does the lens make the picture regardless of camera?

I have noticed some people here that have Rebel, 20D and such with lens that are not stock (such as a L type or a clone like sigma) and the pictures are almost as great as a Mark series or 5D. I did notice the natural F stop for these lens are very large like 50mm 1.8 ot 70-20mm f2.4.

Is the lens more important that the IQ of the camera in getting that 1D or 5D professional look? I was shocked to see a Rebel get that kind of a picture? Oh, one more thing all of the pictures were shot in RAW.

It's a combination of both but you'll find a drastic difference with glass more so than body. Optical glass is expensive to produce and great optics give you great contrast, colour and sharpness. Difference in bodies is found when sensor size is bigger more than anything. And welcome to the Forum.

I've always seen it as:

User > Glass > Body

I am looking at the Canon 70-200mm L type of course. Now they have the F4, F2.8, and F2.8 IS. Apart from the price and the apeture would all three have similar picture L type quality? I know the f2.8 is better for low light without a flash but paying twice as much is not my bag of tea, 600.00 is more like it. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

bond007 wrote in post #5773869
I am looking at the Canon 70-200mm L type of course. Now they have the F4, F2.8, and F2.8 IS. Apart from the price and the apeture would all three have similar picture L type quality? I know the f2.8 is better for low light without a flash but paying twice as much is not my bag of tea, 600.00 is more like it. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

You've forgotten the f4 IS, but yes, all four will have a similar 'L' type quality (although the f4 IS is allegedly the best of the lot with regard to sharpness)

Of the 70-200s, I've used all but the f/4 IS and the f/4 non-is was by far the sharpest and best IQ of the bunch.

gooble wrote in post #5773892
Of the 70-200s, I've used all but the f/4 IS and the f/4 non-is was by far the sharpest and best IQ of the bunch.

But that lens does not have Image Stabiliser, does this feature really helps you stabilise the image for such as large and long lens it is worth the extra money to pay for?

bond007 wrote in post #5773902
But that lens does not have Image Stabiliser, does this feature really helps you stabilise the image for such as large and long lens it is worth the extra money to pay for?

If you already haven't you may be interested to read this review. The remarks on the last page (verdict) says it all really. Only you can decide whether IS is worth the extra cash. Personally I think it is.

the IS is definitely worth the extra expense! im darn spoilt by my 70-200's IS, so when i got my non-IS 135 F/2, i had to be very mindful of how steady i handhold. at 135mm its already quite a handful, so i can imagine how much benefit IS would give you when shooting at 200mm.

I just purchased the 70-200mm f4.0L IS lens and the Canon Speedlite 430EX Flash. I hope I can obtain near 5D / 1D Mark pictures with a EOS 30D attached to it. I brought the 30D last year summer (2007) just about six months prior to the 40D coming out including the stock lens 28mm - 1355mm IS which is just okay but not great. After seeing what the L type lens can do to even bodies such as the Rebel and the 20D, I knew I had to have one.

I recently rented the 70-200mm f4L IS and it was indeed everything everyone said it would be. Fast AF, great sharpness and the IS worked like a charm.

If you can afford the IS version then you may as well get it, but remember that it's only useful if the subject you're shooting allows for a shutter speed slower than you can comfortably hand hold.

Hi,

I completely agree with: User > Glass > Body

Regarding IS vs. non-IS then in my opinion the buck saved on going non-IS will have to be spend on a tripod. I would definitely go for IS. On the other hand there is the issue of larger battery drain when using IS. But you can always shut off IS when battery life is an issue.

Best regards,
-Kristian Stobbe

IS, for me I wouldn't even bother with the non-IS, I've tested a lot with my IS lenses by turning it off for a while or on and off and comparing pictures, IS for me is a must to the point where if I wanted two L lenses but could only afford to get one with IS or the two without, I'd get the one with IS.

f4IS no IS