For what it is worth on Lenses

[fntzlnd]

I just purchased my Canon 10D. I had almost gone blind reading reviews and looking at galleries to make sure I am investing my money wisely. Now it was onto a lens decision. Again, more reviews and sample pics.

I have a degree in photography, however I do not use it professionally. I wanted to get back into a more serious hobby mode, and needed to ditch the G1. I tell you this because I am critical on image quality, as I spent much of my time as a visual effects editor in LA.

I went to the camera store, laptop in hand to test a few lenses. About 90% of my picture taking will be of my kids, so I wanted something versital. I know that an all inclusive lens (28-XXX) is more functional, but can lack in sharpness and overall image quality.

The guy at the camera store (very reputable in LA), gave me the Canon 28-85 and Canon 75-300 lenses. Well, the 28-35 were soft images. (Yes I am very aware of the 10D soft image). However these shots did lack in focus. The 75-300 was nice. Images were sharp.

He then put me onto the Sigma 28-70 2.8 lens. Also nice. Better than the Canon. (these tests were not scientific. Just a few shots around the store, with and without flash.)

Before I left, I asked to see the Tamron 28-300. After a few shots... I was sold. This lens was just as sharp as the Sigma 28-70 (true the tamron is not a 2.8), and as sharp as the Canon 75-300. Maybe I found a good one, but so far I am happy.

My $0.02.

[scottbergerphoto]

Forgive me, but you know not about what you speak. I use Canon's 16-35/2.8, 70-200/2.8, and 24-70/2.8. They are incredibly sharp and without distortion. If you look through this forum you will find many people who were dissatisfied with non Canon lenses.

[fntzlnd]

Interesting. I post a simple review of my experience with a few lenses at a camera store, and you insult me. Please, without knowing who it is your are talking to, you may want to be a bit more conservative on your responses.

And if you will read my header, I did say, for what it is worth.

Take it or leave it. I know many people are struggling for the "right" lens for their 10D.

[Jon Borcik]

Hummm... don't get me started again with Tamron. I owned the 24-135mm (their top of the line lense), 70-300mmm and 17-35mm. Be careful, Tamron admitted to my camera shop that they had a focusing compatibility problem with the EOS 10D (which I experienced first hand). The focus goes in and out randomly - especially in lower light situations - which drove me crazy. I also experienced a soft focus and various degrees of chromatic abberrations with all of these lenses. Maybe I got a batch of bad lenses, but I got a complete refund from Tamron and then purchased Canon lenses 24-70L and 100-400L IS. Both of these lenses have performed remarkably. Now I feel like I have a better camera than the Olympus E20N I previously owned. My Canon 70-200L IS should show up tomorrow and I'm sure I'll be very pleased with its quality as well.

From what I have heard around town, the Sigma lenses may be a better alternative lense group.

[ChrisNardone]

fntzlnd,
You are totally correct. Every company makes good and bad lenses. You can read reviews of some of the best lenses and somewhere someone got a bad one and says it not sharp etc. The converse is also true. If you found a good Tamron, kudos to you.

[scottbergerphoto]

Sounds rather threatening. You have to expect some trash talk if your going to bad mouth Canon lenses. They're too expensive to joke about.

Camera bodies will come and go. Lenses are an investment. They will work on any future camera Canon comes out with in the future. Individual users can get very different results on the same lens depending on many factors including shooting conditions, camera motion, lighting, etc. It's important that beginnners understand that with lenses you get what you pay for. There are too many posts to count of people dissatisfied with non Canon lenses who sold them and bought Canon lenses. There have also been a number of posts recently that Canon does not share their specs on how their lenses communicate with the camera, leaving other manufacturers to wing it. Popular Photography also posts tests of lenses on their web site, www.popphoto.com.

[mjordan]

While you are the one that has to be happy with the purchase, if after your comments to the salesman about softness in the first to lenses he did not bring out a couple of "L" lenses for you to try, then he is not as good as you were told. It sounds like he was trying to sell you the lenses that had the most markup and profit for him. Had you tried the 24-70, 70-200 or one of the other L lenses, you would have seen as much sharpness as your camera was able to provide in the image on a laptop without doing post processing in Photoshop to bring back the sharpness.

