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 07 Nov 2013 (Thursday) 19:52
Search threadPrev/next
POLL: "Is the Red Ring worth paying the extra price?"
Yes
263
84%
No
50
16%

313 voters, 313 votes given (1 choice only choices can be voted per member)). VOTING IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY.
BROWSE ALL POLLS
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Is the Red ring worth it?

 
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,606 posts
Likes: 415
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
Nov 07, 2013 21:18 |  #16
bannedPermanent ban

ed rader wrote in post #16433484 (external link)
give us some examples because that statement wafts of BS :D

So Ed, I looked at your Sierra shots. Tell me, what exactly did your L lens do in those images that a lens from Sigma, Tamron or Tokina could not do?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
jjaenagle
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,506 posts
Joined Sep 2008
Location: richmond, va
     
Nov 07, 2013 21:24 |  #17
bannedPermanent ban

KirkS518 wrote in post #16433551 (external link)
What's wrong with using the two that jjaenagle referenced?

What I'm saying is sort of what you said above - as a whole, the L lenses are best, but there are some others out there that can certainly hold their own against thir comparable L lens, without breaking the bank.

The Tammy 24-70 VC is arguably every bit as good as the 24-70 L, but at about half the price.

So to echo the title of this thread, is the red ring worth it?

What do you get for the extra $1000, other than prestige?

well, even just the 24-70 Mark I. Those are about the same price new/ used respectively.

The winner definitely seems to go for the red ring, and in general i agree that Canon's L's are superior.
but... in my 2 examples, i figure the sigma art lens has great reviews... thats all i know so far, and hundreds of dollas cheaper. and then for the second one, you can get a new with VC lens compared to a good quality used L lens...

If i had unlimited funds, i would choose L's generally. In my 2 cases, i lean towards the sigma 35 then the canon 24-70 2.8L



Instagram (external link)Website (external link)
GEAR & FEEDBACK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
GeoffSobering
Senior Member
Avatar
740 posts
Likes: 25
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Madison, WI
     
Nov 07, 2013 21:28 |  #18

I like sharp clear lenses whether they have a red ring or not. Most of my most-used lenses are L's, but I like my Sigma 8-16mm. I also use my 28-135mm IS quite a bit for air-to-air work. Even my 18-55mm IS ii makes good photos if I use it correctly.


http://moving-target-photos.com/ (external link) - My Stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,039 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 400
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Nov 07, 2013 21:40 |  #19

[QUOTE=KirkS518;164335​51]What's wrong with using the two that jjaenagle referenced?

What I'm saying is sort of what you said above - as a whole, the L lenses are best, but there are some others out there that can certainly hold their own against thir comparable L lens, without breaking the bank.

The Tammy 24-70 VC is arguably every bit as good as the 24-70 L, but at about half the price.

So to echo the title of this thread, is the red ring worth it?

What do you get for the extra $1000, other than prestige?[/quote]

you are comparing old lenses with new lenses. the new canon L lenses are all stellar with a few minor exceptions.

L lenses are weathersealed. they have ring USM which no third party focusing system can match and IS is superior to the third party anti-vibration mechanisms.

plus, and this is a big one, L lenses are optimized for canon DSLRS.

http://www.imaging-resource.com …ity-part-3b-canon-cameras (external link)


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L III, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15mm FE, 35mm ef-s macro, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L, gitzo GM4562, markins Q10, markins Q3, kirk, really right stuff, sirui

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,039 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 400
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Nov 07, 2013 21:48 |  #20

Hogloff wrote in post #16433556 (external link)
So Ed, I looked at your Sierra shots. Tell me, what exactly did your L lens do in those images that a lens from Sigma, Tamron or Tokina could not do?

I think you have to look at all the shots. the good, bad and the ugly. the OOF shots etc. I shoot a lot in low light which requires lenses that will work in harmony with my camera. if you think sigma and tamron are the equal in tough conditions that's fine by me. i'm not buying it though.

I shot this 18-wheeler while walking down the cable of the bay bridge. I was clipped on so I removed both hands, grabbed focus and panned the 18-wheeler. my lens was the 35 f2 IS. i'm not going to monkey around with lenses that hunt in the dark or inexplicably miss focus.

I don't have to accept that level of performance nor do i.

