L Lens questions and observations...

[fntzlnd]

Howdy all,

I have a 10D. I had previously posted (a long time ago) a topic on how I bought the Tamron 28-300XL lens, and how great it was. I had even compared it to a couple Canon lenses in the store and found the Tamron to be better.

Well, I have now found that just because I compared it against a Canon lens, doesn't mean that I compared it against a 'good' Canon lens. And, it took a while for me to figure out that some of these consumer lenses are really hit-and-miss at an f-stop below 8.

My motto now is: "L lenses or bust". I am tired of soft images produced by this Tamron lens (yes I am aware of the default 10D inherit lack of camera processing for sharpness). I recently took some pictures of a house in the morning (sun was up, so there was a fair amount of light), at f22, ISO 200, only to have a soft image.

My question for all the L owners out there:
1) What sort of soft focus issues have you found?
2) Has anyone with an L lens ever had the back/front focus problem on some of the 10D's? (I dont think my unit has this problem.)
3) Has anyone gone from the Tamron 28-300 to L? What are your experiences in image quality?

I am looking at getting the 17-40 f4L and the 70-200 f4L. It has come all too clear that the camera body is only a vehicle that delivers light data from a lens to a 'film' plane. If the light data coming in is poor, then the image is poor.

I do think it is crap that the only way to achieve superior results is to hemmorage a ton of $$'s but, that is the way it is.

Thanks for the soap box, and any contributions to my post.

Greg

[Andy_T]

Hi,

maybe you should get one of the 'Fabulous Fifties' (50/1.8 or 50/1.4) first to ascertain that your body is not the fault.

The 50/1.8 is definitely the greatest value-for-money at about 60 US$ in Canon's lens roundup.

Best regards,
Andy

[Canuck]

Howdy all,

I have a 10D. I had previously posted (a long time ago) a topic on how I bought the Tamron 28-300XL lens, and how great it was. I had even compared it to a couple Canon lenses in the store and found the Tamron to be better.

Well, I have now found that just because I compared it against a Canon lens, doesn't mean that I compared it against a 'good' Canon lens. And, it took a while for me to figure out that some of these consumer lenses are really hit-and-miss at an f-stop below 8.

My motto now is: "L lenses or bust". I am tired of soft images produced by this Tamron lens (yes I am aware of the default 10D inherit lack of camera processing for sharpness). I recently took some pictures of a house in the morning (sun was up, so there was a fair amount of light), at f22, ISO 200, only to have a soft image.

My question for all the L owners out there:
1) What sort of soft focus issues have you found?
2) Has anyone with an L lens ever had the back/front focus problem on some of the 10D's? (I dont think my unit has this problem.)
3) Has anyone gone from the Tamron 28-300 to L? What are your experiences in image quality?

I am looking at getting the 17-40 f4L and the 70-200 f4L. It has come all too clear that the camera body is only a vehicle that delivers light data from a lens to a 'film' plane. If the light data coming in is poor, then the image is poor.

I do think it is crap that the only way to achieve superior results is to hemmorage a ton of $$'s but, that is the way it is.

Thanks for the soap box, and any contributions to my post.

Greg

Greg,
I know all too well where you are coming from. I have said what I am thinking a trillion times but I can see where you are coming from. You might also look at the Sigma EX series as a Canon L alternative. My best advice to you is got to some of the review places and look the lens(es) you are looking at, and see what others have to say about lens x, y, z. There are some great lenses availiable at verying focal lengths. I have the 120-300 F2.8EX that I really enjoy to no end, and it is heavey and not cheap! On the flip side, there is the Canon 16-35 F2.8L I have and a Canon 24-70 F2.8L on order. I will eventually get the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX as I have coverage from 16-35 (will be 16-70 shortly) and 120-300 so the gap of 70 120 will be covered with overlap by the 70-200. That ought to cover it all from 16-300mm. If I spring for a 2xTC I can get to 600 F5.6 (or 960mm F5.6 accounting for 10D crop)! Not too shabby, eh? Ot was said before within the last week or so, that you can't expect to get a great picture out of something that isn't there to start with. It all starts with a good picture, and goes from there. If you need more proof, read the thread titled, "My boss is gonna kill me!!" It is amusing on some levels, but not others. Anyway, I have said enough.