But it sounds like what you plan on using the lens for that an "L" lens would probably be overkill. Maybe the 10D as well. But if you are satisfied with what you bought, then it shouldn't matter that you wouldn't find a lot of agreement amoung the people on here that use their EOS cameras day in and day out... some having their livelyhood dependent on the quality of the equipment.

Mike

[jcsorensen]

"They will work on any future camera Canon comes out with in the future."

Then why won't my good FD lenses work on Canon's EOS cameras. Not sure my EF lenses will always work on future Canon cameras--somewhere down the road, technology will surpass EF lenses and we'll have to move on.

[PaulB]

I still don't get this approach to buying digital SLRs.

You go and buy a 10D and don't have a lens for it?
Fine - buy the lens at the time you buy the body, then you can test the two together.
But you presumably bought the body mail order for the cheapest price you could find? Really brilliant way to get backup if things aren't right isn't it?

So you have a really cheap buy of a 10D body, but need a lens. Down to a local camera store to try their stock. They want to sell you a lens at the best markup and you didn't buy the body from them so they don't care a lot about you because you are not spending that much with them. The help and advice you will get is minimal and when you have a problem you have two dealers (and Canon) to deal with..........................

If you can't afford to buy decent lenses to go on the 10D after paying the price of the body then in all honesty you have bought the wrong camera!
If you only want to mess around with the 10D and the lens isn't important to you then question exactly what you spent all that money for, a digital compact may have been able to give you all you need much cheaper and easier.

What you should have done of course is buy a 10D and a 50/1.8 or 28/2.8 and gone off for a while to learn to use it, then expand your lens collection as you needed to. The so-called "superzoom" is the most overhyped money-spinner in the lens manufacturers list - it generally does nothing well and often most things badly.

Unless of course it's the macho thing, the kudos of having a REAL camera round your neck - and we professionals get accused of buying 'white' L lenses just to stand out from the crowd!

But as long as you are happy I suppose. (Just don't start posting 'focus hell with my 10D').

[BearSummer]

Fntzland,

wow you created a storm. The rest of you need to calm down a bit, talk about confrontational. We all know that canon make a wide variety of lenses which range from excellent to a "would use if i had to". Most of you will agree that the 28-85 falls nearer the second category than the first. Which means its not a surprise that the tamron came out in front. I am sure that if Fntz had seen a 28-70 f2.8L he would have been drooling all the way to the bank. But he picked the best lens from the three, and he was happy enough with it to share his findings with us. Which is very helpful to those people starting out who may need to pick a lens in that range/price.

Best of luck with your new camera, hope you take some excellent pics and have a lot of fun with it.

BearSummer

[John57]

If the Tamron suits you - fine, it's what you are happy with that is important. You may have a good one and I may have had a bad one but personally I have just dumped a 'new' Tamron 28-300 as on my 10D the images were awful. Ok'ish up to 100mm but very soft and looked almost out of focus at 300mm wide open. I know it's not the camera as 'L' lenses are superb on it for detail and sharpness.

[mickeyjuice]

scottbergerphoto wrote:
Forgive me, but you know not about what you speak. I use Canon's 16-35/2.8, 70-200/2.8, and 24-70/2.8. They are incredibly sharp and without distortion. If you look through this forum you will find many people who were dissatisfied with non Canon lenses.

So what? Where did he say those lenses weren't good lenses?

If you just want to rant about how good you are because of your lenses, why don't you start your own thread, rather than hijacking someone elses, when they just want some feedback, nor some pseudo-elitist ranting?

FWIW, I've got a Sigma 15-30 which is terrific. And yes, I have used a Canon 16-35 a fair bit - a very nice lens, but not, for me, worth the huge amount extra.

[scottbergerphoto]

I stand corrected. I just happen to love the quality of the pictures I get with L glass.

[rdenney]

jcsorensen wrote:
"They will work on any future camera Canon comes out with in the future."

Then why won't my good FD lenses work on Canon's EOS cameras. Not sure my EF lenses will always work on future Canon cameras--somewhere down the road, technology will surpass EF lenses and we'll have to move on.

Yes, in the entire history of Canon SLR's, gong back 35 years and more, Canon changed their lens mount--once.

Pentax changed their lens mount twice in that period, but at least they provided adaptors.

Nikon's lenses all mount, but they don't all work. I cannot for the life of me keep track of all that AI vs. non-AI vs. AIS vs. D vs. lenses with and without aperture controls and so on ad infinitum. My wife uses Nikon, and I have to be carried like a baby by the camera-store clerk when I buy her a toy.

