24-70L vs. 24-105L (the 24-105L will win this one)

Permagrin wrote in post #4742756
hey, I thought there'd be some more startling discoveries about L by now

LOL Once I pass CDS is post count, I'm going to campaign for queen of POTN

You aren't queen of POTN already?

Could've fooled me...

Anyone who disagrees, raise their hand...

[crickets chirping]

Thought so.


Your wish is my command, my queen.

(er, okay, so Maureen Souza might have something to say about this. Just pretend she isn't reading this! )

lol...Mo won't care...she's probably content with Goddess Supreme

Permagrin wrote in post #4742756
hey, I thought there'd be some more startling discoveries about L by now

LOL Once I pass CDS is post count, I'm going to campaign for queen of POTN

You got my vote!!

Hey look...Red's catching up again!


and Calicocat, where are you?...I need you to support my very worthwhile cause to "FREE PERMIE" (see sig)

What is going on!?!??! How did the red lens catch up!

Looks like Olie's campaign for L is finally yielding results!

krepta wrote in post #4776197
Looks like Olie's campaign for L is finally yielding results!

I have plans in mind for a new test lens It will deal with G&N shooting. Well, I am missing time these days. For sure if the L take the lead I'll do it

Okay. here we go.
This was the test: very simple.

Lenses: I got the chance to test a pre-series sample of a 70-200 2.8 IS L provided by Canon Bangkok for comparison with my own 70-200 2.8 IS L.
Testing conditions: The test was done during a G&N session of my Thai friend Somchai Thothong, a local famous photographer shooting for the local issue of Playboy. We worked very hard. 4 hours non stop. Astonishing girls, and very professional. A lot of fun, as well.
Results: Of course, I cannot post the images here in this forum. I will be considering the G&N forum for that. But I think images of the lens right after the session are demonstrative enough:

its a matter of fact that the L holds the distance much better.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

OL9245 wrote in post #4779957
Okay. here we go.
This was the test: very simple.

Lenses: I got the change to test a pre-series sample of a 70-200 2.8 IS L provided by Canon Bangkok for comparison with my own 70-200 2.8 IS L.
Testing conditions: The test was done during a G&N session of my Thai friend Somchai Thothong, a local famous photographer shooting for the local issue of Playboy. We worked very hard. 4 hours non stop. Astonishing girls, and very professional. A lot of fun, as well.
Results: Of course, I cannot post the images here in this forum. I will be considering the G&N forum for that. But I think images of the lens right after the session are demonstrative enough: its a matter of fact that the L holds the distance much better.

Hosted photo: posted by OL9245 in
./showthread.php?p=477​9957&i=i264987094
forum: Canon EF and EF-S Lenses

Conclusions: you pros: no doubt you want the L
you newbies, amateurs and dummies: why not considering the L as well (you deserve it)

Looks like the new 70-200mm f/2.8L IS TS-E model!

OL9245 wrote in post #4779957
Okay. here we go.
This was the test: very simple.

Lenses: I got the chance to test a pre-series sample of a 70-200 2.8 IS L provided by Canon Bangkok for comparison with my own 70-200 2.8 IS L.
Testing conditions: The test was done during a G&N session of my Thai friend Somchai Thothong, a local famous photographer shooting for the local issue of Playboy. We worked very hard. 4 hours non stop. Astonishing girls, and very professional. A lot of fun, as well.
Results: Of course, I cannot post the images here in this forum. I will be considering the G&N forum for that. But I think images of the lens right after the session are demonstrative enough:

its a matter of fact that the L holds the distance much better.

Conclusions: you pros: no doubt you want the L
you newbies, amateurs and dummies: why not considering the L as well (you deserve it)

I have avoided visiting Bangkok because, quite frankly, I assume that I would spend my time being wild and crazy rather than doing productive things like taking pictures of useful and edifying things.

I could give a frame of reference from a recent trip to Las Vegas for a Photoshop Users convention -- I have the impression that I spent more time enjoying the pleasures of Vegas than I did absorbing the wonders of Adobe products, but "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas", so I won't elaborate.

However, you have provided some real evidence that there might be a compelling reason to visit Bangkok: a Playboy shoot! I have to rethink my thinking!

And, I have an L lens, rather than an L lens, so I don't think I would suffer from the lens dysfunction that you illustrate above!

Anyway, constructive suggestions are welcome, but especially contributions to my Bangkok fund are welcome, or maybe setting up a Playboy shoot out here in the Pacific Northwest!

tonylong wrote in post #4780131
I have avoided visiting Bangkok because, quite frankly, I assume that I would spend my time being wild and crazy rather than doing productive things like taking pictures of useful and edifying things.

I could give a frame of reference from a recent trip to Las Vegas for a Photoshop Users convention -- I have the impression that I spent more time enjoying the pleasures of Vegas than I did absorbing the wonders of Adobe products, but "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas", so I won't elaborate.

However, you have provided some real evidence that there might be a compelling reason to visit Bangkok: a Playboy shoot! I have to rethink my thinking!

And, I have an L lens, rather than an L lens, so I don't think I would suffer from the lens dysfunction that you ullustrate above!

Anyway, constructive suggestions are welcome, but expecially contributions to my Bangkok fund are welcome, or maybe setting up a Playboy shoot out here in the Pacific Northwest!

you are right: never come to Bangkok with a L

This thread makes me ROFLMAO!

OL9245 wrote in post #4779957
Okay. here we go.
This was the test: very simple.

Lenses: I got the chance to test a pre-series sample of a 70-200 2.8 IS L provided by Canon Bangkok for comparison with my own 70-200 2.8 IS L.
Testing conditions: The test was done during a G&N session of my Thai friend Somchai Thothong, a local famous photographer shooting for the local issue of Playboy. We worked very hard. 4 hours non stop. Astonishing girls, and very professional. A lot of fun, as well.
Results: Of course, I cannot post the images here in this forum. I will be considering the G&N forum for that. But I think images of the lens right after the session are demonstrative enough:

its a matter of fact that the L holds the distance much better.

Hosted photo: posted by OL9245 in
./showthread.php?p=477​9957&i=i264987094
forum: Canon EF and EF-S Lenses

Conclusions: you pros: no doubt you want the L
you newbies, amateurs and dummies: why not considering the L as well (you deserve it)

With results like that, why is the L winning?

Trainboy wrote in post #4782318
With results like that, why is the L winning?

Because it apparently gives your shots an artistic flair that the L simply doesn't?

Trainboy wrote in post #4782318
With results like that, why is the L winning?

Well, you see, that's the problem with Pixel Peeping. You get too wrapped up in what the individual pixels look like and miss that the photo as a whole is a wretched mess!

GO BIG L