[fntzlnd]

Canuck,

I have looked at the Sigma EX series, and they are very nice indeed. For anyone looking at Lens reviews, of which I have read so many, that I think I am going blind, I suggest to also subscribe to www.photosig.com. This is a great site for posting pictures and having others critique. But, better than that, you can sort the pictures by which lens they were taken with. This is a WONDERFUL sampling of the capabilities of any given lens. Images taken by all levels of expertise and of all sorts of subjects. I have made my final purchasing judgements based on the images on this site.

I think everyone should have a look at this site..

Thanks for the input.

Greg

[Jesper]

There have been many discussions already about L lenses in this forum and whether "L is the only way to go" or not.

I have two lenses for my 10D at the moment: the 28-135 IS and the 17-40L.

I like the 17-40L very much: it has a nice, metal finish, weather proof lens mount (rubber sealing), you get a lens hood and pouch with it, it doesn't extend when zooming (the zoom mechanism is entirely internal), the front doesn't rotate when zooming or focussing, and ofcourse it's sharp and image quality is great.

But I also like the 28-135 very much: the IS works wonderfully and is especially very useful in low light situations. The image quality is not much worse than the 17-40L, in fact I almost see no difference at all. It's quite sharp.

Ofcourse if you buy an L lens, you can be sure that the quality is great, but there are also some very good and interesting non-L lenses available.

I don't think it's good if the more experienced people on the forums here make the "new people" think that L is the only way to go. You can also make great photos with non-L lenses. :) Ultimately, it's the photographer's talent that makes photos interesting, not the equipment...

[ssim]

Howdy all,

My question for all the L owners out there:
1) What sort of soft focus issues have you found?
2) Has anyone with an L lens ever had the back/front focus problem on some of the 10D's? (I dont think my unit has this problem.)
3) Has anyone gone from the Tamron 28-300 to L? What are your experiences in image quality?



I have the 16-35L, 24-70L, 70-200L IS and the 100-400L IS and can easily say that they are all very good lenses. I use the 24-70 and the 70-200 the most. Both are very sharp. You have to remember that digital images usually need post-processing sharpening in any event, even with L glass. When I acquired my last lens I took the whole lot into the Canon service center and had them calibrated. To be quite honest I didn't notice a great deal of difference after getting them back.

I went through some of the same trials and tribulations that you seem to be going through. When I got my 10D I was so excited about getting it that I didn't spend the right amount of time researching the lenses and ended up with a couple of lenses that are not used anymore. My original attitude was that if I was going to spend the money for a Canon body I would only put Canon glass on it. That is not to say that some of the third party glass isn't good but it was a personal decision. My subsequent decision to go with "L" category lenses where available was one of my better choices as I am very pleased with all the lenses.

I also have a couple of non L lenses, 50f1.8 and the 100 macro, both of which I have found to be very sharp.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Howdy all,

...My question for all the L owners out there:
1) What sort of soft focus issues have you found?
So far none with quality glass,.
2) Has anyone with an L lens ever had the back/front focus problem on some of the 10D's? (I dont think my unit has this problem.)

Yes,. not me but some of the documented instances I know of were owners of high quality lenses,. including the Pekka, the administrator and founder of this forum.

3) Has anyone gone from the Tamron 28-300 to L? What are your experiences in image quality?

Well,. I started with a Sigma 28-300mm... I still have the Sigma,.. it sits on a shelf and hasn't even seen a glimpse of my 10D since about June...

There is no comparison.

I am looking at getting the 17-40 f4L and the 70-200 f4L. It has come all too clear that the camera body is only a vehicle that delivers light data from a lens to a 'film' plane. If the light data coming in is poor, then the image is poor.

