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 18 Jun 2014 (Wednesday) 18:20
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

What are the 2 L's left you cold (not pricewise)

 
Nick3434
Goldmember
Avatar
1,568 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Likes: 211
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Trespassing in South Florida
     
Jun 24, 2014 11:11 |  #46

davidfarina wrote in post #16981198 (external link)
However something like a 24-70L or a 70-200L is something i would never buy. I dont see lugging that big lenses with me just for "versatility". Also for me they would make me feel lazy and uncreative. They lack that special look IMHO

This!


Everything is relative.
Gear: 6D, Unholy Trinity:twisted: (24Lii, sigma 50A, 135L), and for the other ends of the spectrum, sigmaEX 14mm2.8 and sigmaEX 100-300F4.
Fuji X-e2, Rokinon 8 2.8 Fisheye II, Fuji 14 2.8, Fuji 18-55, Fuji 23 1.4
FlikR (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
David ­ Arbogast
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
11,507 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Likes: 8336
Joined Aug 2010
Location: West Point, Georgia
     
Jun 24, 2014 11:23 |  #47

nightcat wrote in post #16991102 (external link)
The point would be..... If you need a fast, sharp, inexpensive, lightweight, unobtrusive 200mm lens, then this is exactly what you would buy.

Good point...but at 200mm the 200mm f/2.8L really should have IS. Probably another lens Canon would do well to update. :)


David | Flickr (external link)
Sony α7R II | CV 12mm, FE 12-24mm, Loxia 21mm, Loxia 35mm, Sigma 35mm F/1.2, Loxia 85mm, Batis 85mm, Batis 135mm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tony_Stark
Shellhead
Avatar
4,287 posts
Likes: 345
Joined May 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Jun 24, 2014 11:31 |  #48

24-105L: just a boring lens, great IQ but never got any "wow" shots with it.
70-200 f4L: similar to 24-105L, great IQ, just left me meh after each shots, nothing made me go "wow"
17-40L: only reason I still have the lens is for when I do need wide angle, other wise it stays in the bag. I get 90% of my shots with the 50.

With that said, I'd a bokeh fiend and love thin DoF.


Nikon D810 | 24-70/2.8G | 58/1.4G
EOS M | 22 f/2 STM

Website (external link) | flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nightcat
Goldmember
4,532 posts
Likes: 28
Joined Aug 2008
     
Jun 24, 2014 19:07 |  #49

David Arbogast wrote in post #16991634 (external link)
Good point...but at 200mm the 200mm f/2.8L really should have IS. Probably another lens Canon would do well to update. :)

Yes it would be great to have IS on this lens. The problem is if Canon released an IS version of the 200mm 2.8, the price would double.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
InfiniteDivide
"I wish to be spared"
Avatar
2,844 posts
Gallery: 265 photos
Likes: 218
Joined Dec 2013
Location: Kawasaki, Japan
     
Jun 25, 2014 01:31 |  #50

I have used my 100L handheld quite often.
Both with IS on and IS off. I choose to leave it on, unless I use a tripod.
If I had any lens longer than that, I would not buy one with IS.
None of my work is done in a studio and 99% of it is handheld.

While the 135L create amazing photos especially outsides,
I wonder how many of this images are 'handheld' in the gallery thread.
My estimation would be less than 20% of all images.
If I could not use a very fast shutter speed I would like IS.


James Patrus
6D | 16-35L F4 | 24L II | 50L | 100L | |  -> Website (external link) & Gallery (external link)
For Sale:Canon 16-35mm f4 IS l Do you enjoy Super Famicom games? (external link) PM me directly.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TLN
Senior Member
284 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Sep 2009
     
Jun 25, 2014 01:45 |  #51

35L + 70-200L II




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
GMCPhotographics
Goldmember
Avatar
2,425 posts
Gallery: 92 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 720
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Wiltshire, UK
     
Jun 25, 2014 05:27 |  #52

Tony_Stark wrote in post #16991647 (external link)
24-105L: just a boring lens, great IQ but never got any "wow" shots with it.
70-200 f4L: similar to 24-105L, great IQ, just left me meh after each shots, nothing made me go "wow"
17-40L: only reason I still have the lens is for when I do need wide angle, other wise it stays in the bag. I get 90% of my shots with the 50.

