Will the Lseries make a big difference to the low end cameras

[RodBarker]

Hello

I have a 300D and Im not ready to step up to a higher camera model just yet but seeing as the lenses will go from camera to camera , my question is how much better will the L series lenses make to this camera , I was thinking of building a kit of probably 3 lenses up , will the improvement by just putting the best glass on the 300D be a big jump in quality or not that much .

Thanks Rod

[randyk]

Why yes, it will be noticeable. The image quality from the less expensive bodies is nearly as good as the more expensive ones so don't let the body hold you back from using top glass.

[Bob_A]

There are a lot of good lenses that approach the optical quality of "L" lenses. What are you using right now?

If you are using the kit 18-55 and shoot with it wide open a lot, then there will be a very big improvement in the quality of your images. If you have the 18-55 and always shoot with the lens at say f8 to f11, then you may not see much improvement by going with better glass.

For me, I'd rather have a 300D with a high quality lens than a 20D with something that isn't great optically. Going from a 6 MP to 8.2 MP sensor isn't going to make much of a difference for many of us that rarely print images over 8x10. Oh, and that's not to say you can't go larger than 8x10 with a 6 MP sensor and get a decent result ... just that at 8x10 or less you can print close to 300 dpi which is all you really need.

Also, how is your technique? This can often make more of a difference than the lens you are using.

[Headcase650]

"L" lenses are the best canon has to offer and many consider them to be the best of any brand. 3rd party makers also have their pro line of lenses that give "L's" a run for their money.

Sigma EX's are very good and seem to be the most popular 3rd party Pro line.

Tamron has a few pro lenses but dont have the quality build of the sigma EX but are great opticaly.

Tokina have some pro enses with great optics and from what I understand a nearly bulletproof build as well.

[raylks]

They will make a difference. My personal experience tells me that the L lens does not only give you a sharper and contrasty picture than the non-pro lens but also a comfortable feeling when you shoot out with them. The build is just like a tank, giving you a feeling of reliability and safety; the look is so professional, allowing you to receive some appreciation (or over-appreciation) from others. And this feeling goes for low-end cameras too!
Anyway, shooting is a leisure (unless you take it as a job), so the feeling counts.

[foxbat]

I have three L lenses that I use on the 300D. So from first hand experience I can say that they produce absolutely superb image quality. I would only upgrade the body if I found myself wanting their additional features, e.g. AI servo, better high ISO performance, quicker operation.

[condyk]

Great responses and all spot on. I'd focus on your own creative abilities and technical understanding, then the lenses and then, if you can be bothered, worry about the body.

Tho' there are some decent lower cost lenses you have more chance of satisfaction long term with the Tamron SP, Sigma EX, Canon L and Tokina Pro lines. The latter brand make some great wide angles, for example, at very nice prices.

Canon L are always safe and quality choices, despite the concerns some owners have expressed about Quality Assurance these last few weeks. All lenses will have variation and all brands will chuck out a duffer now and again. It's vital to remember as well that many lens issues reported can be attributed to user or camera settings.

Check out:

fredmiranda.com
photozone.de
photographyreview.com

All are useful sites, with varying 'usability' and some minor model confusion, that focus on real world user perspectives. The collated review scores are helpful as they filter out, eventually, any single sample varience, from amongst the very many reviews submitted.

Stay open minded ... there are good and bad and mediocre in every brand. Do your research and spend what you can afford.

[HKFEVER]

Ls do make a lot of difference.

Lenses for MF is always cost more than the MF camera, MF camera is just a box.

Just like human need to have a good eye sight first.

[xuxu1]

Why do "L" lenses cost (so) much more than the standard lenses?

Because of better glass, coating and another (at least) handfull of quality criterias the cheap(er) lenses can´t compete with. The camera bodys have different features, more or less buttons and/or switches to play with.

So in most cases.... with a better "L"ens you get a better pic quality (if you know what your doing). As you know the photographer makes the pic. the camera and all the stuff added to it just takes the pic.

So... there are situations where photogs with simple equipment manage to make better pics than other photogs with expensive photo gear.

No Ferrari can help you if you can´t drive a car! :shock:

ED

[condyk]

You're assuming pricing is based on materials, manufacture and development related input. There is NO reason another brand can't compete on these criteria.

