it to manual mode, 1/200, f/11 (or smaller) and use the internal flash. The lens doesn't shade the flash, even at minimum focus distance. It's not as nice as a dedicated macro flash of course, but it lets me handhold the 100/2.8 even in dim lighting.

I have to admit I'd like to upgrade my 70-300APO too. But there's nothing on the market that satisfies my needs. I need a compact lens with USM/HSM, IS, with passable image quality at f/5.6. Zoom is nice, as is a black finish to avoid getting attention. The 70-300DO is the lens that most closely fits, but it's $1100. It's not worth that for the image quality that comes out of it.

The 200/2.8 looks nice, too, but the lack of IS and zoom makes it less useful to me, as a lot of my telephoto shooting is at races where a car may come close enough to shoot at 50mm, then be far enough away to shoot at 300mm a few seconds later.

I'm curious, what are you thinking to buy next, if anything?

60mm f/2.8 Macro is probably #1 right now because I really want a
1:1 Macro lens, and one I do NOT need a tripod for.

The Tokina 12-24, Sigma 10-20, and Tmaron 11-18 have finally
arrived. Are you interested in UWA? (I absolutely love my
12-24... I often use it as my walkaround lens.)

UWA doesn't interest me all that much. Would be fun to have and I'd
enjoy it, but it's low on the priority list. I'd have to read
reviews and stuff, but I'd probably go Tamron if lots of people
like it, and I like the examples I see.

What about primes? Have you experimented with the 50/1.8?
Careful, it might trigger a rash of lens-buying like it did for me.
I ended up with a Sigma 20/1.8 and Canon 100/2.8 in the end, and
might still buy a 28/2.8 or 35/2.

I do have some primes -- and love them all. 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8
and 135 f/2.8 SF are all great lenses, and they ARE addicting. I'd
like a longer prime, maybe a 300mm. And I'd probably be more apt to
buy a ultra wide in a prime. It's possible that I'll give up the
70-200 f/2.8 for a 200mm prime if I find I'm just not carrying the
beast often enough.

Amy
--
Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep.
http://www.nyphotos.net ~ http://www.something-fishy.com/photography

 

[SFishy]

this is subjective.. but skin tone on boy would have been slightly
better on canon 24-70 or 16-35, looks a little washed out, and 2nd
pic looks a little prone to flare, or just over-exposed. the
canon's have slightly better contrast.. IMHO

Yeah, it's subjective highly cause there is nothing washed out about the first photo and no flare in the second. There are however very very light purplish clouds (almost hazy clouds) in the second which is probably what you are seeing.

Like you said it's subjective but something like contrast can not only be altered in post-processing, but in the camera itself. My in-camera settings vary.

Amy
--

Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.



http://www.nyphotos.net ~ http://www.something-fishy.com/photography

 

[Peru_Photog]

....you took to heart too much, the so-called issues with the 24-70L on this site. Better to take such ramblings with a grain of salt. Most people here don't truly know how to use their equipment.

Did you actually use a 24-70L? Spend time with it?

If you had, I think your purchase would be different.

Doctors without Borders have NOTHING to do with medical care quality...they devote their time freely...a great think, but not an indicator of medical ability.

Mercedes Benz provides a 3 year, 36,000 warranty.

Hyundai/Kia provides a 10 year, 100,000 warranty.

Guess which cars are better?

The Tamron and the Hyundai/Kia's have to provide very long warranties in order to attract business.

--
********************************************
It's not just the photographer...it's the equipment too that CAN matter.

 

[Peru_Photog]

A fair comparison would be to shoot the same composition with both lenses. You cannot use just one lens and then try to determine color rendition and contrast qualities.

No need to argue about this...it is a well known fact that the 24-70L and 16-35L, and 14-70L lenses provide better color rendition, and contrast then their Tam counterparts.

--
********************************************
It's not just the photographer...it's the equipment too that CAN matter.

 

[Peru_Photog]

I guess I'd rather have the 100 F2.8 Macro for portraits....it's a fantastic lens.

--
********************************************
It's not just the photographer...it's the equipment too that CAN matter.

 

[Peru_Photog]

--
********************************************
It's not just the photographer...it's the equipment too that CAN matter.

 

[SFishy]

....you took to heart too much, the so-called issues with the
24-70L on this site. Better to take such ramblings with a grain of
salt. Most people here don't truly know how to use their
equipment.

So I should take all the complaints about the Tamron with a grain of salt too, right? I listen to both equally, and I listen to the praise equally. I read reviews and I look at photos. I do all this AFTER deciding what is important to me.

