Canon Digital Photography Forums  

Go Back   Canon Digital Photography Forums > 'Sharing Knowhow' section > Talk About Photography > General Photography Talk
Register Rules FAQ Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 30th of October 2009 (Fri)   #1
Ralph III
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,136
Default L lens versus Consumer

Hello,
I am getting into event photography and want to also expand with portraits, seniors and weddings. My budget is limited at the moment and have a few questions in regards to lenses.

This summer I shot a number of tennis tournaments with my ef 28-135 IS lens, which served well. However, I am considering eventually selling that one and getting the 24-105 f4.0 L lens. That is a quality lens which could be used for other venues, obviously.


General question is this. Will the quality of the L lens allow me to crop aggressively and to what degree? Will such cropping be more than adequate in making up the difference in focal lengths of the two lenses? Is the 4.0 a fixed aperture and what difference can I expect versus the 3.5-5.6? I can moderately crop with the 28-135 lens and still get good 16 x 20 and yes even 20 x 30 prints. This was very surprising as articles suggest that IQ not possible, much less at the low and medium pixel setting on my 30d, as shot.


Also, why can't Canon make an 18-200 2.8 L lens? Your left debating between the 18-300 L and 70-200 2.8 L. Just venting on that one as my desired lens would serve better with the sports I wish to shoot, without having to change lenses.

Take care

Last edited by Ralph III : 30th of October 2009 (Fri) at 09:44.
Ralph III is offline   Reply With Quote
This ad block will go away when you log in as member
Old 30th of October 2009 (Fri)   #2
egordon99
Cream of the Crop
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Philly 'burbs
Posts: 10,209
Default Re: L lens versus Consumer

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph III View Post
Also, why can't Canon make an 18-200 2.8 L lens?
Because it would be absolutely massive. Most f/2.8 lenses (which are already quite big) only cover a small zoom range to balance quality and size/weight.

Most folks shooting professionally who need to cover a wide range of focal lengths use two bodies.
egordon99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th of October 2009 (Fri)   #3
chauncey
Cream of the Crop
 
chauncey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: MI/CO
Posts: 8,382
Default Re: L lens versus Consumer

Read this, including the reviews http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...II-Review.aspx
Then this http://www.canon-europe.com/Support/...ork_iii_en.asp
Followed by this http://software.canon-europe.com/fil..._Book_9_EN.pdf
__________________
The things you do for yourself die with you, the things you do for others live forever.
A man's worth should be judged, not when he basks in the sun, but how he faces the storm.

My stuff...http://1x.com/member/chauncey43
chauncey is offline   Reply With Quote
This ad block will go away when you log in as member
Old 30th of October 2009 (Fri)   #4
Ralph III
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,136
Default Re: L lens versus Consumer

Quote:
Originally Posted by egordon99 View Post
Because it would be absolutely massive. Most f/2.8 lenses (which are already quite big) only cover a small zoom range to balance quality and size/weight.

Most folks shooting professionally who need to cover a wide range of focal lengths use two bodies.
OOPS, I meant to say the 28-300 L 3.5-5.6 lens, which is massive and has a much greater focal range than the 70-200 L 2.8.

Your saying by adding a wider focal of only 42mm, yet keeping shorter focal length 200mm, it would bloat that lens to larger than the 28-300?
Ralph III is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th of October 2009 (Fri)   #5
advaitin
Goldmember
 
advaitin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The Fun Coast of Florida
Posts: 3,671
Default Re: L lens versus Consumer

18-300 L? If there was such a beast it would be at least as popular as the 28-300 L.

Yes, I understand it was a typo--just a little funning. However, there is a reason the 28-300 doesn't go into a lot of pro bags. It is just as much a dust pump as the 100-400L and just as bulky without the speed of the f2.8 lenses. I have an f 2.8 120-300 and it is no lightweight. Like the responder above, most shooters assess what they need for a shoot and carry the lenses and a couple or three bodies to cover their needs.

It really doesn't matter what you have in your bag or on the camera--in the lifespan of every photographer there will be a moment when the shot of a lifetime will be just out of reach or too close or just after you've turned away. Some sort of Murphy's law.
__________________
Canons to the left, Canons to the right,
We hold our L glass toward the light,
Digitizing in a snap reflective glory
That will forever tell our imaged story.
advaitin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th of October 2009 (Fri)   #6
Ralph III
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,136
Default Re: L lens versus Consumer


Thanks for the articles and I like Bryan's site also.
Ralph III is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th of October 2009 (Fri)   #7
advaitin
Goldmember
 
advaitin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The Fun Coast of Florida
Posts: 3,671
Default Re: L lens versus Consumer

I should add, for Sigma to get f2.8 on a 120-300mm lens, requires a lot of glass and a 105mm filter to cover the front element. It's 10.7 inches long without the hood and weighs at 5.7 pounds.
__________________
Canons to the left, Canons to the right,
We hold our L glass toward the light,
Digitizing in a snap reflective glory
That will forever tell our imaged story.
advaitin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th of October 2009 (Fri)   #8
Ralph III
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,136
Default Re: L lens versus Consumer

Quote:
Originally Posted by advaitin View Post
18-300 L? If there was such a beast it would be at least as popular as the 28-300 L.

Yes, I understand it was a typo--just a little funning. However, there is a reason the 28-300 doesn't go into a lot of pro bags. It is just as much a dust pump as the 100-400L and just as bulky without the speed of the f2.8 lenses. I have an f 2.8 120-300 and it is no lightweight. Like the responder above, most shooters assess what they need for a shoot and carry the lenses and a couple or three bodies to cover their needs.

