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 Sep 2009 (Monday) 16:45
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

L lenses are overrated

 
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,108 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 435
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Sep 07, 2009 19:44 |  #76

midnight_rider wrote in post #8601615 (external link)
55-250 vs 70-200 2.8 at 70mm f/4 (external link)

The point of my post is that the L lens can do things that the EF-S can not. Like shoot at 200mm in the rain at 2.8. That is one of the main things you pay for in this example.
I know that chart is not a real world example ad it will always very depending on what you shoot. However I know that wildlife photographers rarely have the light they want and that 2.8 comes in handy. Sports shooters need fast SS to stop action and 5.6 ain't gonna cut it at a sports game, IS or not.
I have heard that the 55-250 is a good lens and that it yields sharp results but I am curious as to how large you viewed your comparison pictures.

yeah like fit my cameras :D. when you get into specialized shooting like sports or wildlife enthusiasts use the best lenses they can afford.

ed rader


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, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
canonnoob
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,487 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
     
Sep 07, 2009 19:45 |  #77

midnight_rider wrote in post #8601615 (external link)
55-250 vs 70-200 2.8 at 70mm f/4 (external link)

The point of my post is that the L lens can do things that the EF-S can not. Like shoot at 200mm in the rain at 2.8. That is one of the main things you pay for in this example.
I know that chart is not a real world example ad it will always very depending on what you shoot. However I know that wildlife photographers rarely have the light they want and that 2.8 comes in handy. Sports shooters need fast SS to stop action and 5.6 ain't gonna cut it at a sports game, IS or not.
I have heard that the 55-250 is a good lens and that it yields sharp results but I am curious as to how large you viewed your comparison pictures.


here is another great example 70-200 f4 non IS at f4 vs 55-250 Is at f4. Both at 70mm. Both on 40d.
Click (external link)

There is a huge difference in sharpness between the two. and the 70-200 f4 non Is is a CHEAP L


David W.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
midnight_rider
"Thrown under the bus."
Avatar
5,413 posts
Joined Apr 2008
Location: Yonder by the crick, Ga
     
Sep 07, 2009 19:47 |  #78

canonnoob wrote in post #8601631 (external link)
here is another great example 70-200 f4 non IS at f4 vs 55-250 Is at f4. Both at 70mm. Both on 40d.
Click (external link)

There is a huge difference in sharpness between the two. and the 70-200 f4 non Is is a CHEAP L


Man I miss that lens. It was sharper than my 100mm macro. Definitely the best bang for the buck L wise


I never, Not once claimed to read your post...

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Familiaphoto
Goldmember
Avatar
3,948 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
     
Sep 07, 2009 20:50 |  #79

Price is the result of many things. To name a few...

1. Image quality
2. Build
3. Weather sealing
4. Cost to manufacture
5. Amount of units sold
6. etc, etc...

So don't base the value of a price on one thing, look at all dimensions of the cost.


Paul
Blog (external link) | Gear (external link) | Gallery (external link)
Bag Reviews: Domke F-3x | More to come...

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Skrim17
The only TPBMer without a title. Enjoying my anonymity.
Avatar
40,070 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jul 2006
Location: In my tree
     
Sep 07, 2009 20:51 |  #80

Interesting that there are all these replies and no response from the OP.


Crissa
PLEASE HELP ME FIND MY PHOTOS!! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
yogestee
"my posts can be a little colourful"
Avatar
13,845 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 35
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Australia
     
Sep 07, 2009 20:55 |  #81

Skrim17 wrote in post #8601968 (external link)
Interesting that there are all these replies and no response from the OP.

And you all took the bait :lol:


Jurgen
50D~700D~EOS M~G11~S95~GoPro Hero4 Silver
http://www.pbase.com/j​urgentreue (external link)
The Title Fairy,, off with her head!!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,108 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 435
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Sep 07, 2009 21:05 |  #82

Skrim17 wrote in post #8601968 (external link)
Interesting that there are all these replies and no response from the OP.

he's probably busy putting in his L lens order to B&H :D.

ed rader


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, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
krb
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,818 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Jun 2008
Location: Where southern efficiency and northern charm come together
     
Sep 07, 2009 21:05 |  #83

yogestee wrote in post #8601987 (external link)
And you all took the bait :lol:

The OP is too busy posting in his other thread, the one asking whether he should get the 24-70 or the 24-105.


-- Ken
Comment and critique is always appreciated!
Flickr (external link)
Gear list

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,066 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2315
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Sep 07, 2009 21:42 |  #84

ed rader wrote in post #8602058 (external link)
he's probably busy putting in his L lens order to B&H :D.

ed rader

why use b&h when you can use the forum...

Razeus wrote in post #8601278 (external link)
I'm funny that way.

Just bought my first L from a forum member in Classifieds. 24-105 L should be just what I need.

Hopefully the 17-40 L comes through.

the funny thing is in that thread a lot of people were recommending a non-L 17-55mm

as far as the L's overrated...i can't comment i've never used one...the way i see it is i could afford just 1 or 2 L's...or have a bunch of decent lenses that allow me to shoot a variety of mediocre images...:D

plus i've seen what it does to folks...figure if i don't know what it's like i won't want it...


