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 15 Sep 2011 (Thursday) 23:41
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Why I don't have the "fever"...

 
gtrag94
Senior Member
273 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2011
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
     
Sep 15, 2011 23:41 |  #1

Hey all,

Was curious today how two L lenses stacked up against the "worst" lens out there. The one that everyone ditches as soon as they possibly can... the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS (version I). The two Ls were the 24-105 and the 24-70. I shot them all without hoods to be equal (actually the 24-105 had a hood on it for all but one shot, and it's marked). The camera was a 30D, Shade WB, Large JPEG, Standard Picture Style (default settings). I used the same exposure settings at ISO 100 for each comparable shot (i.e. the only thing that changed in each group was the lens). Camera was locked onto solid tripod. Interested in what you think. Originally,I was hoping to post these without the file names and let you all guess, but that was too much work to keep them straight myself! :). Feel free to comment away and blast me for not doing something right or choosing the right picture setting to show off a certain lens... it wasn't about that. This test was picking one thing (didn't matter to me, just had to be still and a decent amount of detail). I didn't care about composition or creativity... purely color, contrast, and sharpness in THIS scene. They all performed under equal conditions, so no advantages or disadvantages to any of them.

f4 at 55mm
http://s907.photobucke​t.com …1/gtrag94/f4%20​at%2055mm/ (external link)

f5.6 at 24mm
http://s907.photobucke​t.com …g94/f5point6%20​at%2024mm/ (external link)

f8 at 55mm
http://s907.photobucke​t.com …1/gtrag94/f8%20​at%2055mm/ (external link)

wide open at 55mm
http://s907.photobucke​t.com …/wide%20open%20​at%2055mm/ (external link)


Fort Wayne, IN Portrait & Wedding Photographer
http://www.craigagapie​photography.com (external link)
http://www.facebook.co​m/CraigAgapiePhotograp​hy (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
imjasonbassett
Senior Member
734 posts
Joined Sep 2010
     
Sep 16, 2011 01:17 |  #2

gtrag94 wrote in post #13111399 (external link)
Hey all,

Was curious today how two L lenses stacked up against the "worst" lens out there. The one that everyone ditches as soon as they possibly can... the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS (version I). The two Ls were the 24-105 and the 24-70. I shot them all without hoods to be equal (actually the 24-105 had a hood on it for all but one shot, and it's marked). The camera was a 30D, Shade WB, Large JPEG, Standard Picture Style (default settings). I used the same exposure settings at ISO 100 for each comparable shot (i.e. the only thing that changed in each group was the lens). Camera was locked onto solid tripod. Interested in what you think. Originally,I was hoping to post these without the file names and let you all guess, but that was too much work to keep them straight myself! :). Feel free to comment away and blast me for not doing something right or choosing the right picture setting to show off a certain lens... it wasn't about that. This test was picking one thing (didn't matter to me, just had to be still and a decent amount of detail). I didn't care about composition or creativity... purely color, contrast, and sharpness in THIS scene. They all performed under equal conditions, so no advantages or disadvantages to any of them.

f4 at 55mm
http://s907.photobucke​t.com …1/gtrag94/f4%20​at%2055mm/ (external link)

f5.6 at 24mm
http://s907.photobucke​t.com …g94/f5point6%20​at%2024mm/ (external link)

f8 at 55mm
http://s907.photobucke​t.com …1/gtrag94/f8%20​at%2055mm/ (external link)

wide open at 55mm
http://s907.photobucke​t.com …/wide%20open%20​at%2055mm/ (external link)

Hard to test something in standard conditions. L Lenses shine in their (most) weather sealing, low-light performance, and fast aperture sharpness.


www.jason-bassett.comexternal link
Tools: 5D mkii, 135L,
35L, 100mm Macro 2.8
sold HERE :) [I] (70-200 F4, 17-40, 85mm 1.8, Sigma 30 1.4, Canon 135L, Canon 85 1.8, Canon 24-70L Einstein640, Kacey Dish + Grid, Cybersyncs, 5D classic)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Daniel ­ Browning
Goldmember
1,199 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Vancouver, WA
     
Sep 16, 2011 01:18 |  #3

Interesting test. I could only see 1024-pixel images (0.7 MP). Did you post 100% crops too, or am I doing something wrong?


Daniel

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
booja
Goldmember
1,638 posts
Likes: 102
Joined Jan 2008
Location: houston, tx
     
Sep 16, 2011 01:21 |  #4

can't really see to much detail from photobucket small sizes and such...

also it would probably be easier just to link all the photos in the post. i would do it for you but I'm about to go to bed




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kin2son
Goldmember
4,546 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Sep 16, 2011 01:48 |  #5
bannedPermanent ban

Useless thread and conparison. Everybody knows any lens is sharp at those aperture.