With that said, I'd a bokeh fiend and love thin DoF.

I know so many great landscape photographers with WOW photos using those three lenses. So maybe it's your application which is the problem here?
I would choose the 70-200 f4 LIS over a 70-200 f2.8 LIS II any day unless I needed that extra stop. It's a darn lot lighter, just as sharp and pretty much the same thing except half as bright. Schlep up the side of a steep hill pre dawn for a sunrise and all that weight saving comes into play.
The 24-105 LIS is another example of versatility. It's a great landscape lens because of it's focal range and light weight.
If I was shooting near the coast, I'd rather risk my 17-40L than my more expensive 16-35IIL....


Regards, Gareth Cooper GMCPhotographics
"If youre happy and honest and fulfilled in what you do, then youҒre having a successful life" (Ben Elton)
Gear List GMCPhotographics (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
elitejp
Goldmember
1,768 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 204
Joined Mar 2008
     
Jun 25, 2014 09:29 |  #53

notastockpikr wrote in post #16991124 (external link)
I'll throw this one out.....I've owned the 70-200 II for 3 years and maybe used it three or four times. Nice lens, sharp, but eh...what's the big deal? Everybody says it's amazing, but I guess I just don't get this lens. I know it's sharp, colors are great, contrast is amazing and many posters have said that this lens is on their whatever camera all the time. What am I missing?.

What i dont get is why you bought this lens? or what you were expecting from this lens?

"I know it's sharp, colors are great, contrast is amazing" Sounds like a good reason to get it


6D; canon 85mm 1.8, Tamron 24-70mm VC, Canon 135L Canon 70-200L is ii

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tagnal
Goldmember
1,255 posts
Likes: 62
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Jun 25, 2014 14:14 |  #54

InfiniteDivide wrote in post #16992997 (external link)
While the 135L create amazing photos especially outsides,
I wonder how many of this images are 'handheld' in the gallery thread.
My estimation would be less than 20% of all images.
If I could not use a very fast shutter speed I would like IS.

I'd bet that the majority are handheld. I can probably count with one hand the number of times I've used the 135L on a tripod. If one is doing a lot of portrait work outdoors, I highly doubt they are setting up every shot on a tripod.


5D3 / M3 / S100 / Σ 35 Art / 50 1.8 / 135 L / 17-40 L / 24-70 L / 70-200 f/4 IS L / m 22 2.0 / 580ex II
Toy List | flickr (external link) | FAA (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
panicatnabisco
Senior Member
Avatar
971 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Likes: 318
Joined Apr 2012
Location: san francisco, CA
     
Jun 25, 2014 16:03 |  #55

24-70. Its my least used lens since its so.. boring. But it's the best thing ever when I do need it


Canon 1DXmkIII |1DX | 6Dii | 6D | 16-35/2.8II | 24-70/2.8II | 35/1.4ii | 50/1.8 | 70-200/2.8 IS II | 85/1.4 IS | 100/2.8 IS macro | 200mm f/2 | 400/2.8 IS II | 2xIII
Leica M8.2 | Noctilux 50 f/1 | Elmarit 90/2.8
afimages.net (external link) | Facebook (external link) | instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CanonYouCan
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,486 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 22
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
     
Jun 25, 2014 17:28 |  #56

I have all "wow" lenses now, but i'm going to rebuy the "non-wow" 24-105
It's the perfect lens for studiowork at high apertures or some travel shots.

Tony_Stark wrote in post #16991647 (external link)
24-105L: just a boring lens, great IQ but never got any "wow" shots with it.
70-200 f4L: similar to 24-105L, great IQ, just left me meh after each shots, nothing made me go "wow"
17-40L: only reason I still have the lens is for when I do need wide angle, other wise it stays in the bag. I get 90% of my shots with the 50.

With that said, I'd a bokeh fiend and love thin DoF.