Did you actually use a 24-70L? Spend time with it?

Did I not say I couldn't afford it? What part of that don't you understand? I'm not ARGUING that these lenses are better, I'm stating why they were good choices FOR ME and what I've been satisfied with them.

YOU are the one taking it too much to heart, as if I've somehow offended you by repeating what some professional fashion photographer said -- that the Tamron gives the Canon a run for it's money.

If you had, I think your purchase would be different.

Maybe, maybe not. MAYBE someday I'll have a friend with one or I'll rent one to see and MAYBE someday I'll agree with you (or not) and maybe then, if I'm lucky, I'll have $1000 to drop on one lens.

Doctors without Borders have NOTHING to do with medical care
quality...they devote their time freely...a great think, but not an
indicator of medical ability.

You brought up expensive doctors and lawyers, not me. I could give you a list of doctors who work on sliding scale or who donate services and who are renowned in their field, so just stop, okay?

Mercedes Benz provides a 3 year, 36,000 warranty.
Hyundai/Kia provides a 10 year, 100,000 warranty.
Guess which cars are better?

And I'm the one bringing up irrelevant arguments? Mercedes Benz is as much a name as it is a good car. A Z3 isn't more expensive than a comparable SUV in it's size and class. Toyota makes automobiles that cost what a Mercedes costs. Consumer reports doesn't always indicate that Mercedes is the best, the fastest, the safest. Matter of fact the top of line Mercedes along with the top of the line Hyundai both get a "good" (the best they could get) rating from the insurance institute.

From Edmonds.com there are Hyundais that get consumer ratings just as high as Mercedes. 2006 Hyundai Sonata Styles ($20K) got a 9.6. 2006 Mercedes-Benz CLS-Class ($70K) got a 9.2.

The Tamron and the Hyundai/Kia's have to provide very long
warranties in order to attract business.

Sometimes. But that doesn't preclude them from making products that meet the consumers needs and that do the job (and do it well).

You can add all the bells and whistles you want, in the end it's still a car. Yes, some that are affordable are cr@ppy, but that doesn't at all mean that an affordable car can't be a great car.

Amy
--

Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.



http://www.nyphotos.net ~ http://www.something-fishy.com/photography

 

[SFishy]

A fair comparison would be to shoot the same composition with both
lenses. You cannot use just one lens and then try to determine
color rendition and contrast qualities.

No need to argue about this...it is a well known fact that the
24-70L and 16-35L, and 14-70L lenses provide better color
rendition, and contrast then their Tam counterparts.

Why don't you start your own thread to prove how great an L lens is. My thread was about WHY these lenses were good choices for ME -- and maybe for those people who can't afford an L, or who have been unhappy with an L's performance, they can read and add it to their own reasons why they might consider something else.

This WASN'T a comparison post. Did I not start off by saying that if I had the money I might have purchased the L? Didn't I also repeat that to you?

Amy
--

Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.



http://www.nyphotos.net ~ http://www.something-fishy.com/photography

 

[Brian Crescimanno]

Which body are you using this fine assortment of lenses on? I ask mostly to determine what fov crop you are using.

Great write up though, was definitely informative.

 

[misha]

From Edmonds.com there are Hyundais that get consumer ratings just
as high as Mercedes. 2006 Hyundai Sonata Styles ($20K) got a 9.6.
2006 Mercedes-Benz CLS-Class ($70K) got a 9.2.

These are on different scales though - the 9.2 that the Mercedes scored is based on what buyers expect from a $70K car. Just a comment, not related to the lens discussion
--
Misha

 

[SFishy]

Which body are you using this fine assortment of lenses on? I ask
mostly to determine what fov crop you are using.

Canon 20D -- love it too

Great write up though, was definitely informative.

Thanks, glad you got something out of it. Any questions feel free to ask.

Amy
--

Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.



http://www.nyphotos.net ~ http://www.something-fishy.com/photography

 

[Peru_Photog]

...by posting here. Sorry you don't like my advise, but that is okay.

The consumer report/Edmonds ratings are RELATIVE to that class of car.

So you cannot compare a score of say 9.2 for a Hyundai as the same as a 9.2 for a luxury top of the line German car....two different categories, mind you.

And yes, you should take with a grain of salt reviews for both Tamron and Canon.

--
********************************************
It's not just the photographer...it's the equipment too that CAN matter.

 

[Peru_Photog]

...and that's okay.

Don't you have any room to hear other points of view? After all, this is the place we all exchange them, yea?

