L lens versus Consumer

[Ralph III]

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

[egordon99]

Originally Posted by Ralph III

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.

[chauncey]

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

[Ralph III]

Originally Posted by egordon99

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?

[advaitin]

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.

[Ralph III]

Originally Posted by chauncey

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

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

[advaitin]

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.

[Ralph III]

Originally Posted by advaitin

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

[egordon99]

Originally Posted by Ralph III

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]

Originally Posted by Ralph III

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

[advaitin]

Originally Posted by Ralph III

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.

[Ralph III]

Originally Posted by egordon99

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...0&LensComp=116

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]

Originally Posted by advaitin

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

[mbellot]

Originally Posted by Ralph III

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.

Originally Posted by advaitin

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.

[toxic]

Originally Posted by Ralph III

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.