Sony A7 III | Metabones V | Canon 16-35 F4 L | 70-200 2.8L II
Sigma 50 1.4 Art | Sigma 85 1.4 Art

Lighting : Godox AD600B TTL + Godox V860II-S + X1T-S
Modifiers: 60cm Collapsible Silver Beautydish + grid | Godox 120cm Octagon softbox + grid + Speedlite Flash bender
Tripod: Vanguard Alta 253CT carbon

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hiketheplanet
Senior Member
Avatar
666 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 14
Joined May 2013
     
Jun 25, 2014 20:29 |  #57

mystik610 wrote in post #16991227 (external link)
People malign the 50L because it has a very well known autofocus issue (focus shift). I owned the 50L, along with very many fast primes, for a while, and I can personally attest that compared to the other fast primes out there, the 50L's AF is problematic. It's possible that copy variation comes into play, but from what I've read about the lens, its an issue that stems from the inherent design of the lens....and that's something you can't fix with MFA. Canon claims that leaving the floating element out lends itself to the 'character' of the way the 50L renders, however, it has always baffled me that Canon could provide a similar, if not better, rendering via the the 35L, 85L and 135L, while dropping the ball on the 50L.

MF really is the best way to get the most out of the 50L, as it circumvents all the focus shift issues and the issues with phase detect AF in general. I considered picking it up again now that I primarily MF these days on the a7r...but its very hard to justify the price premium the 50L commands these days, when the Sigma 50A, which also renders beautifully, but is as sharp at 1.4 as Canon's zooms at f2.8, is in the market for much less coin.

Fair enough. I was mainly taking aim at describing the AF as "inconsistent." It has its quirks, but the 50L is consistently quirky :) because of this, it's easy to overcome, and I don't find myself taking extra time to think about how to solve some focus shift issue. The 50L is a boon to anyone who intends to shoot wide open most of the time (why the heck else would one buy such a fast lens at such a steep price?)

I mainly notice the shift with more distant subjects shooting somewhere between f/1.8-f/2.8. By f/4 any shift seems to be overcome by DOF. However, like you said, MF to the rescue here, and MF is an absolute joy on this lens.

Two lenses that left me cold...

The 24-70 f/2.8 II and the 24-105 f/4.

They are both great lenses in their own right, have excellent IQ, provide a useful range of FL's, BUT my biggest gripe is that they just aren't fast enough. I don't use flash, and the big zooms just can't cur it often for me. This is less to do with these fantastic zooms, and more to do with me being bias toward primes :)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mrjeans
Member
149 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 7
Joined Feb 2011
     
Jun 25, 2014 22:18 |  #58

24 -70 mk2 it is booooooooooooooring. .doesn't fit my style
&
70-200 mk1 with IS


Canon 5D MK iii &7D,
85 f/1.2L Mkii,
50 f/1.2L,
35mm 1.4 DG HSM,
70-200 L f/2.8 IS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jt354
Senior Member
401 posts
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Michigan
     
Jun 25, 2014 22:23 |  #59

Ones I've tried: 17-40L (mediocre on crop, on FF I imagine it'd be excellent), 70-200 f/4L (optically very good but needs IS)

No interest: 400mm f/5.6L, 28-300L, 70-300L


Zenfolio (external link)
flickr (external link)
Gear: Canon 60D / Canon G12 / Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 / Canon 35mm f/2 IS / Canon 85mm f/1.8 / Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 / Speedlite 430 EXII / Slik 700DX legs / Cullmann MB6 head

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
smythie
I wasn't even trying
3,741 posts
Gallery: 30 photos
Likes: 665
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Sydney - Australia
     
Jun 25, 2014 22:30 |  #60

nightcat wrote in post #16992472 (external link)
Yes it would be great to have IS on this lens. The problem is if Canon released an IS version of the 200mm 2.8, the price would double.

Yeah but if it received the same sort of optical improvement Canon has been doing the last few years it'd be worth it.


Gear List

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

11,474 views & 0 likes for this thread
What are the 2 L's left you cold (not pricewise)
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 voidholder
1018 guests, 336 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.