Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 28 Jan 2011 (Friday) 10:50
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Do you really need nice L lenses?

 
ilumo
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,708 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 14
Joined Oct 2009
     
Jan 28, 2011 11:21 |  #16

gonzogolf wrote in post #11731187 (external link)
If you can PP sharpness in where it doesnt exist you may be on to something. But as the resolving powers of sensors increase dont you want the best lenses possible in your arsenal?

I can PP sharpness on a non L lenses to far exceed the SOOC sharpness of a L lens. I personally would want the L for that tiny bit extra resolving power... but if a broke kid wanted to take awesome pics, I would tell them that they don't the HYPED up L lenses to make beautiful sharp, contrasty, etc photos.


Body: 5D Mark IV
Glass: 50mm f/1.8 | 35mm f/1.4L USM | 17-40 f/4.0L USM | 24-70 f/2.8L II USM | 24-105 f/4.0L IS USM | 70-200 f/2.8L II IS USM | 85mm f/1.2L USM | 100mm f/2.8L IS USM
Accessories: 430 EX II, 600 EX, tripods, umbrellas, and other goodies.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,156 posts
Gallery: 21 photos
Likes: 1192
Joined Dec 2006
     
Jan 28, 2011 11:26 |  #17

ilumo wrote in post #11731335 (external link)
I can PP sharpness on a non L lenses to far exceed the SOOC sharpness of a L lens. I personally would want the L for that tiny bit extra resolving power... but if a broke kid wanted to take awesome pics, I would tell them that they don't the HYPED up L lenses to make beautiful sharp, contrasty, etc photos.

No, you can add sharpness, but at a cost, in PP. But if you are waxing philosophical, you dont need a dslr to take awesome pics. You dont even need a digital camera.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shockey
Goldmember
1,187 posts
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Boise Idaho
     
Jan 28, 2011 11:28 |  #18

For me the ONLY reason I bought the finest glass is to use it wide open.
For shots where that is not necessary middle of the road glass, used with proper technique and assuming photos are taken in good light....really VERY hard to tell the difference on properly processed photos. Most of the time average glass is fine.


___________
Boise Portrait Photographer
www.alloutdoor.smugmug​.com (external link)
www.aoboudoirboise.smu​gmug.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pasukun
Goldmember
Avatar
1,388 posts
Joined Feb 2007
Location: US
     
Jan 28, 2011 11:43 |  #19

There are certain limits on how much PP you can do before you start trashing your image quality, also no matter what kind of PP you do, it is always best to have the very best base quality. Nothing beats that.

I do not know the amount of pictures you take daily, weekly or monthly, but to study each and every pictures and apply proper PP to make up the lacking image quality costs the most expensive currency, the time. And it looks more natural with less PP anyway. To save time we would use PP actions or presets, but most of them affects the entire frame altering not only on the area it needs but the whole, and that is why you have to be careful about how much PP you do.

Also if you need 135mm focal length at aperture of 2.0 with reliable accuracy and speed, or you own a FF bodies. Your choice is very limited.

One more to add.
The very best glasses are often demanded not only for the image quality, but because of the environmental challenges.
In ideal situations, any glass can produce great image, but how often do you get that ideal situations?


"the things we touch have no permanence.. as there is nothing we can hold onto in this world.. only by letting it go can we truly possess what is real.."

My Gears

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,567 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Jan 28, 2011 11:56 |  #20

ilumo wrote in post #11731264 (external link)
I don't NEED them. I "WANT" them. there's a difference.

That's pretty obvious. Nobody needs L lenses. I would bet at least 5,999,900,000 on this planet right now will live their entire lives without L lenses, and couldn't care less.


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
60D | ELPH 330 | iPhone 5s

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
richardfox
Goldmember
Avatar
1,883 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Bellbrook, Ohio, USA
     
Jan 28, 2011 12:05 |  #21

tkbslc wrote in post #11731554 (external link)
That's pretty obvious. Nobody needs L lenses. I would bet at least 5,999,900,000 on this planet right now will live their entire lives without L lenses, and couldn't care less.

That's because they don't know any better! ;)

One "needs" nothing but food, clothing and shelter. WANT is far different than NEED.

However, there's nothing wrong with wanting the best if one can afford it! :D


Canon 50D gripped, EF 50/1.8, EF-S 10-22, 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200 f/2.8L, 100/2.8 macro, 100-400L, 300 2.8L, Canon 500 f8 mirror with chipped EF mount, 580EX, 1.4x and 2x Canon teleconverters, Canon EF Life-Size converter.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,567 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Jan 28, 2011 12:08 |  #22

richardfox wrote in post #11731607 (external link)
However, there's nothing wrong with wanting the best if one can afford it! :D

I never implied otherwise. I do however get a very ironic tingle when I read the word "need" on a photo forum where we the relatively rich argue about which toys to buy with our excess money. I don't think any of us know anything about what need really means.


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
60D | ELPH 330 | iPhone 5s

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
m.shalaby
Goldmember
3,443 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Dec 2009
     
Jan 28, 2011 12:26 |  #23

ilumo wrote in post #11731335 (external link)
I can PP sharpness on a non L lenses to far exceed the SOOC sharpness of a L lens. I personally would want the L for that tiny bit extra resolving power... but if a broke kid wanted to take awesome pics, I would tell them that they don't the HYPED up L lenses to make beautiful sharp, contrasty, etc photos.

looks like you answered your own question

what was the point of starting this thread?

and being you have L glass in your signature raises eyebrows even more

this is a stupid thread that looks to have intentions of nothing other than starting issues.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
richardfox
Goldmember
Avatar
1,883 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Bellbrook, Ohio, USA
     
Jan 28, 2011 12:27 |  #24

tkbslc wrote in post #11731616 (external link)
I never implied otherwise. I do however get a very ironic tingle when I read the word "need" on a photo forum where we the relatively rich argue about which toys to buy with our excess money. I don't think any of us know anything about what need really means.