Can you shoot f2.8 or f4 at 55mm with the kit lens? That's the whole point of paying the extra.

It's all about the wide constant aperture, better build, colour and contrast on the L. OP if those things don't matter to you, stay on the kit then.

A lot of people prefer the wide constant aperture for plenty of reasons. Why do you think the 70-200 f2.8 IS mkII cost more than twice of the f4 IS when they have comparable performance?


5D3 Gripped / 17-40L / Σ35 / 40 Pancake / Zeiss 50 MP / Σ85 / 100L Macro / 70-200 f2.8L II IS / 430 EX II / 580 EX II / Canon 2xIII TC / Kenko Ext. Tubes
EOS M / EF-M 18-55 / EF-M 22f2 / Ricoh GR aka Ultimate street camera :p
Flickr (external link) | My Images on Getty®‎ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Snydremark
my very own Lightrules moment
18,510 posts
Gallery: 47 photos
Likes: 1566
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
     
Sep 16, 2011 02:12 |  #6

Aaand totally missed the actual reasons that people pay for those lenses over something like the 18-55...but if you don't need/want or recognize those features, then no, there isn't ANY reason to have "L fever".

Need to shoot at f/2.8? 24-70 > 24-105 OR 18-55

Need to shoot f/4 at 100mm? 24-105 > 24-70 OR 18-55

and wait for it...

Need to shoot at 18mm? 18-55 > 24-70 OR 24-105 :shock:


It's entirely about the tool and the use you need it for. <shrug>


- Eric S.: My Birds/Wildlife (external link) (7D MkII/5D IV, Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5, Canon 24-105L f/4 IS, Canon 70-200L f/2.8 IS MkII, Canon 100-400L f/4.5-5.6 IS I/II)
"The easiest way to improve your photos is to adjust the loose nut between the shutter release and the ground."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Daniel ­ Browning
Goldmember
1,199 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Vancouver, WA
     
Sep 16, 2011 02:28 |  #7

kin2son wrote in post #13111794 (external link)
Useless thread and conparison.

Why so seriousss? Batman in your cereal this morning?

I do not agree that the conparison is useless.

kin2son wrote in post #13111794 (external link)
Everybody knows any lens is sharp at those aperture.

You are wrong. For example, the cheap little 50mm f/1.8 is significantly sharper with less aberrations than the 50mm f/1.2 at those aperture.

kin2son wrote in post #13111794 (external link)
Can you shoot f2.8 or f4 at 55mm with the kit lens? That's the whole point of paying the extra.

That's odd, I would have thought there was more than one reason to pay the extra. (One reason would be if you agree to hire an extra for your film, you should pay the extra.)

kin2son wrote in post #13111794 (external link)
It's all about the wide constant aperture, better build, colour and contrast on the L.

Wait, you just said that f/2.8 was the whole point of paying the extra. I guess you meant that it was "most" of the point, not the whole point. So you agree there are many possible reasons, color and contrast included.

Since the OP's test covers color and contrast, then you are essentially saying that the conparison covers two important factors in lens choice.

I think the OP's comparison could be very useful.


Daniel

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mike ­ cabilangan
Goldmember
Avatar
1,378 posts
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Metro Manila
     
Sep 16, 2011 02:48 |  #8

gtrag94 wrote in post #13111399 (external link)
f4 at 55mm

f5.6 at 24mm

f8 at 55mm

wide open at 55mm

i'd like to see f/5.6 at 55mm and f/4 at 24mm for all three lenses (granted these would be wide open for the kit lens and wide open for the 24-105 at 24mm)


camera bag reviews (external link)
flickr (external link)gearLust

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pridash
Goldmember
Avatar
3,584 posts
Likes: 32
Joined Jul 2007
Location: London, UK - Where 30 degrees celcius is considered a heatwave and liable to result in death.
     
Sep 16, 2011 03:39 |  #9

gtrag94 wrote in post #13111399 (external link)
Hey all,

Was curious today how two L lenses stacked up against the "worst" lens out there. The one that everyone ditches as soon as they possibly can... the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS (version I). The two Ls were the 24-105 and the 24-70. I shot them all without hoods to be equal (actually the 24-105 had a hood on it for all but one shot, and it's marked). The camera was a 30D, Shade WB, Large JPEG, Standard Picture Style (default settings). I used the same exposure settings at ISO 100 for each comparable shot (i.e. the only thing that changed in each group was the lens). Camera was locked onto solid tripod. Interested in what you think. Originally,I was hoping to post these without the file names and let you all guess, but that was too much work to keep them straight myself! :). Feel free to comment away and blast me for not doing something right or choosing the right picture setting to show off a certain lens... it wasn't about that. This test was picking one thing (didn't matter to me, just had to be still and a decent amount of detail). I didn't care about composition or creativity... purely color, contrast, and sharpness in THIS scene. They all performed under equal conditions, so no advantages or disadvantages to any of them.