I do think it is crap that the only way to achieve superior results is to hemmorage a ton of $$'s but, that is the way it is.

Thanks for the soap box, and any contributions to my post.

Greg

Sounds like you are learning the same valuable lessons that most first time SLR users learn eventually.. I know it took me a while to be convinced I needed to spend that much atention to the glass.. but in the end the results speak for themselves.

Both of the "f/4" L lenses you mention are supreme bargains in the world of high quality glass. You have done your homework. :)

But do be aware it does not have to be expensive to be good. There are some bargain primes that equal the most expensive lenses for image quality,. both Canon 50mm, the 85mm f/1.8, the 135mm f/2.8 etc...

[Scottes]

Both of the "f/4" L lenses you mention are supreme bargains in the world of high quality glass.

I agree completely.

[Canuck]

Canuck,

I have looked at the Sigma EX series, and they are very nice indeed. For anyone looking at Lens reviews, of which I have read so many, that I think I am going blind, I suggest to also subscribe to www.photosig.com. This is a great site for posting pictures and having others critique. But, better than that, you can sort the pictures by which lens they were taken with. This is a WONDERFUL sampling of the capabilities of any given lens. Images taken by all levels of expertise and of all sorts of subjects. I have made my final purchasing judgements based on the images on this site.

I think everyone should have a look at this site..

Thanks for the input.

Greg

Greg,
I can understand going blind reading all the reviews. I have a few bits I am working on that I have had to take a long break, sometimes days from to prevent me from going braindead/blind. I too have spent many hours comparing lenses and such. At any rate, good luck and we look foward to seeing some pics.

Cheers from England,
Canuck

[kraterz]

If I were you I'd be very wary of buying Sigma lenses. I've had a few which were out of production and Sigma refused to rechip them to work on my new bodies. I didn't realize this when I sold my old EOS and got stuck with some expensive paperweights. I'll never buy anything with a "Sigma" label again. Now if you spend a couple of grand on some Sigma f/2.8 EX lenses and a few years down the road Canon comes up with new bodies which don't like the Sigmas, then you're toast (unless you've been constantly "upgrading" lenses)

[randyk]

You can't go wrong with an L, but whether its the best value is another matter. Like any premium product, its a diminishing return. I think the zooms are pretty good values compared to the Canon consumer zooms but the L primes are awfully pricy and don't think you need to spend $1000+ per lens to get great results.

[samdring]

If I were you I'd be very wary of buying Sigma lenses. I've had a few which were out of production and Sigma refused to rechip them to work on my new bodies. I didn't realize this when I sold my old EOS and got stuck with some expensive paperweights. I'll never buy anything with a "Sigma" label again. Now if you spend a couple of grand on some Sigma f/2.8 EX lenses and a few years down the road Canon comes up with new bodies which don't like the Sigmas, then you're toast (unless you've been constantly "upgrading" lenses)

Not sure that's all correct - fairly conclusive thread here somewhere that showed Canon's change to current mount makes it fairly future-proof

[PacAce]

If I were you I'd be very wary of buying Sigma lenses. I've had a few which were out of production and Sigma refused to rechip them to work on my new bodies. I didn't realize this when I sold my old EOS and got stuck with some expensive paperweights. I'll never buy anything with a "Sigma" label again. Now if you spend a couple of grand on some Sigma f/2.8 EX lenses and a few years down the road Canon comes up with new bodies which don't like the Sigmas, then you're toast (unless you've been constantly "upgrading" lenses)

Not sure that's all correct - fairly conclusive thread here somewhere that showed Canon's change to current mount makes it fairly future-proof

I don't think the previous poster was talking about the mount itself but the electronics/protocol used to communicate between the body and the lens. Since this is Canon proprietary information that has not been released, the only way Sigma and any other 3rd party lens designers can make their own lenses to work with Canon bodies is by reverse engineering them. And that, as history has shown, especially with the Sigmas, can cause incompatibility issues with future Canon bodies.

[samdring]

You're absolutely right - sorry