lens question to end all lens questions

[justme_dc]

so if you look at the MTF info at: http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html
is shows that the Canon lenses have much higher ratings across the board than Sigma and the Tamron glass is usually even lower. Now I see a lot of arguing back and forth over Canon glass being better than the others or sigma being just as good but the MTF number don't lie so what is the real deal?

There shouldn't be an argument at all really. Canon is consistently better and commands the highest price. Sigma is not as good but much cheaper. Tamron is usually in third and it's price reflects that.

I can't see how people can say my "brand X" lens is just as good as the Canon version when clearly (no pun intended) it isn't.

I am not saying that "Brand X" doesn't make some good glass but the numbers don't lie...

Opinions?

[martcol]

If only life were that simple!

With a Canon EOS camera, anyone would be nuts to not buy Canon L lenses. Sad thing is, they cost as much as a small car, luxury kitchen, luxury cruise and so on.

Then, when you look at the mid range lenses, even on Photodo, it's obvious that even some Canon lenses perform badly. When you look at the cheaper lenses, most lenses perform badly (mind you, the benchmark seems to be perfection) and it's a bit of lottery to get a good one.

From reading on this forum it even seems that some good lenses can be bad - so to speak.

So whilst numbers don't lie, they only tell the truth in black & white, if you catch my meaning!

There's more but, I'm finding lens choice a much, much tougher decision than camera choice. Now, if I had the dosh, it would be easy.

Martin

[justme_dc]

I know it comes down to as sharp as you can afford, Believe me I own a sigma lens my self (15mm fisheye) and am happy as can be with it but I wouldn't suggest that is is as good as the Canon version and I have indeed used both.

It just seems that these numbers to be ignored by people that for lack of a better term "feel" like the "brandX" is better.

I agree this is a deep subject.... I wish it were easier and cheaper too!

[jgbryan021900]

Has anyone had any success with Tokina lenses?
I just ordered the 19-35mm. I'm hoping that a wide angle lense will be more forgiving than a telephoto as far as sharpness goes. I will post my findings after I finish testing.

[chris maddock]

I'm very happy with my Tokina 19-35. Stopped down to f8 or smaller, sharpness isn't a problem at all.

KRs
Chris

[daveh]

Good luck but in my experience, wide angle zooms are harder to get right than telephoto zooms.

[Jorge]

The lens discussion to end all lens discussions will hopefully be an endless one. Otherwise those of us who thinks there is anything to discuss will be proven complete idiots. From the charts I’m happy to see that my Canon 50mm/1.8 is on average better than the Canon 50mm/1.0 which cost about thirty times as much. But this is not supposed to be so as cheaper lenses are inferior to more expensive ones by definition. See where this is leading to … an endless discussion IMO:)

[daveh]

That's nothing new. All other things being equal, the slower lens should generally outperform a superfast lens. The amazing thing about an F1.0 lens is that it actually works reasonably well. (But of course that's where the all other things aren't equal part comes in - the price for starters!)

[CyberDyneSystems]

I am literally being kept awake at night trying to decide my next lens!

I was absolutley positive I wanted as long a telephoto as possible for Birds and wildlife,. looking at a Sigma Zoom to 500mm in the $500.00-$750.00 price range.

Then I met you all!!!!!

Now I am stumped. I don't want to buy a $750.00 lens and be disapointed... and there is very little chance I will be able to afford "L" glass,. not untill this time next year anyways at tax return time.

This is a very tough decision indeed!

My compromise, so I can try Canon glass,. is to get a 50mm 1.8 (if i can find one) and see for myself. But I know that compared to the Sigma 28-200mm the Canon 50 will be better!

At 50mm the Sigma is f4.0,. so it is pants for low light work.

[brunz]

Not all Canon L glass costs an arm and a leg. You can buy a 100-300 F5.6 L lens for around $300. I've seen this lens go on Ebay many times in this price range. I have the lens and it's sharp but not a real fast lens....a real steal in my opinion. I think it's a discontinued lens but who cares.

