L really necessary ?

[Vivek_DPR]

I just took my 3500th pic on my 10D. That's more than a 1000 pics per month since mid October 03 when I purchased the camera.

I am a general purpose amateur newbie photog

My Statistics are roughly as follows ---

About 1000 "keeper" pics archived on CD at full res JPG fine compression as delivered by camera.

out of which.....

About 75 pics e-mailed to friends and family after some cropping but in any case after shrinking image size maybe to 600x 800 to conserve bandwidth.

About 20 pics posted at pbase after cropping/resizing

About 100 pics printed at 6in x 4 in, mostly after cropping

About 20 pics printed at 7 in x 5 in ( After cropping to the new aspect ratio)

Now here comes the question :

I assume resizing smaller is done by the software deciding what one new pixel value best represents the bunch of original pixels that it replaces.

As all the pics I send to others/post on web are resized, can the claimed "better micro contrast between adjacent pixels" of the L Glass be really relevant ?

Besides Built/bokeh/IS etc, I feel the major way I will get my Jollies on the L is only when I see my 100% pics ie receivers of my 6x4/ e-mails/pbase will never know if I L'ed or not.

 

[Juha Halvari]

All prime lenses beats any L zoom.

-
Juzu

 

[hm]

Besides Built/bokeh/IS etc, I feel the major way I will get my
Jollies on the L is only when I see my 100% pics ie receivers of my
6x4/ e-mails/pbase will never know if I L'ed or not.

First off, the L lenses shouldn't be grouped together like they're a single breed with identical characteristics. It's just a marketing designation, it doesn't correlate to any single technical feature.

If you want a 500mm lens, then "yes", you'll need to L, because that's all there is. If you need a zoom at f/2.8, then "yes", you'll need an L, because that's all there is.

Otherwise, I don't know how to interpret your comparison in the complete absence of any other information. What L lens are you considering? What do you consider to be the alternative?
-harry

 

[Nugi]

I just took my 3500th pic on my 10D. That's more than a 1000 pics
per month since mid October 03 when I purchased the camera.

OT, how to find the counter ?
--
Nugi
10D + 4 L glasses
Need lens comparisons ? See :
http://www.pbase.com/image/22050307/original

 

[NKH]

take a look at this: http://www.pbase.com/image/23874833

and view it in the different sizes and see the difference for yourself

--
norm

 

[Paul Boothroyd]

take a look at this: http://www.pbase.com/image/23874833

and view it in the different sizes and see the difference for
yourself

--
norm

--
Well that's as botched a lens comparison as I've ever seen!

Now a general service announcement.

If you are posting low res. images to the web and only ever printing out at 6"x4" and your lenses never go out in the rain and never get banged around and don't need to outlast three or four body updates and don't need to earn their keep and.....oh, you get the drift - anything will do.

For goodness sake get out doing some real photography and stop trying to justify spending as little as you can get away with on lenses - this after spending all that money on an almost state-of-the-art camera body.

Paul

 

[LazarWolfe]

take a look at this: http://www.pbase.com/image/23874833

and view it in the different sizes and see the difference for
yourself

--
norm

Thanks for the link, Norm. I appreciated seeing your comparisons.

Looks like the 70-200 f/4 performed very well. Very sharp. Have you been happy with this lens? I'm considering picking one up myself ...

 

[tasty donuts]

All prime lenses beats any L zoom.

not anywhere near true...

17-40L beats most of the primes at and under 24mm.
24-70L probably beats 28mm Canon primes.

at the telephoto end, yes probably primes are still better. in the normal to wide range, they are very much in the same league. just because a lens is prime does NOT make it automatically better than a zoom.

by the way, i'm not even a zoom user - i use only L primes. so no bias here.

 

[tasty donuts]

For goodness sake get out doing some real photography and stop
trying to justify spending as little as you can get away with on
lenses

actually, wasn't norm proving the L is worth it? the 70-200L image looks far, FAR better than the 28-135IS even in that low res scale. at larger scales or 100% i bet the difference would be absolutely huge.

i think the original question of this thread is a little deceptive. "L" doesn't mean much by itself, as others have said it's a marketing designation. however, good glass is ALWAYS worth it, as long as it what you need. and it just so happens most of the best glass for the Canon EOS mount happens to be L. so, yes, if you want good glass and there happens to be an L that you need then yes, you "need" it.

but then, what do you need? super tele? super wide? speed? compact weight/size? versatility? too many questions to make such a blanket judgement.

cheers,
TD

 

[Vivek_DPR]

From File number

I just took my 3500th pic on my 10D. That's more than a 1000 pics
per month since mid October 03 when I purchased the camera.

OT, how to find the counter ?
--
Nugi
10D + 4 L glasses
Need lens comparisons ? See :
http://www.pbase.com/image/22050307/original

 

[Landscaper]

All prime lenses beats any L zoom.

-
Juzu

Not necessarily!

If the ideal composition for your shot is 75mm, you have to crop out 1/3 of a 50mm image to get what a zoom can get without further cropping. That also means you reduce the apparent resolution of the 50mm prime to 2/3 of its full capability.

Are you seriously suggesting a 50mm prime has 50% BETTER resolution than a quality zoom? I don't THINK so.
--
Landscaper

 

[Landscaper]

I assume resizing smaller is done by the software deciding what one
new pixel value best represents the bunch of original pixels that
it replaces.

