The L debate, 3 ways to do 50mm

I question if all too often i see a photo and ask "what lens?" instead of "what photographer?"

I think many of us who are either building up our equpiment or those who simply cant afford to have "the best" look to blame other things when their photos arnt up to par. So i decided to see what a difference it really makes.

Now i have to say one thing here, i do not own an L lens, the "L" lens i refer to is canons 50mm f/1.8, it is not an L lens but it has the ability to produce some amazing photographs...the question is, cant any lens do this?

All photographs are:

at 50mm
at f/5.0
shot at same ISO and appature, camera shot in AV mode

Now, i'm not going to name which is which, if you feel really cheesy you can look at the file name and figure it out on your own but i want to see if you can guess which photo goes with which lens. Posted here are the images resized to 800x533, click the link above them to see the full version of the photo.
The lenses used, in no order

canon 50mm f/1.8
canon 18-55 (kit)
Sigma 28-80 w/ macro

full version

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by ADVERTISEMENT

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by ADVERTISEMENT

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by ADVERTISEMENT

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by ADVERTISEMENT

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by ADVERTISEMENT

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by ADVERTISEMENT

By the way, i dont claim to know what i'm doing, it was simply a simple little test i did for myself and i thought i'd share it with ya'll.

Timmy,

At the posted size, we are essentially looking at images from a 0.4 megapixel camera. You can't resolve differences in image quality between these lenses at that resolution. Besides - most any lens at 50mm f/5.0 is going to look very, very good, especially towards the central part of the image that is in focus. None of your images capture corners that are in focus.

Nice try.

On the other hand, I can tell by the bokeh that the first image in the rusty teapot series has a 5-blade aperture - its a little choppy.

Also, lens #2 in the cup series appears a very slight bit warmer (yellower) than the other two. All are surprisingly similar in sharpness, though this curved object isn't necessarily the best test for that.

I think that the first rusty tea pot was exposed a bit higher than the other two.

Did you use a tripod?

That is why i provided a link to a 6.3 mp image

I agree, but i have limited funds here

The first in the teapot does seem a bit more exposed, i admit...but i can assure you it is not (at least not by any setting or change in light), i can not explain the reasoning for this

I think you guys are getting the vibe that i'm "anti L" this couldnt be further from the truth. I still think that when i see images like this:

scottbergerphoto
http://www.photography​-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=33361

timmyquest wrote:
The first in the teapot does seem a bit more exposed, i admit...but i can assure you it is not (at least not by any setting or change in light), i can not explain the reasoning for this

I don't know, but I think that if you looked at the exif, you'd find that the first shot was at a different shutter speed and aperture (not that I peeked though). Also, I was unable to extract EXIF data from one image that was a bitmap (.bmp).

Well, frankly, at f/5.0 or f/5.6, you should expect lens differences between consumer lenses to even out a bit. I suspect that if you opened up to f/4 or bigger, you'd find that one lens would pull away from the pack. Of course, at f/2.0, you'd only have one lens available.

I did a similar test once between a Sigma 70-200 EX and a used Canon 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 lens - the differences were stunning. But, that particular Canon lens was not a good sample, in my opinion.

I think that all 3 of your lenses here are pretty good. It appears that the middle lens in the first test was just a very, very tiny bit softer than the other two, but the difference is negligable at least at this aperture. In the teapot test, it appears that the first image, besides having a higher exposure, missed focus by just a bit. I think that if you re-did the test, it would be considerably better.

Really, as far as center image sharpness is concerned, none of these lenses are dogs.

Now find some colorful, high contrast stuff, with some corner detail and you can test other parameters.

The brigher picture was indeed shot at a differnt shutter speed, but it was still in AV at F/5.0, not sure why my camera decided it needed to do that.

Although the file is labled 50mmtea it is actually shot with the sigma, and so the softness of it does not suprise me one bit...

Hmmm i got them all wrong.......

And i'm usually super good at this kind of thing

but then......
not to be contrary but i do tend to ultimately judge a lens after using it for awhile.
I find that the 18-55 gives me no really good images and barely acceptable snapshots
The kit zooms 28-80 and 28-90 give occasional good pics and mostly rather good snapshots
The 28-105/3.5-4.5 gives quite good quality pics in most situations
The 50/1.8 only gives occasional duds-most are excellent
The 100macro gives pretty average pics sometimes but mostly is absolutally AWSOME
and i won't get started on the kit telezooms....too many to mention

I'm not guessing.. but I can tell you my opinion..

TEA POT

The third image is far more detailed.. but this could be focus, camera shake etc..

...the cup on the other hand.. none of the images jump out at me.

and no.. the 50mm f1.8 is not an L