At least when Canon changed their mount, they changed it for a forward-looking reason, and became fully committed to the change.

Rick "who has a rather large collection of FD lenses" Denney

[RedShoesGirl]

rdenney wrote:
jcsorensen wrote:
"They will work on any future camera Canon comes out with in the future."

Then why won't my good FD lenses work on Canon's EOS cameras. Not sure my EF lenses will always work on future Canon cameras--somewhere down the road, technology will surpass EF lenses and we'll have to move on....snipped...

At least when Canon changed their mount, they changed it for a forward-looking reason, and became fully committed to the change.

Rick "who has a rather large collection of FD lenses" Denney

I think the point was that the original phrase "will ALWAYS work..." was unsupportable no matter how few a times Canon has changed their mounts.

I loved my FD glass and didn't make the switch to EOS until the whole camera bag with almost all the glass and two F1n bodies was stolen. Now the 10D will arrive today!

RSG - who kept one old Ftb and 50mm because it was the first one.

[fntzlnd]

Wow, quite a storm indeed. I want to go on the record in stating:

1) For those of you who assume that I must know nothing about photography and digital imagery because I bought a 3rd party lens are completly talking out of their rear end. You do not know me, do not judge. You do not know my qualifications.

2) No I did not go looking for the best deal on the internet for the body. Do not make assumptions. I did buy the camera at a local camera store here in LA that had a competative price. I personally do not enjoy investing this amount of money in a camera that I can not return easily if it is defective.

3) For ScottBerger, I find you to be a "L" lens snob. Please keep in mind that some of us have 3 children to feed and a mortgage to pay. We all would like to have "L" lenses but infact, it is not cost responsible when other needs are required. I think that many people that invest in this camera are looking to curb their spending and invest in a lens that will keep them happy without breaking the bank. If you can buy "L" lenses then hats off to you, DO NOT come down on those that can not afford them at the expense of taking care of a family.

[RichardtheSane]

My 2 pence...

When someone is impressed with a lens that is not canon wouldn' t be fair to allow them to share their views without being flamed?

Reading some of the replies to fntzlnd I am shocked that anyone can be so insulting towards someone who thought 'wouldn't it be nice to share my views on this lens'

Imagine what a new forum user would think of this fine forum if this was the first thread they read?

I think what I am saying is that everything that has been said in this thread could have been said wihtout insulting anyone if a little bit of thought had gone into certain replies.

fntzlnd, I know a couple of people who have been very impressed with image quality from tamron lenses. I am suprised after seeing a few samples. scottbergerphoto, I love 'L' glass too (the image quality is second to none!), and if I could I would refit my collection with this fine glass. I like others are limited by price so I have to make do with alternatives untill I have saved enough.

Stay happy, we all come here for the same reason - cos we love photography :) :D

[Belmondo]

How we know why they call him Richard The Sane; he makes perfect sense. As a newbie in this elite club, I've been mightily impressed by the upbeat tone of the contributors and would hate to see any tendency to degrade into exchanges of personal vitriol.

By the way, there are two ways to get to the top of an oak tree: you can climb it, or you can sit on an acorn and wait.

[Jeppe]

fntzlnd wrote:
...I wanted to get back into a more serious hobby mode, and needed to ditch the G1. I tell you this because I am critical on image quality, as I spent much of my time as a visual effects editor in LA.


Well, all right. You bought one of the finest DSLR in the prosumer-class

fntzlnd wrote:
The guy at the camera store (very reputable in LA), gave me the Canon 28-85 and Canon 75-300 lenses. Well, the 28-35 were soft images. (Yes I am very aware of the 10D soft image). However these shots did lack in focus. The 75-300 was nice. Images were sharp.


Well, first of all Canon does not have an 28-85, if you mean the plastic 28-80/28-90, yes that is a lousy zoom.
And well you might be pleased with the EF 75-300, but that lens vwill set your 1400$ camera back to a G1, in quality.

fntzlnd wrote:
He then put me onto the Sigma 28-70 2.8 lens. Also nice. Better than the Canon. (these tests were not scientific. Just a few shots around the store, with and without flash.)