[Longwatcher]

For the obssesive compulsives out there with excessive quantities of money.

The cost to purchase all current Canon Glass at new prices. (not counting Tilt-shift, extenders, and the 1200mm (whch I don't have prices for)

= US$60,205 (+/- $500)
L glass only = $44800 (+/- $500)
L glass+ list = $53223 (+/- $500, includes all IS, 15mm fisheye and 50/1.4)

Data based on searching on Pricegrabber.com and using lowest prices that did not seem to be scam prices. The prices were rounded up to the nearest 10 dollars if under 500 and nearest 50 if over 750.

Data collected on 12 Feb 2003.

I only need $56,000 + the 1200mm to complete my collection ;-)

[Jeppe]

The EF 1200/5.6 is about 95000 US $.

It is only possible to aquire through ordering directly through Canon.

[brault]

From what I have read, I would not eliminate all Sigma lenses from consideration. They make a number of fine lenses. For example, there have been very good reports on the:

Sigma 15-30mm f3.5-4.5 EX

Sigma 120-300 f2.8 EX APO

Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX HSM

Canon makes a number of great lenses, but they also make some non-L lenses that are not as good as some of their competition ( e.g. 28-200mm f3.5-5.6).

Canon L lenses are generally all fine lenses and they make many good non-L lenses. However, there are some non-Canon lenses out their that are competitive, especially when you consider price/performance.

Frank B

[excessnoise]

Regarding Tokina lenses... taken from
http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/non-nikon_articles/tokina/Tokina_AT-X_M100AF/Tokina_AT-X_M100AF_1.html

One rumor was that, annoyed because of internal disagreement on what would be the future importance of the zoom lenses and how to improve those designs, a group of Nikon engineers and managers left to establish their own shop and try out their own ideas. Hoya was asked to produce the glass under their strict specs.

The other rumor was that they left with a OEM outsourcing contract with Nikon; harder to believe although plausible.

You must remember that life-time employment was the rule in Japan until very recently. Failure was not an option. It must have taken true grit to try out on their own.

So I made a consultation to THK (the USA distributor) for them to either confirm or deny the Nikon engineers' origin of Tokina and the Hoya glass participation. They confirmed it as follows: "........ It is true, ....


A lot of their lenses had good results

[Fried]

Hi,
some comments:
1. MFT is not all.
2. Do not trust lens tests only. Most of them only test one copy of a lens type, I've found that for most of the lenses (YES, including Canon) quality control gets worse and worse. So differences between different copy of lenses are definitely there. I got one Sigma 15-30 recently, chose 1 out of five. One of them was clearly inferior, one IMO slightly better. But that's only personal judgement from photos, no scientific measurement.
3. If you do travel photography, lens size and weight are also a big concern. So I rather have a lens which gives me the realistic opportunity to make a good shot, rather than one I know is optically a little better but resides in my bag..
4. So I chose the following for my 10D:
Sigma 15-30.
Canon 28-135 IS
Canon 75-300 IS.
Canon TS-E 90mm (I'm still waiting for this one, I always wanted to play around with shift and tilt).
5. Recommandation:
Choose what you like, but reserve the right to exchange the lens if you got a lemon BY YOUR OWN Judgement.
Fried

[nucki]

well I'm not a professional, currently I'm not using a DSLR but I owned a analog EOS and sometimes I really feel a littel bit amused about whats written here.
I dont know if all of you are professionals and if all of you can buy themself a 2500-10000 $ lens!
Ok, maybe SIGMA or TAMRON are not as good as some Canon Lenses, but I know that SIGMA and TAMRON got a lot of prices for there lenses.

for example: TAMRON's AF 28-300 F/3,5-6,3 Aspherical
IF Macro owned these prices:

EISA (European Imaging and sound Organisation) Award 2000
american photo - editors choice
foto magazin (german) "sehr gut" (means best)
TIPA (Technical Image Press Association) "best lens" 2000

so is that nothing? for me it depends on the price! I cant buy a lens for 2500$ And for my point of few its enough for me. and all these prices cant be that wrong?

but, if you think you really need a lens from with that price, than take it! its your choice, but I think, its not the equipment wich makes a good photo, its the person behind!