IMAGE: http://erader.zenfolio.com/img/s9/v97/p1855375485-4.jpg

http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L III, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15mm FE, 35mm ef-s macro, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L, gitzo GM4562, markins Q10, markins Q3, kirk, really right stuff, sirui

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KirkS518
Goldmember
Avatar
3,983 posts
Likes: 22
Joined Apr 2012
Location: Central Gulf Coast, Flori-duh
     
Nov 07, 2013 22:00 |  #21

The Tamron 24-70 VC is also weather-sealed, so that's not an argument that can be made. As for the ring USM and the IS, again, is it really worth the extra grand? As said above, I think for most users, no.

As for older vs newer, if the newest offering from Canon is a 2 year old model, or a 20 year model, that's what they (Canon) feel the market should have. In other words, it's Canon's newest version, and they are saying it's worth 2x the price of the newest third party lens.

I hope this link works, but when I look at the comparison of the 24-70 MkII vs the Tammy 24-70 VC, the Tammy looks better to my eyes. http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=3 (external link)
I don't see the (inflated) value of the L lens when I compare the two.

Be I will reiterate: as a whole, the L lenses are superior to their competitors, but there are lenses out there that the third party matches or beats it, and at half the price. So don't be under the impression that I'm saying no in all cases.

_______________

I don't like super-zooms. Canon makes the 28-300mm L super zoom. Personally, I think it produces mediocre images at best (all super zooms do), and I don't think that lens deserves an L ring. And no, there isn't a 3rd party that makes a similar lens that is better, but there is no way I see value in that lens, even if I wanted to lighten my load by only carrying one lens. So even though this is a top-of-the-line super zoom, is the red ring worth it? IMO, no. If you feel otherwise (anyone), I'd like to hear why you feel it is worth it.


If steroids are illegal for athletes, should PS be illegal for models?
Digital - 50D, 20D IR Conv, 9 Lenses from 8mm to 300mm
Analog - Mamiya RB67 Pro-SD, Canon A-1, Nikon F4S, YashicaMat 124G, Rollei 35S, QL17 GIII, Zeiss Ikon Ikoflex 1st Version, and and entire room full of lenses and other stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KirkS518
Goldmember
Avatar
3,983 posts
Likes: 22
Joined Apr 2012
Location: Central Gulf Coast, Flori-duh
     
Nov 07, 2013 22:02 |  #22

ed rader wrote in post #16433639 (external link)
i'm not going to monkey around with lenses that hunt in the dark or inexplicably miss focus.

And rightfully so.

But, how do you know the 3rd's would have missed focus? Just curious.


If steroids are illegal for athletes, should PS be illegal for models?
Digital - 50D, 20D IR Conv, 9 Lenses from 8mm to 300mm
Analog - Mamiya RB67 Pro-SD, Canon A-1, Nikon F4S, YashicaMat 124G, Rollei 35S, QL17 GIII, Zeiss Ikon Ikoflex 1st Version, and and entire room full of lenses and other stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,039 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 400
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Nov 07, 2013 22:10 |  #23

KirkS518 wrote in post #16433658 (external link)
And rightfully so.

But, how do you know the 3rd's would have missed focus? Just curious.

I've owned sigma, tamron and tokina lenses in the past plus I can read :D. I used the 100-400L in this case.

IMAGE: http://erader.zenfolio.com/img/s1/v5/p606050393-4.jpg

IMAGE: http://erader.zenfolio.com/img/s9/v2/p26099484-4.jpg

http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L III, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15mm FE, 35mm ef-s macro, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L, gitzo GM4562, markins Q10, markins Q3, kirk, really right stuff, sirui

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
19,399 posts
Likes: 1505
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Nov 07, 2013 22:19 |  #24

Some new glass from 3rd party is giving canon guys run for their money, like Sigma 35mm f1.4 art. Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS sports is also nice but too many cases of OS motors dying within months and AF still not like canon superteles. Of course they much cheaper so shouldn't complain too much as something has to give. I think more choices are good.


5dmk3, 35L, 85L II, 300mm f2.8 IS I, 400mm f5.6
Fuji XT-1, 14mm f2.8, 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2, 90mm f2, 50-140mm f2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kf095
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,428 posts
Gallery: 9 photos
Likes: 257
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Canada, Ontario, Milton
     
Nov 07, 2013 22:26 as a reply to  @ post 16433551 |  #25

I'm happy with Tamron 28-75 2.8 for its price-performance, but after trying different 50mm primes I prefer to own 50L. And couple more L :)


Old Site (external link). M-E and ME blog (external link). Film Flickr (external link). my DigitaL and AnaLog Gear.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,039 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 400
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Nov 07, 2013 22:27 as a reply to  @ ed rader's post |  #26

you are on a bargain kick. so it may not be worth it to you. I passed that phase many years ago and my current lenses weren't bought at one time but acquired and upgraded to over a number of years.

if you look at pictures on the net sure the tamron looks like it's equal to the 24-70L II but again I think you have to look at the good the bad and the ugly.

the 24-70L II is a phenonmenal lens, maybe the best I've ever used. coupled with the 5d mark III if rarely misses focus in any lighting condition. the last lens that blew me away like that was the 70-200L f4 IS and back then I was one of the few guys singing that lens' praise.