Yes, since the Sigma EX 28-70/2.8 is a prosumer and the EF 28-80/90 is a consumer low-budget, that will be the case.

fntzlnd wrote:
Before I left, I asked to see the Tamron 28-300. After a few shots... I was sold. This lens was just as sharp as the Sigma 28-70 (true the tamron is not a 2.8), and as sharp as the Canon 75-300. Maybe I found a good one, but so far I am happy.


Well, now we really talking. Congrats, you just spent 1400$ on an Canon digital IXUS.

No hard feelings, but if you are really in to quality, you would find that the prosumer Canons and Sigmas are superior to any superzooms.


Btw. I have two children, i do take care of my family, and im not an L-snob, just that i already owned them before i bought the 10D, and they are by far the ones that suits the 10D best.

Either way, a superzoom is never good, but it might cut it if you dont make to large enlargment and dont want to carry alot of equipment around.

[soumya63]

Dear fntzlnd,

It is very difficult to come to any conclusion about the lens quality just by shooting few shoots inside a photo store and it is more risky to put a comment in haste in this forum as many people take those words on good faith and make their buying decision.

I have no hang up with Canon lens, but what ever limited exposure I have with several ultra-wide and Super telephoto lenses of Canon and Sigma, Canon always stood out. Actually, Canon is on the bleeding edge of all technological innovation (including your 10D). Go through their only one of its kind list in the world, I do not think there is any other company who has succeeded in designing such astounding optics or electronic innovations. But do all of their lenses are top notch? No, but they are mostly better than other third party lenses of equivalent specification.

What I have found with Canon lenses that they have very consistent QA, so quality does not vary a lot from lens to lens. Sigma, it is a totally new ball game. You may have to try half a dozen to get a decent one. If you got a nice Sigma on the first try, keep it. You are very lucky and some Sigma lenses are good too. I would recommend Sigma 105mm Macro to you, it is a tack sharp lens and cheaper than Canon. But after burning my hand in Sigma once, I have become twice shy. If I am running short of money, I shop pre-owned Canon than buying Sigma. I have other things to worry than to conduct my own QA to find out if lens correctly focus at the edges or if it may need a re-chip to become compatible with my EOS body.

10D is a very capable camera, give it a good lens and see what it can do for you. Have you bought the Canon 50mm f1.8 MKII? It is only $80.00 and cheaper than any Sigma lens I guess. Give it a try and tell us what a cheap Canon lens can do for you.

Best of luck.

Soumya Mitra

http://www.mitraphoto.com

[CyberDyneSystems]

Hi fntzlnd,

Assuming you ever walk into this saloon again :D

I have a nice round up of lenses including some Canon "L" glass.

But I can't afford all "L" so most of my lenses are Sigma's EX line, which is there newer higher end line of lenses including that 28-80mm f/2.8 you mention.

Among the "Better" EX Sigma lenses I own, I also have the "consumer" 28mm-300mm "Superzoom"

Like you, I have clearly a good exmple of this lens. I like it and use it often when all I have room to carry is one camera... you know like a normal person would have.

The convienience of this lens can not dismissed by comparing it to a trunk load of glass weighing twenty times as much and costing 50 times as much.

There is a time and place for both in my mind.

So when I can,. I load that kit into my trunk and take it all with me. But many times it is just the Sigma 28-300mm. And it still gives me MUCH better shots than my last "Prosumer" Digital did,. in fact there is no comparison at all.

Thanks for your review of the Tamron 28-300mm. I know that there are a few who are impressed with that lens. I have read a number of positive reviews on line and in print. (including Popular Photography)

[scottbergerphoto]

Just to set the record straight. I've been an amateur photographer for ten years and have only recently been able to afford L glass. I was only a.) trying to refute the notion in your post that Canon lenses were so so and b.)share my enthusiasm for some wonderful lenses.
No snobbishness intended.

[msvirick]

I wise man said, you get what you paid for it!

[daveh]

Jeppe wrote:
Well, now we really talking. Congrats, you just spent 1400$ on an Canon digital IXUS.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. (As long as he's not spending my money ;))

Just as some people will buy an SUV for the daily commute down a perfectly level freeway, some people will buy an SLR for snapshots because it's a really "cool" camera, feels good, impresses the neighbors or they think maybe they'll grow into it.