Peter

[daveh]

longwatcher wrote:
I only need $56,000 + the 1200mm to complete my collection ;-)

Just for a fun comparison, I recently received a catalog and price list for a Swiss watch company and prices listed range from $4000 to $285,000. But if you can't afford the $285,000 watch, they'll sell you a book abut the watch for only $185. Now an entire Canon lens collection feels dirt cheap. It's all about perspective ;-)

Oops - I just noticed that the fanciest watches in the catalog are listed as "on request". I guess that means "even worse" ;-)

[daveh]

nucki wrote:
for example: TAMRON's AF 28-300 F/3,5-6,3 Aspherical
IF Macro owned these prices:

EISA (European Imaging and sound Organisation) Award 2000
american photo - editors choice
foto magazin (german) "sehr gut" (means best)
TIPA (Technical Image Press Association) "best lens" 2000

so is that nothing?

Without more information I would consider that nothing. ie I would start by assuming that any 28-300 lens is fairly poor, and a long list of awards could mean no more than the lens is not quite as bad as you would expect. I'd want to see some real data to be sure.

Similarly when F1.0 lenses were quite new about 10-20 years ago - they got all sorts of great press - but they still underperformed slower lenses by a very large margin. They were a technical feat but that didn't mean you necessarily wanted to take a picture through one if you didn't need to.

[justme_dc]

Well this thread is not going exactly in the direction I envisioned so maybe this will clear things up....

I take these following statments to be givens....

yes they only test one lens.
yes qualtity control is an issue.
Yes every company in capable of making a few lemons here and there.
No this thread is not about swiss watches.
no primes and zooms should not be expected to perform equally well.
Yes I agree that not all canon glass is perfect, I know canon makes some budget glass that sucks, usually they ship them stuck to the front of a Rebel.
No, Really, It's not about watches.
Yes I am aware that not everyone can afford "L" glass. I know I can't most of the time.
Yes there are size and weight considerations.

I am not trying to be a glass snob at all, the Point I trying to get to is that your images are only as good as the glass you shoot them through. Regardless of brand name or price, the lens with better optic resolution should be the better lens. Price, Brand and weight should be secondary.

am I wrong here?

[daveh]

If you're thinking that everyone will agree on your method of choosing/rating a lens, or the exact flow of a forum thread, then yes, you are wrong. The world is just not that simple.

[justme_dc]

So what you are saying is that, in a controlled situation if lens A gets a rating 3.9 and lens B gets a rating of 3 then lens A is better.
Is that is not an acceptable way of picking the better lens? Really?

How else are you supposed to test them other than optically, in side by side repeatable tests?

The ability for a lens to resolve objects is it's only job, what other criteria would you have me use? Price is not a factor that determines optical quality, paying more for an inferior lens won't make it resolve better. Having a personal affinity for a certian brand doesn't make it better glass. Being unable to afford a lens doesn't lessen it's quality. these things are all far more subjective than optical resolution.

Or am I wrong again?

[PaulB]

I had hoped that this topic had been done to death by now in the 'Lens Help' thread.

However it seems not and some people obviously do not read earlier threads and posts; or are intent on riding their own little hobby horse - My lenses are as good as yours, even if I only paid for them in ring pulls....

I will say again, "If you are happy with the results you get from your equipment, fine. If owning , or not owning a particular lens or makers lens makes you happy, fine".

But for those of us who have to make or equipment work for us and our clients THEN it really is a no brainer - we have to use as good as we can, and with Canon bodies that means using Canon lenses!

Would you buy a Ferrari and then put a Ford engine into it?