L lenses I dislike are the 24-105L, the brick and the 35L I owned for maybe a week. so in the cases that you think are fair game I would take the tamron and the sigma before either of those L lenses. in fact I've said that many times here.

I even rented the sigma 35 and considered buying it but I opted to buy the 35 f2 IS instead, which I also rented. when canon does release the 35L II you can bet it will be "the best" but it will also be the most expensive.


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L III, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15mm FE, 35mm ef-s macro, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L, gitzo GM4562, markins Q10, markins Q3, kirk, really right stuff, sirui

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KirkS518
Goldmember
Avatar
3,983 posts
Likes: 22
Joined Apr 2012
Location: Central Gulf Coast, Flori-duh
     
Nov 07, 2013 22:34 |  #27

ed rader wrote in post #16433688 (external link)
the 24-70L II is a phenonmenal lens, maybe the best I've ever used. coupled with the 5d mark III if rarely misses focus in any lighting condition. the last lens that blew me away like that was the 70-200L f4 IS and back then I was one of the few guys singing that lens' praise.

Absolutely no argument that it's a phenomenal lens. The point I was trying to make, and I think it's the beef of the thread, is; is it worth the extra? For many, yes, but for many, no. It's weighing the cost vs. benefits, and to some the benefits win, and to others, they don't.

ed rader wrote in post #16433688 (external link)
L lenses I dislike are the 24-105L, the brick and the 35L I owned for maybe a week. so in the cases that you think are fair game I would take the tamron and the sigma before either of those L lenses. in fact I've said that many times here.

So we agree - there are some lenses that the L isn't worth the premium. I guess If my examples had been the 24-105, the brick, or the 35L, we would have been in agreement from the start! LOL :D


If steroids are illegal for athletes, should PS be illegal for models?
Digital - 50D, 20D IR Conv, 9 Lenses from 8mm to 300mm
Analog - Mamiya RB67 Pro-SD, Canon A-1, Nikon F4S, YashicaMat 124G, Rollei 35S, QL17 GIII, Zeiss Ikon Ikoflex 1st Version, and and entire room full of lenses and other stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jjaenagle
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,506 posts
Joined Sep 2008
Location: richmond, va
     
Nov 07, 2013 22:36 |  #28
bannedPermanent ban

ed rader wrote in post #16433688 (external link)
you are on a bargain kick.

L lenses I dislike are the 24-105L, the brick and the 35L I owned for maybe a week. so in the cases that you think are fair game I would take the tamron and the sigma before either of those L lenses. in fact I've said that many times here

Well, my wife is the one that sets the budget... And why not the 24-105. Well... There is the 24-70 mkii .

I definitely cannot afford that with another baby on the way. And I don't do professional photography and can't justify to HER that I need the newest lenses.

Anyways. Its been fun seeing the way you guys reasons dn react to some questions on the forum here.



Instagram (external link)Website (external link)
GEAR & FEEDBACK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Rui ­ Peixoto
Member
249 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Sep 2011
     
Nov 07, 2013 22:45 |  #29

I voted yes but to me the sigma 35 and 85 are in that category as well.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dphillips81
Goldmember
Avatar
1,254 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2006
Location: Seward, AK
     
Nov 07, 2013 23:08 |  #30

I voted yes. there may be a few lenses out there that are up to L quality, but in my experience you get what you pay for. I started out with the sigma 24-70 2.8 EX HSM. sold it for the L version and couldn't believe the difference. Just sold my sigma 70-200 f2.8 II, it just wasn't sharp. Replacing it with a 135L and will work on getting the 70-200L IS II. For me i am done buying anything other than L glass the build quality and image quality is worth the price to me.


Dustin
6D, 24-70f2.8 L, 135L f2, 430EX II

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

16,610 views & 0 likes for this thread
Is the Red ring worth it?
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 Charis
768 guests, 315 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.