Normally, pricing is calculated by desired margin relative to overall costs of sales ... and what the customer is willing to pay. Maybe Canon desire greater margin and know the customer will pay. This latter is part conditioned by customer perception, which is part conditioned by marketing spend. Posts on this forum may also have a influence :lol: :lol: but not mine of course.

[xuxu1]

.....the cheap(er) lenses can´t compete with.

Of course i was talking about the Canon non-L lenses. It´s the same question over and over again. Which lens should i buy...? L-lens,is it worth it...? And then the next one... is my lens front/backfocusing...?

I´m sure that in approx. 1 out of 1000 cases there might be a faulty lens. All others are due to user error.

As said before... there are lot´s of nice and good 3rd party lenses available. I myself stick to the (original product) Canon lenses cause i want my lenses to work on my future Canon camera body without the need of re-chipping or having to sell the lens because it won´t work on another Canon body. But that´s just me. It´s everybodys own decision....

ED

[blue_max]

The higher the quality of lens, the higher the quality of light that will be delivered to the sensor. The various bodies have a few differences, but the 300d is capable of capturing that light very well indeed.

Of course, the debate about which lens is best will go on, but buy the best you can afford and be confident that your body will take advantage of it.

Graham

[WepWaWep]

I have the 300D and have gone from the starter lenses to the higher quality L series and the EF 100 macro as my choice for glass. What a huge difference! I replaced the kit lens with the 17-40 L and the color is like night and day. Choosing the 100-400 L has been like removing the training wheels when I compare it to the 75-300 that it replaced. As for the 100 macro, I find the lens seems to spend as much time on the camera body as the others.

When on a shoot, I always have all three along and will swap out lenses without a second thought to get the dynamics I am trying to achieve.

There are two more pieces I would get before I swap out my camera, the EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS and the 580 EX Speedlite to complete my basic kit. I know what this camera can achieve in the right hands with the right accessories. I will admit that I have extended it's ability(Firmware, cough, Hack, cough) and have the added features that I need.

Talent is talent but great equipment helps.

[lkorell]

There are lots of choices if you are sticking with the 300D. If you don't have a big "L" budget, I recommend the following lenses:

85 f1.8
17-40 f4L
50 f1.4

Those three lenses produce super images and are all fairly affordable compared to the major "L" glass.

For a larger budget:

70-200 2.8L IS
24 f1.4L
35 1.4L

Those will put you in a whole other league. But if you can afford to go with the higher priced lenses, an upgrade to the 20D may give you more bang for your buck.

Just my opinion. Enjoy!

Lou

[xuxu1]

There are lots of choices if you are sticking with the 300D. If you don't have a big "L" budget, I recommend the following lenses:

85 f1.8
17-40 f4L
50 f1.4
........................

Lou
You might want to add one more lens to your list.... :)

70-200 f4L

ED

[schmoelzel]

I loved my DRebel and noticed a HUGE improvement in the quality of the pics when I bought my first L lens (70-200F4). Now I use a 1D but still have the good glass.........I went down in MP but I find my shots are much better as far as the CCD's resolving power. I would suggest that you stick with the DRebel and invest in some good glass......as mentioned earlier, there are some great non-L primes out there; the L's just seem to have a quality about their build that inspires many to get the shot!!

[CyberDyneSystems]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=25789

[karusel]

Rod, I find your question impossible to answer with precision. You did not say what lenses you have and what lenses you might want - other focal lengths, zooms, or fix focals.

If you have fairly solid lenses right now and don't need faster glass, it might be better to buy a 20D, since as I heard, it is a much better camera than the rebel.

The lenses make a lot of difference, but there is a reason NOT to buy top of the line lenses for a 300D - the focussing accuracy. When you're using a fast prime at an open aperture you get very shallow depth of field and AF suddenly becomes of critical importance. No other way than to but a 1 series camera. Personally, I'll get the 1D MKII as soon as the price drops some more on the used ones, and that will be when some other model enters the market.

Oh and also, it's not just about the sharpness (L's typically have much more even corner-to-corner sharpness and are overall sharper, with few exceptions), it's about geometry (correction) accuracy, flare resistance, no purple fringing, good color rendition, etc.