It really doesn't matter what you have in your bag or on the camera--in the lifespan of every photographer there will be a moment when the shot of a lifetime will be just out of reach or too close or just after you've turned away. Some sort of Murphy's law.
Thanks and as noted just venting! Having the perfect lens for the perfect situation is truly not in my hands.

What about the question of quality differences of the 24-105 L and 28-135 consumer?

Ralph
Ralph III is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th of October 2009 (Fri)   #9
egordon99
Cream of the Crop
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Philly 'burbs
Posts: 10,209
Default Re: L lens versus Consumer

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph III View Post
OOPS, I meant to say the 28-300 L 3.5-5.6 lens, which is massive and has a much greater focal range than the 70-200 L 2.8.

Your saying by adding a wider focal of only 42mm, yet keeping shorter focal length 200mm, it would bloat that lens to larger than the 28-300?
So you want a 28-200mm f/2.8? Think how big the 70-200mm f/2.8 is. Getting from 70mm to 28mm will make it quite a bit bigger.
egordon99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th of October 2009 (Fri)   #10
egordon99
Cream of the Crop
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Philly 'burbs
Posts: 10,209
Default Re: L lens versus Consumer

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph III View Post
What about the question of quality differences of the 24-105 L and 28-135 consumer?

Ralph
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...0&LensComp=116
egordon99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th of October 2009 (Fri)   #11
advaitin
Goldmember
 
advaitin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The Fun Coast of Florida
Posts: 3,671
Default Re: L lens versus Consumer

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph III View Post
Thanks and as noted just venting! Having the perfect lens for the perfect situation is truly not in my hands.

What about the question of quality differences of the 24-105 L and 28-135 consumer?

Ralph
Wish I could say. My memory of a 28-135 was that I traded it rather quickly for a 17-85mm IS (for my EFs mount cameras) and I was lucky to get a good copy of that lens. I also now have a 24-105 and I'd say it is excellent. I just was on this thread covering the same ground:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=772992

I posted sample images there.
__________________
Canons to the left, Canons to the right,
We hold our L glass toward the light,
Digitizing in a snap reflective glory
That will forever tell our imaged story.

Last edited by advaitin : 30th of October 2009 (Fri) at 10:10.
advaitin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th of October 2009 (Fri)   #12
Ralph III
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,136
Default Re: L lens versus Consumer

Quote:
Originally Posted by egordon99 View Post
A comparison chart. That is great and will read up on it. However, until then, do you have any professional and personal input as I have not had an L lens?

Thanks, Ralph
Ralph III is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th of October 2009 (Fri)   #13
Ralph III
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,136
Default Re: L lens versus Consumer

Quote:
Originally Posted by advaitin View Post
Wish I could say. My memory of a 28-135 was that I traded it rather quickly for a 17-85mm IS (for my EFs mount cameras) and I was lucky to get a good copy of that lens. I also now have a 24-105 and I'd say it is excellent. I just was on this thread covering the same ground:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=772992

I posted sample images there.

Your thread is excellent and will read on! That input is what I was looking for.

Take care, Ralph

Last edited by Ralph III : 30th of October 2009 (Fri) at 10:20.
Ralph III is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th of October 2009 (Fri)   #14
mbellot
"My dog ate my title"
 
mbellot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The Miami of Canada - Chicago!
Posts: 3,333
Default Re: L lens versus Consumer

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph III View Post
Hello,
I am getting into event photography and want to also expand with portraits, seniors and weddings. My budget is limited at the moment and have a few questions in regards to lenses.
"Event" is a rather large category.

If you're looking at theater "events" then f/2.8 glass is the bare minimum to consider usable.

I shoot a couple dance recitals along with other school stuff each year and frequently find myself at ISO6400 f/2.8 and still lacking adequate shutter speed to properly stop action.

Quote:
Originally Posted by advaitin View Post
I should add, for Sigma to get f2.8 on a 120-300mm lens, requires a lot of glass and a 105mm filter to cover the front element. It's 10.7 inches long without the hood and weighs at 5.7 pounds.
Mine arrived yesterday.

Compared to the 70-200/2.8 IS its not bad size wise, but its a beast weight wise. I really wish it had IS/OS, but I'll just have to learn to use the friggin' monopod I guess.
mbellot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th of October 2009 (Fri)   #15
toxic
Goldmember
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 3,498
Default Re: L lens versus Consumer

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph III View Post
General question is this. Will the quality of the L lens allow me to crop aggressively and to what degree? Will such cropping be more than adequate in making up the difference in focal lengths of the two lenses?
Short answer: Get the focal length you need. Get it right in-camera.


A higher-resolution lens will allow slightly more cropping and still yield the same print resolution. How significant is it, I don't know - you need numbers for that (resolution of the lenses at different f-stops and focal lengths), and you need to define what your print resolution goal is in ll/mm.

However, a larger sensor (and appropriate lens) will make more of a difference than upgrading lenses. More megapixels also helps to some degree.
toxic is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why no consumer 70-200mm EF IS lens? Dick Emery Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 53 11th of April 2009 (Sat) 22:25
what is the most expensive consumer lens? Wobble Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 38 9th of July 2007 (Mon) 06:24
Do you own a consumer lens? siejones Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 38 25th of June 2007 (Mon) 21:49
Canon Consumer Lens Copy Quality Catnippants Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 18 11th of June 2007 (Mon) 16:07


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:49.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
This forum is not affiliated with Canon in any way and is run as a free user helpsite by Pekka Saarinen, Helsinki Finland. You will need to register in order to be able to post messages. Cookies are required for registering and posting. HTML in messages is not allowed, plain website addresses are automatically made active by the board.