You are 1000% right. I've never starved, lived in a burnt out school bus or tied cardboard to my feet to use for shoes.

I was in China a couple of years ago, and saw poverty unimaginable here in the USA...


Canon 50D gripped, EF 50/1.8, EF-S 10-22, 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200 f/2.8L, 100/2.8 macro, 100-400L, 300 2.8L, Canon 500 f8 mirror with chipped EF mount, 580EX, 1.4x and 2x Canon teleconverters, Canon EF Life-Size converter.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
drumsfield
Goldmember
Avatar
1,596 posts
Likes: 27
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Bethesda Md
     
Jan 28, 2011 12:43 |  #25

In all honesty, I sometimes prefer the look of my non L 50mm 1.4 over my L lenses. The L lenses are sometimes too vibrant and contrasty to get the look I want.


Canon 5D MkIII | Olympus OM-D | Olympus E-P2 | 16-35L MKII | 24-70L MKII | 70-200L MKII | 85L MKII | EF 50mm 1.4 | EF 100mm 2.8 | 100-400mm L MKII | 20mm 1.7
Feedback and Full gear list
Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Takahashi
Mostly Lurking
12 posts
Joined Jan 2011
     
Jan 28, 2011 14:03 as a reply to  @ drumsfield's post |  #26

Never having owned an "L", and having seen the results they appear capable of and speeds they're grabbing light at, I want! As regards the argument in favour of pp'ing out the bad results of cheap(er) glass, frankly, I'd rather not have to frig with an image at all, if at all possible, and if that task incorporates CA removal, fake sharpening, contrast enhancing, I'd rather it was all there or absent before I'd even touched the mouse.

I know this from first-hand experience, having been a spoilt/lazy user of a Tamron 18-270mm "super-zoom" for nearly a year now, almost permanently resident on my camera, but paying the price by having to "treat" almost everything it creates, to some extent at least. As much as I like the convenience of such a huge zoom range, you do pay in terms of clarity, quality and colour rendition.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
amfoto1
Cream of the Crop
10,251 posts
Likes: 84
Joined Aug 2007
Location: San Jose, California
     
Jan 28, 2011 14:17 |  #27

I need the lens that will do the job... Sometimes that's an L, sometimes it's not. Whether or not a lens is an L-series is one of the last things on my list of considerations, when I am looking to purchase a lens.


Alan Myers (external link) "Walk softly and carry a big lens."
5DII, 7DII(x2), 7D(x2) & other cameras. 10-22mm, Tokina 12-24/4, 20/2.8, TS 24/3.5L, 24-70/2.8L, 28/1.8, 28-135 IS (x2), TS 45/2.8, 50/1.4, Tamron 60/2.0, 70-200/4L IS, 70-200/2.8 IS, 85/1.8, Tamron 90/2.5 Macro, 100/2.8 USM, 100-400L II, 135/2L, 180/3.5L, 300/4L IS (x2), 300/2.8L IS, 500/4L IS, EF 1.4X II, EF 2X II. Flashes, studio strobes & various access. - FLICKR (external link) - ZENFOLIO (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pulsar123
Goldmember
2,134 posts
Gallery: 64 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 454
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Canada
     
Jan 28, 2011 14:26 |  #28

Personally, I'd only buy L (or equivalent from other brands) because of the faster glass. You can't do shallow DoF with PP. And there are plenty of sharp non-L lenses.


6D, Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC, 135L, 70-200 f4L, Laowa 15mm 1:1 macro, 50mm f1.8 STM, Samyang 8mm fisheye, home studio

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pasukun
Goldmember
Avatar
1,388 posts
Joined Feb 2007
Location: US
     
Jan 28, 2011 14:36 |  #29

pulsar123 wrote in post #11732540 (external link)
Personally, I'd only buy L (or equivalent from other brands) because of the faster glass. You can't do shallow DoF with PP. And there are plenty of sharp non-L lenses.

In general, I agree with you.
But in the world of photoshop.. even DOF can be faked.
Do you really want to? That's yours to answer. ;)


"the things we touch have no permanence.. as there is nothing we can hold onto in this world.. only by letting it go can we truly possess what is real.."

My Gears

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Refresh ­ Image
Senior Member
557 posts
Joined Jan 2011
     
Jan 28, 2011 14:45 |  #30
bannedPermanent ban

ilumo wrote in post #11731160 (external link)
.
I can probably make a $100 lens look better than a $2000 lens with 30 secs of work....

1. How would you correct bokeh from 50/1.8 to be of the same appearance as that of from 50/1.2 in 30 seconds ? I bet you will not be able to do a good job there at all in a hour.

2. You are comparing processed images from a cheap lens with unprocessed images from "L"s .

3. You mentioned "besides speed" as if it is nothing of much importance. If you are talking about aperture that that is very wrong. That is the main advantage of expensive lenses, which brings many desirable side-efects, which cannot be mimicked in software ?
4. How would you add details not resolved by your cheap lens ?

5. How would you photoshop out the angry face of a person who turned towards you when he was disturbed by the noise coming from focusing mechanism of your cheap lens ?

6. How would you fix the camera damaged by the splash that leaked through your cheap lens weather unsealing ?

7... I could get on and on. The bottom line is: Photoshop is not a replacement for good hardware.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

23,328 views & 0 likes for this thread
Do you really need nice L lenses?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is mogeqq
1996 guests, 318 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.