Index  •   • New Posts  •   • RTAT  •   • "Best Of"  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New Posts  •   • RTAT  •   • "Best Of"  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk
Thread started 30 Oct 2009 (Friday) 09:36
PREV/NEXT

L lens versus Consumer

 
Ralph ­ III
Goldmember
1,217 posts
Joined Mar 2009

Alabama
MORE INFO

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

Oct 30, 2009 09:36

"SOUTHERN and SAVED!"

POTN Feedback 1 2 3 4 5 6

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
egordon99
Cream of the Crop
10,247 posts
Joined Feb 2008

Philly 'burbs
MORE INFO

Ralph III wrote in post #8923887external link
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.

Oct 30, 2009 09:39



LOG IN TO REPLY
chauncey
Cream of the Crop
chauncey's Avatar
8,533 posts

Joined Jun 2007

MI/CO
MORE INFO

Read this, including the reviews http://www.the-digital-picture.com ...Lens-Work-III-Review.aspxexternal link
Then this http://www.canon-europe.com ...n/ef_lens_work_iii_​en.aspexternal link
Followed by this http://software.canon-europe.com ...F_Lens_Work_Book_9_​EN.pdfexternal link

Oct 30, 2009 09:49 as a reply to egordon99's post 10 minutes earlier.

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/c​hauncey43external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Ralph ­ III
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,217 posts
Joined Mar 2009

Alabama
MORE INFO

egordon99 wrote in post #8923897external link
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?

Oct 30, 2009 09:51

"SOUTHERN and SAVED!"

POTN Feedback 1 2 3 4 5 6

LOG IN TO REPLY
advaitin
Goldmember
advaitin's Avatar
3,944 posts
GALLERY: 124 photos
Joined Jun 2003

The Fun Coast of Florida
MORE INFO

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.

Oct 30, 2009 09:54

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.

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Ralph ­ III
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,217 posts
Joined Mar 2009

Alabama
MORE INFO

Thanks for the articles and I like Bryan's site also.

Oct 30, 2009 09:54

"SOUTHERN and SAVED!"

POTN Feedback 1 2 3 4 5 6

LOG IN TO REPLY
advaitin
Goldmember
advaitin's Avatar
3,944 posts
GALLERY: 124 photos
Joined Jun 2003

The Fun Coast of Florida
MORE INFO

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.

Oct 30, 2009 10:00

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.

LOG IN TO REPLY
Ralph ­ III
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,217 posts
Joined Mar 2009

Alabama
MORE INFO

advaitin wrote in post #8923950external link
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

Oct 30, 2009 10:00

"SOUTHERN and SAVED!"

POTN Feedback 1 2 3 4 5 6

LOG IN TO REPLY
egordon99
Cream of the Crop
10,247 posts
Joined Feb 2008

Philly 'burbs
MORE INFO

Ralph III wrote in post #8923935external link
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.

Oct 30, 2009 10:02



LOG IN TO REPLY
egordon99
Cream of the Crop
10,247 posts
Joined Feb 2008

Philly 'burbs
MORE INFO

Ralph III wrote in post #8923983external link
What about the question of quality differences of the 24-105 L and 28-135 consumer?

Ralph

http://www.the-digital-picture.com ...&FLI=0&API=0&LensCo​mp=116external link

Oct 30, 2009 10:03



LOG IN TO REPLY
advaitin
Goldmember
advaitin's Avatar
3,944 posts
GALLERY: 124 photos
Joined Jun 2003

The Fun Coast of Florida
MORE INFO

Ralph III wrote in post #8923983external link
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/showthre​ad.php?t=772992

I posted sample images there.

Oct 30, 2009 10:05

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.

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Ralph ­ III
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,217 posts
Joined Mar 2009

Alabama
MORE INFO

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

Oct 30, 2009 10:08

"SOUTHERN and SAVED!"

POTN Feedback 1 2 3 4 5 6

LOG IN TO REPLY
Ralph ­ III
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,217 posts
Joined Mar 2009

Alabama
MORE INFO

advaitin wrote in post #8924011external link
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/showthre​ad.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

Oct 30, 2009 10:17

"SOUTHERN and SAVED!"

POTN Feedback 1 2 3 4 5 6

LOG IN TO REPLY
mbellot
"My dog ate my title"
mbellot's Avatar
3,339 posts

Joined Jul 2005

The Miami of Canada - Chicago!
MORE INFO

Ralph III wrote in post #8923887external link
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.

advaitin wrote in post #8923981external link
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. :D

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. :lol:

Oct 30, 2009 12:08 as a reply to Ralph III's post 1 hour earlier.



LOG IN TO REPLY
toxic
Goldmember
3,498 posts
Joined Nov 2008

California
MORE INFO

Ralph III wrote in post #8923887external link
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.

Oct 30, 2009 15:46



LOG IN TO REPLY

1,011 views & 0 likes for this thread
L lens versus Consumer
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk

NOT A MEMBER YET? CLICK HERE TO REGISTER TO THE FORUMS
Registered members get all the features: search, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, own reviews...




SEND FEEDBACK TO STAFF    •   JUMP TO FORUM    •   FORUM RULES    •   Index    •   New Posts    •   RTAT    •   "Best Of"    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: By using this site you agree that some cookies will be stored on your browser. For unlogged users we store one session id cookie. For registered members we store (in addition to login session cookie) only cookies that are essential for required functionality. We do not store any personal tracking data in cookies or other browsers' data storage methods.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.1version 1.1
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00096 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.02s
Latest registered member is Lorenz72
945 guests, 661 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 3341, that happened on Dec 11, 2014