I think he knew that his "testing" was, to say the least, "modest" and he was a little naive to think that "For what it's worth" would curtail "vigorous disagreement" but as long as he's happy, I have no issue with that.

[xdiii]

Get a life.

[PixelEyesed]

"Reading some of the replies to fntzlnd I am shocked that anyone can be so insulting towards someone who thought 'wouldn't it be nice to share my views on this lens' Imagine what a new forum user would think of this fine forum if this was the first thread they read?"
-RichardtheSane

Everyone visits this forum to share ideas & maybe get a little advice on a subject that has been my passion since childhood. My first serious camera was the Canon AE1, which I still love, and the 10D is my 3rd digital.

I have 2 lenses for the 10D now, and I love both of them. One is the Tamron 28-75 and the other is a Canon 75-300 1:4-5.6 IS.

Amazingly enough, this is the first thread I viewed as I am looking for some advice and personal opinions on lenses.

Thank you for the replies from ppl like Richard who made me rethink leaving this site and never posting a question or opinion. These reviews are more help than some may realize!

The great thing about text messaging is you get the chance to look at what comes out of your mouth before you hid the send button.

[Erin]

[quote]richardthesane wrote:
My 2 pence...



Reading some of the replies to fntzlnd I am shocked that anyone can be so insulting towards someone who thought 'wouldn't it be nice to share my views on this lens'

Imagine what a new forum user would think of this fine forum if this was the first thread they read?

I think what I am saying is that everything that has been said in this thread could have been said wihtout insulting anyone if a little bit of thought had gone into certain replies.) Unquote



I agree entirely.

The comments of some forum members in this thread equals worst Dpreveiw quality immature idiocy.

I have been here a few times recently, and have been impressed with the tolerant attitudes displayed by forum members,

I guess I will just have to continue hanging around for a bit longer, just in case some of these cretins need a good verbal thrashing!

[Stoneh]

scottbergerphoto: Thats a very dissapointing response from a person who is considred amateur/professional. You are giving bad impression for L galss owners with comments like that.

You say you saved up a long time for an L glass, so what is wrong with fntzlnd starting out with a Tamron? Read the closing paragraph.... he said he was happy.

And for people shouting out.. "you spent that much on a body and you buying cheap lens?" Have you ever thought that us (hobbyists, or people with limited budget) cant afford to spend money on films/ developing and would prefer a cheap DSLR. Ive taken 2000 pics so far, work out the film equiv for that.

Currently the 10D is the best value for money DSLR on the market. We want people to share their views on everything, not just L glass people boating how good the lens are. The quality has never been been disputed.

I for one cant see me spending ££££'s on a L glass lens unless I start making money from my hobby. Esp as the only photo's i've developed so far have been 7x5 or 10x8's.

I hope this hasnt put fntzlnd off this forum, we need people who have a variety of lenses to share their experiences.

[petiot]

i agree with the last comment made by stoneh and the first response of fznlnd to scotterbergephoto. some people just seems to know more than anybody else, and shout it loudly..

but it is not always the one who speak more who have intreresting things to say .... ;)

ok i stop. but let just be humble and tolerant!!!

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

For what it's worth, my opinion.

I'm new to this forum and I like it ALOT, however......

I'm afraid to ask questions regarding any other lens than Canon lenses, and I really don't think that's correct for a forum.

Let's be honest to each other, $ 1499,00 and over here even $ 2199,00 is a whole load of money for a body. But it's a marvelous body. For me the budget I put on myself was $ 2500,00 for the camera and my lenses TO START, in maybe 2-3 years I will opted for L-QUALITY lenses (but maybe not Canon).

At the moment I'm searching for a nice 28-105, and just bought a Sigma 70-210 Apo 2.8 lens, 2 soligor extenders 1.4x and 2.0x and I'm in heaven.

