Leaping into the Digital Abyss

Hello Everyone!

I have been reading and learning a lot from this wondeful forum. I have been a filmer for years and am about to jump into the digital domain. I currently shoot with a Minolta XE-7, Vivitar 70-210 and a Rokkor 50mm 1.7. I have decided to go Canon with the 20D, EF 24-70 2.8L USM and an EF 50mm 1.4 USM. You see, I mostly shoot portriats and these two lenses would cover me pretty well for a while.

The 24-70 is expensive so I have done a lot of research. As predicted reviews are glowing. But you do find the occasional person who is not over whelmed by the lenses picture quality. Hmmm.. Some have said they had to go through 3 or 4 lenses before getting a "good" one. And a few had to send the lens back to get recalibrated right out of the box. Getting info on the web, it is hard to know how much of a problem this really is, or is it just isolated incidents? Or, did the shooter not know what they were doing. I predict the later.

It almost seems like some don't want to like it because it is big and heavy. As if they want to hate it, if they do like it, than they have to justify buying it. I have tried the lens at the local shop and the weight is not a concern for me.

I have also heard that with Digital SLR's all pictures need sharpening in Post Production. If that's true, how does Joe Blow evaluate his lens once he gets it.

This new domain is exciting for me and I can't wait to get started with it. I think going digital will open up a whole new horizon.

I look forward to any comments.
Thanks!

Welcome Dave ... a grand name!

The 24-70 L has its fans and its distractors and I am one of the latter, but if someone likes it then I wish them well. I find it an all round dull package. Clearly it meets your needs if you've tried it and not been put off. As to PP, then my view is that a little makes a big difference and a lot can ruin an image. We have many shots posted that are demonstrations of sharpness rather than demonstrations of any craft or imagination. A good lens needs minimal PP and it's quite clear straight from the camera if things are right. Anything else is fine tuning. Best of luck with your digital investment.

Thanks David,

Can you define "dull package" when it comes to the 24-70? Is it the performance in general or one particular thing, like contrast, color saturation. ect? Did you work with the lens for a while?

Thanks for the feedback!

This stuff will always be highly personal and one can only give a personal view based on experience and what is wanted ... and hopefully mix it with some experience of competing gear too.

The three standard zooms most people would suggest are worth thinking about are the Sigma, Canon and Tamron. I've owned the Tamron and now own the Sigma. I have loaned the Canon for a day and it was a known decent copy.

It's fair to say that I reckon anyone who knows their way around a camera and lens combo can get a very decent technical shot from any of them. They all tick the IQ boxes nicely. For me, that's never been the basis of complaint. For me, pure IQ wise, the Canon costs 3x the other two but produces about the same IQ. If IQ is your main thing, like it is for me, then I'm throwing money away buying the Canon. Personal view. I've used all three.

The Tamron is nice and small and light and non threatening. The Sigma has better build and the Canon is even better. BUT I'm not in a war zone and take care of my stuff. I don't need my gear to be weather proof either because I'm too sensible to go shooting in the rain and snow. I'd need a weather proof camera anyway. So build on all three is perfectly fit for purpose, unless you have some specific need.

The size of the Sigma is about as big as I want to walk around with. The Canon is plain daft when you put the hood on. Now sir, if you are happy with a big heavy lens and walking around looking very conspicuous then that's very cool. If you will use in a studio or at home mainly then great.

If you must have a USM motor/AF system (or just prefer to have it) then again you will like the Canon. Now, for me, I don't need USM even though I like it and I also like Sigma's HSM. So, it's a non issue. I also want smaller not larger. My favourite lens is my MF CZJ 135mm 3.5. As simple and discrete as you could ever want.

For me the L's a dull package because ownership, given my own criteria, would be a mission: I would be lugging around a big, heavy lens with a big awkward hood. I would stick out in a crowd. The IQ is no better than what I can get already. Such a package would make this hobby less fun and not more. That's why it's dull. IQ has nothing to do with this.

If someone else has different criteria then that is fine by me. The problem is we get the Canon Fodder crowd insisting the Canon is the best FULL STOP, but they forget the best is subjective. This has been a problem in the past, but less so these days. Some think black and white and some can appreciate the subtleties of choice.

If each person considers what they want, what they prefer to spend and then chooses objectively then they will be happy. If someone must have what they're told is the best then they will need to upgrade constantly. They are gear collectors or technicians primarily and that is fine. They will find it difficult to take interesting shots because their focus is sharpness, saturation, contrast, and so on.

Technical perfection does not a good shot make as far as I am concerned. A technically perfect shot mixed with emotion, inspiration and a unique view marks a top class photographer. It's harder to get an interesting shot than a sharp one. You can take an interesting shot with high IQ from any of the best known standard zooms.

The Canon is very well built. So it's going to give you great IQ on day one as well as ten years from now. That's why it's expensive. Having owned something like 25 Canon lenses since around 1968 (R, FL, FD and EF) and having not a single problem with any of them, I suspect that the overwhelming majority of these posts claiming that "my lens had to go back 4 times for calibration" and "I tried three copies before I got one that didn't back-focus" is just teenagers having fun at the computer.

With autofocus cameras, some of it can be chalked up to people not knowing how to use their new equipment. Having used only manual focus cameras for over 40 years it took me a while to get a working understanding of all the focus points in the EOS bodies. Until you know what they are doing, it's easy to think that there's something wrong with the camera or the lens when in fact it's just the user that needs to get his act together.