As I posted in he other topic:

So can we stop the pointless going round in circles and agree that:

1/ Camera manufacturers lenses are likely to be better than third party ones
2/ Buy the best you can afford
3/ Less often does mean more – restrict your number of lenses, but buy better ones.
4/ Prime lenses will still beat zooms – the more you pay the less the difference though
5/ Learn to properly use what you have before “needing� something else
6/ Go out and take lots of photographs – see 5/
7/ Enjoy yourselves

[brault]

Of course, there are optical factors other than resolution (such as flare and distortion) to consider; which I assume you are including in your assessment process.

However, even if one lens is optically superior to another I still might prefer the lens that is optically inferior. The reason is that most of my photography is done while walking and I simply can't carry a tripod and a lot of heavy glass around. A picture taken with a lens that is slightly inferior optically is better than the picture i miss because I don't have that heavy lens with me.

Also, I value depth of field and want to use small fstops handheld when possible and IS will allow me to use smaller fstops. So I might pick an IS lens of slightly less optical quality over a non-IS lens.

Bottom line, I agree that if you assume you will have the lens with you when you need it and that you will have a tripod and price is not a consideration then optical quality should determine which lens you buy. Of course, build quality is important too.

Frank B

justme_dc wrote:
So what you are saying is that, in a controlled situation if lens A gets a rating 3.9 and lens B gets a rating of 3 then lens A is better.
Is that is not an acceptable way of picking the better lens? Really?

How else are you supposed to test them other than optically, in side by side repeatable tests?

The ability for a lens to resolve objects is it's only job, what other criteria would you have me use? Price is not a factor that determines optical quality, paying more for an inferior lens won't make it resolve better. Having a personal affinity for a certian brand doesn't make it better glass. Being unable to afford a lens doesn't lessen it's quality. these things are all far more subjective than optical resolution.

Or am I wrong again?

[daveh]

justme_dc wrote:
The ability for a lens to resolve objects is it's only job, what other criteria would you have me use?

You may use whatever criteria you like: center sharpness, edge sharpness, wide open, mid-range, flare, distortion, contrast, color, speed, minimum focusing distance, focal length, weight, price, robust build, feel, and so on. However, I thought you were suggesting that there was an answer to a debate as old as photography itself. I've been watching this kicked back and forth for 30 years now and that's because I'm only 40 ;)

[Jorge]

justme_dc wrote:
The ability for a lens to resolve objects is it's only job, what other criteria would you have me use?

Ha, what a hopeless endeavour. The length of this thread alone proves you wrong. Sorry to say so. There are no objective criteria that we can all agree and act upon in the purchase of lenses. However we can evaluate the pros and cons of different parameters with regards to different usages. And we can discuss the matters with fellow enthusiast and exchange experiences to achieve a better foundation for our individual choices. That’s why I’m here.

[martcol]

PaulB wrote:
...some people obviously do not read earlier threads and posts; or are intent on riding their own little hobby horse - My lenses are as good as yours, even if I only paid for them in ring pulls....

Hope you don't mind me saying Paul but that's a bit judgemental. I read most threads on this forum. Even the ones I don't understand. It's been of invaluable help. Not all threads answer all questions all of the time. Also, there are people new to the forum or those that dip in now and again that might not read all threads but hey, you didn't have to look at this one. The subject was pretty clearly stated.

Anyway, your summary was neat.

Oh, and where can I get lenses for ring-pulls? :D

Martin

[Fried]

Well,
a lens is a tool.
You can rarely judge the quality of a tool by itself.
You must consider the use you will put the tool to.
So, lens criteria may be more or less important to different users.

[PaulB]

martcol

I know that it was judgemental - that was the idea.

At some point you have to make a judgement about things - do I buy this, can I spend that, do I have to rob a bank to afford more L lenses............