I realize not all of us can afford L lenses or Mercedes, for that matter. And that's cool. I can't afford Mercedes either, but I don't mind waiting to finally be able to get the L glasses that I have. Delayed gratification.

Photog is my profession and it is your hobby. It seems to be your passion perhaps. Great. So save and wait..get the best....but of course do what works for you...it's your pictures, it's your money.

Nobody asked you to justify anything ;-)
--
********************************************
It's not just the photographer...it's the equipment too that CAN matter.

 

[SFishy]

J.D. Power Ratings (provided through Yahoo)

http://autos.yahoo.com/newcars/comparison/results.html?carid0=16059&carid1=15231&pagetitle=reliability

Amy
--

Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.



http://www.nyphotos.net ~ http://www.something-fishy.com/photography

 

[SFishy]

...and that's okay.

but your difference of opinion is also based on a one-sided view. You think L is best. That's fine. It remain to be proven to me.

Don't you have any room to hear other points of view? After all,
this is the place we all exchange them, yea?

Yup, which is why I've now said to you 3 times that had I had the money maybe my choices would be different. Then again, maybe not.

I realize not all of us can afford L lenses or Mercedes, for that
matter. And that's cool. I can't afford Mercedes either, but I
don't mind waiting to finally be able to get the L glasses that I
have. Delayed gratification.

I am not under the illusion that L is better just because it's "L" or because it's more money. I'm open to the possibility that some Ls are better than all other lenses, but I wouldn't base my future purchases on whether there an L label or not. Quality is what matters to me.

And being "non-L" means NOTHING if it's a non-Canon lens. L only means something relative to other Canon products. Just because a Tamron or a Sigma is non-L doesn't mean it's inferior. Of course it lacks an "L" in it's name, it's not made by Canon.

Photog is my profession and it is your hobby. It seems to be your
passion perhaps. Great. So save and wait..get the best....but of
course do what works for you...it's your pictures, it's your money.

It is mostly hobby, but I'm also lucky (or good enough, however you see it) that I do occassionally get paid for it. People buy my prints and I've done product work and on location architecture work... but that's neither here nor there. I do get the best and don't feel I've sacrificed quality in any of my choices. The one lens where I did make a sacrifice got replaced in time.

Best of luck to you.

Amy
--

Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.



http://www.nyphotos.net ~ http://www.something-fishy.com/photography

 

[sparkie]

this is subjective.. but skin tone on boy would have been slightly
better on canon 24-70 or 16-35, looks a little washed out, and 2nd
pic looks a little prone to flare, or just over-exposed. the
canon's have slightly better contrast.. IMHO

Yeah, it's subjective highly cause there is nothing washed out
about the first photo and no flare in the second. There are however
very very light purplish clouds (almost hazy clouds) in the second
which is probably what you are seeing.

Like you said it's subjective but something like contrast can not
only be altered in post-processing, but in the camera itself. My
in-camera settings vary.

contrast CAN be altered in PP using photoshop for instance. people do it all the time. anyway, appreciate you posting here and sharing your lens choices and giving a review. best wishes

Amy
--
Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep.



http://www.nyphotos.net ~ http://www.something-fishy.com/photography

 

[SFishy]

Like you said it's subjective but something like contrast can not
only be altered in post-processing, but in the camera itself. My
in-camera settings vary.

contrast CAN be altered in PP using photoshop for instance. people
do it all the time. anyway, appreciate you posting here and sharing
your lens choices and giving a review. best wishes

LOL isn't that what I said -- I would certainly hope I knew that since I do graphic design for a living -- LOL! It can also be altered in the camera itself -- I do/have done both.

Appreciate your input.

Amy
--

Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.



http://www.nyphotos.net ~ http://www.something-fishy.com/photography

 

[sparkie]

Like you said it's subjective but something like contrast can not
only be altered in post-processing, but in the camera itself. My
in-camera settings vary.

contrast CAN be altered in PP using photoshop for instance. people
do it all the time. anyway, appreciate you posting here and sharing
your lens choices and giving a review. best wishes

LOL isn't that what I said -- I would certainly hope I knew that
since I do graphic design for a living -- LOL! It can also be
altered in the camera itself -- I do/have done both.

oops, too much wine. didnt read your previous post properly. i'm a graphic designer (too!)(love typography) / art director / photographer. small world. best wishes, Sparkie

Appreciate your input.

Amy
--
Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep.



http://www.nyphotos.net ~ http://www.something-fishy.com/photography