f4 at 55mm
http://s907.photobucke​t.com …1/gtrag94/f4%20​at%2055mm/ (external link)

f5.6 at 24mm
http://s907.photobucke​t.com …g94/f5point6%20​at%2024mm/ (external link)

f8 at 55mm
http://s907.photobucke​t.com …1/gtrag94/f8%20​at%2055mm/ (external link)

wide open at 55mm
http://s907.photobucke​t.com …/wide%20open%20​at%2055mm/ (external link)

" Why I don't have the "fever"..." - it's nice to hear your experiences and, presumably, how you saved money by not "upgrading"...but that is not the case for everyone.

"Was curious today how two L lenses stacked up against the "worst" lens out there. The one that everyone ditches as soon as they possibly can" - not everyone does. The 18-55 IS is a very decent lens (bar build quality). My original non-IS kit lens has produced some amazing shots that I can still look at and be proud of, but we (should) move on from these lenses when we find dificiencies in them that either an L or better OEM/3rd party lens can solve. That was my reason and I'm sure the same for many others.

Pretty much any lens can produce great images...but not every lens will produce great images in more challenging conditions or produce the effect you really want at the time.

This thread will be more useful if you imbed the images into the post as many won't even click the links (myself included). Then maybe some readers who want to "upgrade" purely because everyone says the kit lens/nifty fifty/etc is crap may think twice if they are already perfectly happy with their lens(es).


Pradeep (but most people call me PJ)

Flickr (external link) | Website (external link)
Stop obsessing about gear and focus on your own art and creativity. Nurture and love the artist inside yourself.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mike ­ cabilangan
Goldmember
Avatar
1,378 posts
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Metro Manila
     
Sep 16, 2011 03:50 |  #10

pridash wrote in post #13112009 (external link)
" Why I don't have the "fever"..." - it's nice to hear your experiences and, presumably, how you saved money by not "upgrading"...but that is not the case for everyone.

"Was curious today how two L lenses stacked up against the "worst" lens out there. The one that everyone ditches as soon as they possibly can" - not everyone does. The 18-55 IS is a very decent lens (bar build quality). My original non-IS kit lens has produced some amazing shots that I can still look at and be proud of, but we (should) move on from these lenses when we find dificiencies in them that either an L or better OEM/3rd party lens can solve. That was my reason and I'm sure the same for many others.

Pretty much any lens can produce great images...but not every lens will produce great images in more challenging conditions or produce the effect you really want at the time.

This thread will be more useful if you imbed the images into the post as many won't even click the links (myself included). Then maybe some readers who want to "upgrade" purely because everyone says the kit lens/nifty fifty/etc is crap may think twice if they are already perfectly happy with their lens(es).

i'm actually buying a 600D FOR the kit lens :)

one look at the 18-55 lens sample thread proves that the kit lens is capable of spectacular shots :)


camera bag reviews (external link)
flickr (external link)gearLust

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jrbdmb
Goldmember
Avatar
1,291 posts
Likes: 12
Joined May 2011
     
Sep 16, 2011 05:36 |  #11

gtrag94 wrote in post #13111399 (external link)
Hey all,

Was curious today how two L lenses stacked up against the "worst" lens out there. The one that everyone ditches as soon as they possibly can... the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS (version I).

Faulty premise. The 18-55 kit lens is far from the worst lens out there. There are many reasons to upgrade as noted above, but it's a fine lens for the price.


Tools: 70D, 10-22, Tamron 24-70 VC, 70-300L, 135 f2L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
doc.paradox
Member
222 posts
Joined Aug 2010
     
Sep 16, 2011 09:17 |  #12

jrbdmb wrote in post #13112186 (external link)
Faulty premise. The 18-55 kit lens is far from the worst lens out there. There are many reasons to upgrade as noted above, but it's a fine lens for the price.

--This--




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,257 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 1542
Joined Dec 2006
     
Sep 16, 2011 09:23 |  #13

Do the same test against the non IS version of the kit lens or against the 75-300.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rick_reno
Cream of the Crop
44,642 posts
Likes: 132
Joined Dec 2010
     
Sep 16, 2011 09:35 |  #14

I'd like to see the comparison between L glass and some homemade lenses.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
boingy
Goldmember
1,052 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Sacramento, CA
     
Sep 16, 2011 10:04 |  #15

This is silly.


Flickr (external link)
Blog (external link)

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

4,917 views & 0 likes for this thread
Why I don't have the "fever"...
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 proxyrdp
1218 guests, 199 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.