I come from the standpoint that we have to aim for the best - not always possible, but at least aim for it.
L lenses are the best that Canon can make for their SLR bodies and even they can improve them as time and experience add to their knowledge; therefore I aspire to using the best I can for a particular task.

If money is no object then everything is much simpler - I readily concede that - and some people cannot afford a bagful of L lenses on their new 10D. These people have to make a judgement about what to buy for the money they have. My advice would be to buy few (or only one)but better, and then go out and take pictures and learn what the outfit and yourself is capable of before thinking that you must have that 17-500/2.8 superzoom.
We have also to remember how easy it is for a newcomer to get sucked into the more equipment the better syndrome, when really they should walk first - then run when they have learnt the basics. How many new DSLR users know how to manually meter? Know when to manually focus? Use a tripod? All techniques which SHOULD be learnt. It is too easy to think that a 10D is a bigger/better point and shoot compact - it isn't.

Sorry to go on but it needs to be said otherwise we have a new generation of photographers who just take, not make, pictures.

As for the lenses for ringpulls. I'm working on it!

Fried wrote

"a lens is a tool.
You can rarely judge the quality of a tool by itself.
You must consider the use you will put the tool to.
So, lens criteria may be more or less important to different users"

I couldn't agree more but surely you deserve the best tool for the job. However if you have the knowledge and experience you can use what you have to maximum effect.

Work on the computing principle "GIGO" when it comes to cameras and lenses and you won't go far wrong.


GIGO - garbage in, garbage out.

[gyelland]

This is a long discussion about all the technical points of lens performance, price and tradeoffs.

Every decision we make is a trade off.
Price, quality, size, usage etc

The only way I select lens in on the final output. I use Canon and Sigma glass on canon digital bodies.

I mainly use A4 Prints and web presentation.
for the Web almost any lens will do.
For print is it a different matter.

But in saying this I did some tests with an L series lens and standard canon lens for for A4 prints it was hard to tell the difference, especially if you nose was not touching the paper.

So its good so see all the tech curves of lens performance but in the end its the output that counts. There are so many factors that effect the final result where the lens is just one element.

So my advice if you care to listen is ask the shops for trials, do some test prints and make your judgements for yourselves. You may be surprised at the money that can be saved.

(In case you were wondering yes I am a perfectionist generaly but not at any cost).

[Longwatcher]

Here is my criteria as I select a lens to get. It is in the priority of the last lens I bought as well as the two I am thinking of getting. These are only my choices, yours may differ (and probably should)

1. Focal Length
2. Aperture
3. Image Stabilization
4. Prime/Zoom
5. Sharpness
6. Compatability with extenders
7. Cost
8. Looks
9. Weight
10. Filter size

Quietness of drive is not yet a factor for me as I have not had an occasion where I needed my camera to be ultra quiet yet.

1. Focal Length - absolutely essential, this is the determination based on why am I getting this lens, what am I going to be shooting with it.

2. Aperture - lower is better, this gives me both flexibility and I may be willing to spend more money if I need it for some particular reason, like shooting indoors.

3. Image Stabilization - I love Canon's Image stabilization, he reason will be obvious to anyone that has used it.

4. Prime/Zoom - This is a choice in flexibility both with opportunities as well as how much stuff I have to carry with me. The choice effects sharpness and price.

5. Sharpness - This is way down here, because I found that I do not always want ultra cripness and most lenses these days are close to the limits of optical technology.

6. Compatability with extenders - Gives me more flexibility.

7. Cost - If all of the above say I should get a particular lens, this just determines the timing.

8. Looks - White lenses attract attention, people ask questions, let me take pictures :-)

9. Weight - My 100-400L is at about my limit for handheld weight so anything weighing more is going to be used on tripod, which I will also have to carry around.

10. Filter size - very minor thing which I look at just to see if I can avoid buying another filter size.

1-5 are the important ones, 6-10 are very minor, but I think about them although they probably would not change my mind (except of course #7)

Just my criteria, feel free to ignore as necessary.