As all the pics I send to others/post on web are resized, can the
claimed "better micro contrast between adjacent pixels" of the L
Glass be really relevant ?

Besides Built/bokeh/IS etc, I feel the major way I will get my
Jollies on the L is only when I see my 100% pics ie receivers of my
6x4/ e-mails/pbase will never know if I L'ed or not.

Depends. I bought a Sigma 135-400 instead of a 100-400 L lens because, overall, I thought the Sigma performed as well or better at f/8 and above than the Canon (Horrors! Blasphemy!), and I rarely shoot at wider apertures. Since I tripod most of my shots, IS was of no value.

The L series has little in common other than the designation, which may stand for "Luxury," because that's what those lenses are for many of those why actually buy them.
--
Landscaper

 

[Graham Snook]

NOT a fair test

If you want to compare L and non L, at least make an effort to get the same focal lengths 70-200 and 28-135...it's like comparing the same car with different engine sizes, hardly a fiar comparison is it?

If you want to spend 4 figures on a lens, and get the best bits of glass canon make, buy L series, if you want a little red ring round yer lenses, get some red paint!

If you have the money, buy the lens, if you want to improve the image quality (but not ness. the quality of your image) spend the money, buy the lens, some might see it as some photographic status symbol, hurray for them. I see it the same way a carpenter sees a hammer, it's just another tool of my trade.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Always give the client a vertical-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I shoot on 1.D.s, 35mm and 6x7 Pentax
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=280578

 

[tasty donuts]

All prime lenses beats any L zoom.

-
Juzu

Not necessarily!

If the ideal composition for your shot is 75mm, you have to crop
out 1/3 of a 50mm image to get what a zoom can get without further
cropping. That also means you reduce the apparent resolution of
the 50mm prime to 2/3 of its full capability.

Are you seriously suggesting a 50mm prime has 50% BETTER resolution
than a quality zoom? I don't THINK so.
--
Landscaper

 

[Vivek_DPR]

For goodness sake get out doing some real photography and stop
trying to justify spending as little as you can get away with on
lenses

actually, wasn't norm proving the L is worth it? the 70-200L image
looks far, FAR better than the 28-135IS even in that low res scale.
at larger scales or 100% i bet the difference would be absolutely
huge.

Yes it does appear from Norm's pics that the 70-200L is sharper than the 28-135

i think the original question of this thread is a little deceptive.
"L" doesn't mean much by itself, as others have said it's a
marketing designation. however, good glass is ALWAYS worth it, as
long as it what you need. and it just so happens most of the best
glass for the Canon EOS mount happens to be L. so, yes, if you want
good glass and there happens to be an L that you need then yes, you
"need" it.

Yes Agree, I am after good glass and it need not necessarily be L.

For the medium-wide or walk around, I am considering the 24-70L and the 28-135IS

For the medium Tele, I am confused with the 70-200 L 2.8 , LIS 2.8 and the Sigma 70-200 2.8, or even the Canon 100-400LIS

I have a 28-105 MK II

Cost and weight up to 4 Kgs total are not a concern at the moment. Versitality is not too important as I have convinced myself that I need 3 lens to cover indoor/family party/weddings/zoo etc and an attempt to birding at 400mm with a 2X on the 70-200

but then, what do you need? super tele? super wide? speed? compact
weight/size? versatility? too many questions to make such a blanket
judgement.

cheers,
TD

 

[tasty donuts]

For the medium-wide or walk around, I am considering the 24-70L and
the 28-135IS

if cost and weight are not an object as you stated, you should absolutely go for the L. there is no comparison - NO COMPARISON whatsoever - between these two lenses. it's not subtle at all IMHO. the 28-135IS is an ok lens, but there is no way it can come close to the L in almost any aspect - color, contrast, sharpness, distortion, bokeh, etc. - you name it, the 24-70L does it better. with zooms, there is no question the L's are of higher quality than the cheaper consumer models. the 24-70L is in fact competitive with the best primes in its focal range, at least on the Canon mount.

on the Tele end, i can't be of much help, but from what i hear it is hard to go wrong with a 70-200/2.8L IS. that and the 24-70L make an unbeatable combination with great range (almost 10x). you could probably do 99.9% of your shooting with those two. not sure about the 2x extender though, i hear it degrades quality (as well as speed) considerably on some lenses... for birds you may be forced to go with a 100-400L (also very good i hear) or maybe even the Bigma (Sigma 50-500).

incidentally, John Shaw, a superb nature photography whose books i highly recommend, seems to shoot much of his recent work with very similar zoom lenses (Nikon 80-200mm and 35-80mm, or something like that). that's with full-frame film, with a 10D you will not need as many long telephotos that he uses (300mm, 500mm), though at the wide end the 10D hurts.

 

[Juha Halvari]

All prime lenses beats any L zoom.

-
Juzu

Not necessarily!

If the ideal composition for your shot is 75mm, you have to crop
out 1/3 of a 50mm image to get what a zoom can get without further
cropping. That also means you reduce the apparent resolution of
the 50mm prime to 2/3 of its full capability.

Are you seriously suggesting a 50mm prime has 50% BETTER resolution
than a quality zoom? I don't THINK so.
--
Landscaper

--
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=68017

 

[Juha Halvari]

Really?

 

[GX-Alan]

L-zooms can be better than primes. Check the MTF's at Photodo.