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
I ­ Like ­ to ­ Watch
Member
123 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Sep 07, 2009 22:01 |  #85

Razeus wrote in post #8600604 (external link)
Surely they are nice lenses, but the they seem to be ridiculously over priced.

Totally agree

Razeus wrote in post #8600604 (external link)
Going for 3-4 times the price of a good/regular lenses seems insane, especially when you can barely tell the difference.

This is where it is a little subjective

Razeus wrote in post #8600604 (external link)
Sure it has a better build quality, but the images aren't THAT greatly improved.

Again...subjective. you can definitely achieve a "different" image.


Canon 5D Mk lll & 50D : Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L, Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS , Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, Canon EF-S 10-22mm, Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro, Canon 50mm f/1.8, Sigma 17-70mm, Sigma 50mm f/1.4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BKGInc
Goldmember
Avatar
1,226 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 74
Joined Mar 2007
Location: California
     
Sep 07, 2009 22:06 |  #86

krb wrote in post #8602060 (external link)
The OP is too busy posting in his other thread, the one asking whether he should get the 24-70 or the 24-105.

Haha, I know exactly what you mean there. ;) I mean why bother posting that they're overated then ask which one to buy?


5D4 Gripped | 24-70 2.8L II | 16-35 2.8L II | 85L II | 135L | 600EX-RT x2 |
Zenfolio (external link)
facebook (external link)
Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Invertalon
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,495 posts
Likes: 21
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Cleveland, OH
     
Sep 09, 2009 18:19 |  #87

I have my first glance at "L" glass this past week, using a 70-200mm non-is, and the difference is defiantly there. Not only are the images sharper, but the colors and overall image look better. Now, price may be subjective depending on the lens... But in my opinion, I will gladly pay the price over the 70-300mm IS lens for the 70-200mm IS lens. I had the 70-200mm non-is for just a few days, and although I loved it, I needed IS. My IS should come Monday or Tuesday next week :D


-Steve
Facebook (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gte357s
Senior Member
489 posts
Joined Mar 2009
     
Sep 09, 2009 19:10 as a reply to  @ Invertalon's post |  #88

it's always the last 10% improvement may required double the effort. The L lenses really delivered what they committed. I observed a trend that most of the lenses are not sharp at all focal length and all F stops. But the L lenses are sharp at all focal length and all F stops. For example, comparing the highly rated Tamron 28-75 to Canon 24-70. The Tamron at F2.8 getting soft starting at 50mm, and really soft at 75mm, while the Canon is sharp at all FLThis is the price you need to pay to get that additional 10%.


Canon 5D MK I | Canon 24-70 F2.8 L | Canon 70-200 F2.8 L IS I | Sigma 85 F1.4 | Tamron 1.4x TC | Canon 430 EXII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
Avatar
34,090 posts
Likes: 39
Joined Dec 2005
     
Sep 09, 2009 19:14 |  #89

Razeus wrote in post #8600604 (external link)
Surely they are nice lenses, but the they seem to be ridiculously over priced. Going for 3-4 times the price of a good/regular lenses seems insane, especially when you can barely tell the difference. Sure it has a better build quality, but the images aren't THAT greatly improved.

Yeah I wish they were cheaper too. I also wish my Blackberry was less expensive and that I could get my Schick Quattro refills for $3. I also hate paying $100 for my cell phone service. Would be nice if I could get that for free...after all it's just bits and bytes traveling through air and cables!

However, the L glass lets me take photos without thinking about the equipment, the Blackberry and its services allow me to stay connected to my family and clients pretty much anywhere I go, and the Quattros give me a nice smooth shave whereas cheap blades can't handle my coarse facial hair. Therefore, all of the above are worth every penny I pay.


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here (external link). Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
yogestee
"my posts can be a little colourful"
Avatar
13,845 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 35
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Australia
     
Sep 09, 2009 20:19 |  #90

cdifoto wrote in post #8614935 (external link)
Yeah I wish they were cheaper too. I also wish my Blackberry was less expensive and that I could get my Schick Quattro refills for $3. I also hate paying $100 for my cell phone service. Would be nice if I could get that for free...after all it's just bits and bytes traveling through air and cables!

However, the L glass lets me take photos without thinking about the equipment, the Blackberry and its services allow me to stay connected to my family and clients pretty much anywhere I go, and the Quattros give me a nice smooth shave whereas cheap blades can't handle my coarse facial hair. Therefore, all of the above are worth every penny I pay.

I was once asked by a Lao why I pay 15,000kip (about $1.70) for a cappuccino at a certain cafe while I can pay 10,000kip for a coffee at this little hole in the wall place up the road..

I think the answer is obvious..

Like most consumer products,,you get what you pay for..


Jurgen
50D~700D~EOS M~G11~S95~GoPro Hero4 Silver
http://www.pbase.com/j​urgentreue (external link)
The Title Fairy,, off with her head!!

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

6,501 views & 0 likes for this thread
L lenses are overrated
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 was a spammer, and banned as such!
1986 guests, 216 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.