[daveh]

OK, as long as we're not trying to define other people's selection processes, here's mine:

1: Focal length. It feels funny listing this first but covering multiple focal lengths is the point.

2: Sharpness / performance in general. I suppose prime/zoom can be stuffed into this category also - as in I haven't found a zoom yet that was a long-term keeper. While I kidded the original poster about this thread and the one true criteria, my lenses do have "4.something" ratings on photodo. Photodo results alone are a tremendous simplification of lens parameters but I think they're a useful tool. When I first discovered Photodo, I learned that the lens I prefer above all others had a 4.6 rating so I figured that Photodo and I were a fairly good match.

3: Aperture. This is really hard to separate from the others. For example, while I may have been thinking 100mm, the 85 f1.2 won for speed and performance. Generally I look for 1.2 to 1.4 for wides, through mid telephotos. It gets a little more ambiguous at the high end. Also, I will sometimes give up SOME performance for speed so it's hard to keep #2 and #3 in strict order. For example, for a "standard lens" for my 10D, I looked at the 35mm f2 which had a Photodo 3.9 rating and the 35mm f1.4 which had a 4.0. Well that was a no-brainer but if those performance numbers had been reversed I would have still gone with the f1.4. On the other hand in the 50mm, the 1.4 seems like the "sweet spot" vs. the 1.0. (To me.)

4: Feel. It has nothing to do with the picture but I like a tool that really feels good when I use it. Sadly, I think the EF lenses don't quite measure up to FD lenses in this regard but I've finally given up on Canon producing an FD digital body ;-)

Other factors are much more mutable/subjective/changeable. For example weight can be a very minor plus up to 200mm or so but can start to become a major minus after that.

Price does come in but over the long run (I've owned Canon SLRs for about 30 years now) I eventually end up with the lens I really want so there's always the question of how long a stop-gap lens will be used.

IS sounds nice but so far, all of my long telephotos are still in my FD line. As I'm converting those to EF I'll need to evaluate that.

Filter size doesn't matter as much to me as it once did as I'm using them less. I only recently gave a way a bunch of filters that I used exclusively with Infrared Ektachrome. Yep probably don't need those for the 10D...

That's just my way. Your mileage probably will vary.

[dcchan2]

I have a Sigma Ex 70-200mm f2.8 HSM and find the image quality excellent. The MTF info confirms my subjective judgement.

The weighted MTF for 200mm f2.8 is significantly *higher* for the Sigma: 0.78 vs Canon's 0.73. The Canon's MTF is higher at shorter focal lengths, but not by as much.

Full data as follows:

Canon 70-200mm f2.8L USM
Weighted MTF for 70 mm: f2,8 0,75, f4 0,80, f8 0,78
Weighted MTF for 135 mm: f2,8 0,80, f4 0,85, f8 0,86
Weighted MTF for 200 mm: f2,8 0,73, f4 0,79, f8 0,82
Average Weighted MTF: 0,82 Grade: 4,1
Weighted MTF 10 lp/mm: 0,90
Weighted MTF 20 lp/mm: 0,78
Weighted MTF 40 lp/mm: 0,55

Sigma Ex 70-200mm f2.8 HSM
Weighted MTF for 70 mm: f2,8 0,73, f4 0,76, f8 0,75
Weighted MTF for 135 mm: f2,8 0,76, f4 0,84, f8 0,87
Weighted MTF for 200 mm: f2,8 0,78, f4 0,81, f8 0,81
Average Weighted MTF: 0,81 Grade: 3,9
Weighted MTF 10 lp/mm: 0,89
Weighted MTF 20 lp/mm: 0,77
Weighted MTF 40 lp/mm: 0,54



justme_dc wrote:
so if you look at the MTF info at: http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html
is shows that the Canon lenses have much higher ratings across the board than Sigma and the Tamron glass is usually even lower. Now I see a lot of arguing back and forth over Canon glass being better than the others or sigma being just as good but the MTF number don't lie so what is the real deal?

