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?

 
bigland
Senior Member
Avatar
405 posts
Joined Aug 2008
Location: 53°18' N 60°25' W
     
Jan 28, 2011 16:13 |  #46

ilumo wrote in post #11733160 (external link)
While I do enjoy "L"ens envy from some people. One of my pet peeves is that a lot of people look at my images and say, If I had a camera like that, I could take awesome images too. In my mind I'm like no... if I give you this camera, you would give me blurry images with crappy composition. I guess that's another thing that prompted this thread. :p

Isn't that true though? I am about to eat my supper which the pots/pans did an awesome job of cooking! :lol:


5DII | 35 f/1.4L | 85 f/1.8 | 430EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
ilumo
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,708 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 14
Joined Oct 2009
     
Jan 28, 2011 16:15 |  #47

Kento wrote in post #11733146 (external link)
So 4 lenses that don't live up to your expectations in sharpness out of 50+ L lenses in the entire line-up.. don't even get me started on how many non-L's suck in the sharpness department :p

Another huge plus with L lenses is their value retention. As long as you keep it clean and pretty the lens will be worth just as much 5 years from now as when you bought it. There really is no drawback to buying an L lens when you can sell it whenever you want to recoup the costs in a pinch.

no, I can name a lot of other "L"enses that are not tack sharp wide open. Just thought you got the idea too ;)
True. There are a lot of reasons to own "L"enses, but check this out:

http://www.flickriver.​com …18-55is/pool/interesting/ (external link)

18-55 owners... see, not too bad :)


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
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,155 posts
Gallery: 21 photos
Likes: 1191
Joined Dec 2006
     
Jan 28, 2011 16:16 |  #48

ilumo wrote in post #11733160 (external link)
While I do enjoy "L"ens envy from some people. One of my pet peeves is that a lot of people look at my images and say, If I had a camera like that, I could take awesome images too. In my mind I'm like no... if I give you this camera, you would give me blurry images with crappy composition. I guess that's another thing that prompted this thread. :p

A lot of those folks would say the same thing if you were holding a rebel or any dslr, because they believe that the gear is the determinant. They probably dont know L from A...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gasrocks
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
13,431 posts
Joined Mar 2005
Location: Portage, Wisconsin USA
     
Jan 28, 2011 16:17 |  #49

I find the whole discussion kinda of B&W. Let's go for some color. Once you can abandon AF once in a while, you'll find a whole new dimension to lenses. Canon L are the best if you own a Canon body and have to have AF, perhaps. But, Canon L are not the best lenses ever made, in general. Many times you can do so much better. The EF L or EF non-L debate seems silly to me. I could see a debate over expensive lenses vs cheaper lenses vs bang for the buck though.


GEAR LIST
_______________

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,567 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Jan 28, 2011 16:17 |  #50

gonzogolf wrote in post #11733200 (external link)
They probably dont know L from A...

I think you means to say "they don't know their A from an L in the ground".


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ricardo222
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
16,067 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 185
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
     
Jan 28, 2011 16:17 |  #51

ilumo wrote in post #11731160 (external link)
Other than for speed? Color, sharpness, distortion, vignetting, CA etc etc can be corrected/modified in post.
I used to shoot JPG and do a LITTLE post here and there. But now I find myself shooting in RAW and doing post to 99% of my shots. There's ALWAYS something that I want to do to it, whether it be adding a little contrast here, fill light there, sharpening... and it doesnt take long at all to sync the settings to all my other pictures. It was a a daunting task in the past, but now it just takes minutes to edit a batch of files.
I can probably make a $100 lens look better than a $2000 lens with 30 secs of work... so is there really any "optical" advantage of having a L over a bottom of the barrel lens?
Instead of recommending someone a L lens from now on, maybe I'll just tell them to learn how to post process a little better.

The only thing I can deduce from your post is that you are not putting REAL demands on the quality of the work you produce.

If you were, you would not be suggesting that you can introduce sharpness that wasn't there in the first place. Certainly there are very sharp non L lenses for certain applications. the EF-S 17-55 2.8 is, I believe, very sharp, but I can't use it on my FF camera. My 100 macro is very sharp and gets used regularly.

But when I bought the TS-E 17 it made my 17-40L look soft at that focal length and no amount of PP work could change that.

When you are making large prints you do notice these things. Not all L lenses are sharp across their range, but they tend to be the best available, so if one is fussy about quality, specially if you're presenting work to clients, then only the best is good enough.

The "bottom of the barrel" lenses you seem to be extolling are pretty awful when examined closely, and it's all very well saying that all those abberations can be cured in PP, but that just isn't so. It's all a matter of what you're prepared to call quality work I suppose.

Good on you for getting so competent at PP, though. Mind you, with all those L lenses you have, I wonder why you needed to!