To claim that the 10D with lesser lenses is the same as a consumer camera is total bull and you know it :D. Our company sells alot of digital camera's in all price ranges and I will give you a nice layout for the 10D plusses:

1.
No shutterlag
2.
Very fast continues shooting
3.
Very fast autofocus (even with non USM lenses)
4.
Shooting in RAW (most consumer camera's don't)
5.
the OPTION to build your own collection of lenses in time
6.
no oversharpend, oversaturated or washed out colourincorrect shots.
7.
Manual setup or scene ussage
8.
Hotshoe
9.
Check pictures with incredible zoom and histogram
10.
Intelligent and tracking focus
11.
Remote controlled shooting
12.
alot of accessories
13.
it looks pro :D
14.
Manual focus or autofocus without problem
15.
Insane fast buffering so you can always shoot
16.
White balancing in fine steps

Well I can go on, there are some consumer camera's who will have SOME of the option but NONE have all. So when someone has spent every dime on the body please accept them for being the ones they are, namely VERY motivated people who have chooses probarbly the best DSLR body in the world at this time, over time they WILL invest in better lenses but untill then they will be formed by forums like these, if you guys keep bitching about Sigma or Tamron or Tokina they will loose intrest in this forum and also won't come back when they DO have the L-class lenses and this forum will die a quit death.

Maybe I have no right in speaking because I'm also a loser with a good body and "****ty" lenses (well not being Canon), but the pictures I make with this setup exceeds every picture I ever made with my old HP-850 in tenfold in quality (and that was one good camera), it's the photographer that makes the picture it's the snob that builds his fame on L-lenses and f 2.8 only.

If you would look at some pictures in my homepage you will see what I mean, I'm only 1 year active as a photographer but have made shots with a BenQ, Trust, HP that are wonderful (according to some people), and that's the essence of being, a picture has to touch you and is emotional. Getting bigger lenses and better lenses is part of growing in time in your hobby starting good with the 10D body and Sigma or Tamron or Tokina lenses is setting the first steps into the world that's called learning to cope with the tools you can afford.

I hope I will not get flamed, being new on this forum, but I really had to post this.

Greetings,
Frank
(once I WILL have L-lenses :D).

[pukkita]

This post surprised me. I know mainly 3 english forums (FM, dpreview and this one) and usually hang out at FM, and this one (G3 user) because of the general politeness and constructive discussion.

I think what happened here is some L/prosumer canon zoom glass owners read the first post too fast, and mistakenly thought he was speaking of the Canon 24-70L, and favoring superzoom instead.

I think there's some objetive truths:

* Canon consumer zooms are as bad, or even slightly worse (not their market) than 3d party ones.

* Canon L glass is usually top-notch, but depending on your kind of photography and budget it could be overkill.

* Phisics law don't favor SuperZooms. No matter which brand. Zooms are convenient and practical, but the sweet spot is on conservative ones (1 to 3x min focal magnitude max), say 28-70, 28-135, 70-200, etc. So pick a moderate "prosumer" zoom, maybe used, and you'll have a good versatile lens. Optical quality from brand to brand won't vary much (build quality maybe, but we aren't pros so sturdiness doesn't always justify 30% or more in price)

* Lenses don't have to be outrageously expensive to be optically good (build quality is another issue). Primes is one area where you can get lenses costing a third an equivalent range zoom costs, and performing usually better at their focal.

e.g. fntzlnd, you like taking snapshots (I mean spontaneus, not posed) of your children (me too). That mean usually lots of opportunities indoors, with low light. You surely will want to shoot most ones as portraits to catch their priceless face expressions. So a moderate telephoto will fit...

A canon 50mm f:1.4, wich turns into a moderate telephoto (80mm w/ the 1.6x 10D crop factor) costs about $300, is optically superior to canon L zooms costing 5x that price, is compact and very fast. An old 50 f:1.8 (not mk II) goes for about $100 and its optical quality is similar.

Ok, you can't zoom in and out, and must instead walk closer or further, but this isn't a problem indoors. Its very well suited for *your* photography and *your* budget, and that's what counts.

Maybe you'll like to do landscapes sometimes, does that force you into a Canon 17-40L or 16-35L, or sigma 15-30? not necesarily. For slightly more the price a 17-40 (or almost the half the 16-35) you could get a pretty decent sigma 20 f:1.8 and a canon 70-200 f:4L, if you find more than 50% of your photos range in tele settings from 70 to 200, so that you weight your investment accordingly.

* Good canon L glass looses small value when used. If you find you have an overkill L lens for your needs, you can always sell it losing very little money.

We can't always have everything (i.e. SuperZooms price, focal range and compactness and at the same time quality) so some drawbacks and trade ins are necessary.

You've just bought a great camera, and one thing is for sure: put decent glass on it, and the day you want to make an enlargement of a great capture, you'll be blown away by its quality.

Just my 2 cents.