There shouldn't be an argument at all really. Canon is consistently better and commands the highest price. Sigma is not as good but much cheaper. Tamron is usually in third and it's price reflects that.

I can't see how people can say my "brand X" lens is just as good as the Canon version when clearly (no pun intended) it isn't.

I am not saying that "Brand X" doesn't make some good glass but the numbers don't lie...

Opinions?

[brault]

The basic MTF numbers at Photodo are helpful, but not determinative. First, there is some subjectivity in measuring MTF. Second, the MTF for contrast and the MTF for sharpness are independently important. In color photography the MTF for contrast may be more important than the MTF for sharpness and for black and white photography the MTF for sharpness may be more important. Then there are other factors such as distortion and flare. Third, manufacturing quality varies and different lenses of the same model may give different results.

I look at as many reviews as I can find when considering a lens, including reports from owners. Results can be surprising. For example, Photodo rates the Canon 28-70mm 2.8L at 39 and the Canon 24-85mm f3.5,4.5 at 31. Yet when DPR tested the D30 they found that the resolution of the 24-85 was as good as the 28-70L and Image Resource in their test of the D30 said that the 24-85 outperformed the 28-70L "overall". Now it could be they had a particularly good 24-85 and a very average 28-70L.

[droosan]

Canon makes some great lenses (and some not-so great lenses).

But the best lens is the one on your camera, right now, because it is the only lens that can take a picture, right now.

If you can afford L, buy L. If you can't, buy something else. What you buy is unimportant compared to how you use it.

[martcol]

droosan wrote:
...the best lens is the one on your camera, right now[/b]

Yeh!

My buying criteria?

1) What fraction of a month's (Year's for L :() salary does it cost.
2) will it look good stuck to my 10D?
3) Will I look good with both stuck to me? 8)
4) What do people on this forum think 'cos I really haven't got a clue?
5) And then all that other stuff about, what was it, aperture, focal length....

:D

I am currently using a 50 mm 1.8 because lots of people said you couldn't go wrong with this - absolutely right! And a really tat, ebayed (payed more than I should've) 35-80 but, with both lenses, I get some fabulous results. Good colour, focus, quick, etc. I love my 10D!

[piratefishka]

I have found that buying the best golf clubs does not equate to playing golf well. I suspect that there are those who know their equipment, however inferior it may be,well enough to create an image that is magical, and others who no matter how much they spend on equipment, will find a way to fall short. A famous Seattle photographer died recently (sorry can not recall his name) and there was a documentary on his work. Beautiful! His favorate camera? Konica 35mm.

[Bodog]

RE: MTF charts. It was my understanding that Canon's MTF charts are based on theoretical performance, not actual testing...

[Ajay213]

The ability for a lens to resolve objects is it's only job, what other criteria would you have me use?

A sharp lens is absolutely worthless if it screws up colors. It's not worth much if it has piss poor contrast, etc. None of those things can be "tested" for. Both of which have a role as important or more so than sharpness in a lens.

I have found that buying the best golf clubs does not equate to playing golf well. I suspect that there are those who know their equipment, however inferior it may be,well enough to create an image that is magical, and others who no matter how much they spend on equipment, will find a way to fall short.

That needs to be bolded, put in it's own post and made required reading for anybody trying to take pictures.
$500 basketball shoes will not endanger any of Michael Jordon's records.
$5,000 tennis racket will not get me an invite to Wimbleton.
$10,000 word processing machine will not make me an award winning novelist.
$2,000 lens will not make me a better photographer.

But the best lens is the one on your camera, right now, because it is the only lens that can take a picture, right now.

If you can afford L, buy L. If you can't, buy something else. What you buy is unimportant compared to how you use it.

Even more great points.

Don't be an Equipment Measurbator (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm), if your "portfolio" consists of more pictures of test charts, bar codes, etc than it does of "real" pictures then IMHO you are missing a lot of the joys of photography.