Growing old disgracefully!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Anders ­ Östberg
Goldmember
Avatar
3,395 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Nov 2003
Location: Sweden
     
Jan 28, 2011 16:20 |  #52

"I can probably make a $100 lens look better than a $2000 lens with 30 secs of work"

Frankly I seriously doubt that - have you tried?
What lenses would you suggest for such a test?

You'd probably have to stack the deck and pit the best cheap lens you could find against the worst expensive one. Pick random $100 lenses against random $2000 lenses and I don't think the cheapos would stand a chance.


Anders Östberg - Mostly Canon gear - My photos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ricardo222
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
16,067 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 185
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
     
Jan 28, 2011 16:21 |  #53

tkbslc wrote in post #11733211 (external link)
I think you means to say "they don't know their A from an L in the ground".

Or their A** from their L bow??:D


Growing old disgracefully!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,567 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Jan 28, 2011 16:21 |  #54

Anders Östberg wrote in post #11733218 (external link)
"I can probably make a $100 lens look better than a $2000 lens with 30 secs of work"

Frankly I seriously doubt that - have you tried?
What lenses would you suggest for such a test?

I always think "why not put 30 secs into the $2000 lens, then and see what happens".


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Kento
Goldmember
Avatar
1,207 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jul 2008
Location: Innsbruck, Austria
     
Jan 28, 2011 16:21 |  #55

ilumo wrote in post #11733193 (external link)
no, I can name a lot of other "L"enses that are not tack sharp wide open. Just thought you got the idea too ;)
True. There are a lot of reasons to own "L"enses, but check this out:

http://www.flickriver.​com …18-55is/pool/interesting/ (external link)

18-55 owners... see, not too bad :)

We all know there are non-L lenses that can take some pretty dang impressive pictures (ie 17-55mm, 85mm 1.8 ect..) but sending me a link full of HDR photos and over-saturated, over-photochopped pics doesn't prove anything to me..

I think you and I must have a completely different perception of what makes a good picture.


My Tools
-Jesse
Unknown-Studio.com

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pasukun
Goldmember
Avatar
1,388 posts
Joined Feb 2007
Location: US
     
Jan 28, 2011 16:24 |  #56

ilumo wrote in post #11732969 (external link)
If I needed money. I probably would. just because you don't like this thread doesn't mean I'm trolling. I'm just trying to let some people who can't obtain L glass know that you don't need L glass for beautiful images. Theres a lot of people caught up on that, myself included, at times.

I think, you might have taken the wrong steps to deliver the message.
Rather than making a bold statement about the PP along with the line that strikes down many L lovers, it would have been far more appealing if you would have suggested the benefit of the advanced PP techniques with some examples and simple "how to" instructions.
Then it would be more in line with what you are trying to achieve.


"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
Anders ­ Östberg
Goldmember
Avatar
3,395 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Nov 2003
Location: Sweden
     
Jan 28, 2011 16:30 |  #57

tkbslc wrote in post #11733223 (external link)
I always think "why not put 30 secs into the $2000 lens, then and see what happens".

Absolutely. It's the same deal with "it's the photographer, not the camera" ... i.e a good photographer with a not so good camera will produce better pictures than a bad photographer with a good camera, and that's supposed to prove you don't need the good stuff. So what? Why not give give the good photographer the good camera and see what happens? :)

It's bad logic. Even the bad photographer (i.e. me) will produce better pictures given better gear ... I need all the help I can get. ;)


Anders Östberg - Mostly Canon gear - My photos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pixelmorph
Member
100 posts
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Playa Del Rey
     
Jan 28, 2011 16:30 |  #58

Pasukun wrote in post #11733247 (external link)
I think, you might have taken the wrong steps to deliver the message.
Rather than making a bold statement about the PP along with the line that strikes down many L lovers, it would have been far more appealing if you would have suggested the benefit of the advanced PP techniques with some examples and simple "how to" instructions.
Then it would be more in line with what you are trying to achieve.

+1.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Riveredger
Senior Member
660 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2010
Location: NJ
     
Jan 28, 2011 16:30 |  #59

Some of you guys are too attached to your gear. Do you guys have trouble sleeping when you get caught up in a thread like this? lol


Flickr Photostream (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pasukun
Goldmember
Avatar
1,388 posts
Joined Feb 2007
Location: US
     
Jan 28, 2011 16:32 |  #60

Riveredger wrote in post #11733280 (external link)
Some of you guys are too attached to your gear. Do you guys have trouble sleeping when you get caught up in a thread like this? lol

That depends.
50mm f/1.8, I let my daughter play with it.
35mm f/1.4, even for my wife it is off limit. ;)


"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
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

23,325 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 wayne_lee
563 guests, 349 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.