Now to completely go in the other direction, and as others have said, if you can afford L glass then absolutely go out and buy it. It is the best glass out there for Canon, others get close but none have surpassed L quality. But if you are sitting at home tomorrow instead of out taking pictures because of your lack of L glass than hop onto Andorama, buy an ultra-cheap used lens and go take some pictures (with the end result of you being a photographer when you finally do get that L glass).

Andrew

[OviV]

How do you guys find and revive these dusty old threads. I realized it was old when I read CDS's post about not having much money to spend on a new Telephoto lens. Boy did he lose his fiscal conservativeness in a hurry. ;)

[2new]

Boy did he lose his fiscal conservativeness in a hurry. ;) Resistance is futile - CDS’ fall from fiscally responsible behavior is the second of many signs that you have become one of US. This site should come with a Warning label!

I remember sweating over my first camera purchase, than the lens, and I kept telling myself that I could stop at any time. I don’t have a problem. It’s a good hobby that could someday become a career…

That was until I made the mistake of purchasing my first L –Glass. I ordered the 17-40 f/4 for a trip to Sedona AZ. My first shots with the glass were taken there. WOW – I loved it. I liked it so much that I ordered a 70-200mm f/4 shipped to the hotel where I was staying. How was I going to pay for all of this??? ???

I’d figure that out later…

5 lenses later I can only think of my next wildlife lens.. 500mm Prime or do I go for the 600? All I know for certain is that 'This is going to hurt'

Fortunately now, I have my paycheck direct deposited into B&H’s account to save me the trouble

Resistance is futile :p

Michael

[CyberDyneSystems]

Oviv & 2ew,..
:lol:
Man I was allready laughing over this revived thread before I even got to your new posts... it's hard to beleive it has only about to years since I had yet to get an "L"

Now all but one of my kit is Canon top shelf glass!

Truly I was "assimilated"

However I will mention one thing about the original post.. I have learned that it remains true, despite what the MTF charts and the Canon purists say.. there are VERY good lenses to be had that are not made by Canon.

My most important lens to me is still a Sigma (my 500mm f/4.5 prime) it holds up to scrutiny compared to the 200mm f/1.8 (no it's not it's equal,. but they are apples and oranges anyways) It sure beats the Canon at 500mm though! ;)

Ergonomically the Sigma is FAR better designed than the really difficult to handle 200mm f/1.8... and this is one of Canon's absolute best lenses ever made.

Also,. (and this is directed again at the original post) like all things in life.. this is allways going to be about making a compromise.

If we were all allways in a postiton to own the best there is,. then there would be very little coflict or competition in this discussion.

We'd all have lenese that are the absolute best and function flawlessly on our Cameras.... (most likely these perfect lenses would then be made in germany... not by Canon)

But thats a fantasy land.

Price allways plays an important role.. yes we can throw caution to the wind as I have on occasion and splurge every so often :rolleyes:

But we still have budgets.. if we didn't (if I didn't) we'd have 600mm f/4 IS all around :)

I chose a lens that cost 1/5th the price of the Canon 600mm...

Many chose the excellent Tamron 28-75mm over the Canon which costs 4 to 5 times as much.

Lastly of course,. I have said this before,. Canon does not have an answer to every competitive lens out there. Sigma in particular has Telephoto zoom options that are not only completley unique to there line,. but are also of such top notch build quality and design that Canon woul be hard pressed to match ,.. and if they did the cost would most likely be double.

(I speak of the 100-300mm f/4, 120-300mm f/2.8 and 300-800mm ..among others,.. all Sigma EX lenses and all lenses that Canon has NOTHING remotely like them.)

Sure if price were no object,. if Canon had all the answers,.. etc etc.. but this is not the real world.

[KurtKuhn]

...I have my paycheck direct deposited into B&H’s account to save me the trouble

2new, great punch line to a good thread worth reading. :lol:

-KK