does the lens make the picture regardless of camera?

Gravy graffix:"
Are you joking me? What was the aperture opening and the shutter speed in this case? And what was the focal length of the lens?

Newegg is out of stock with the L type lens but I ordered the Flash from them. Ritz Camera is too expensive but they may have it in store so I am going to call them in the morning and if they have it, I will buy it prior to going to work.

bond007 wrote in post #5774636
Gravy graffix:"
Are you joking me? What was the aperture opening and the shutter speed in this case? And what was the focal length of the lens?

Newegg is out of stock with the L type lens but I ordered the Flash from them. Ritz Camera is too expensive but they may have it in store so I am going to call them in the morning and if they have it, I will buy it prior to going to work.

[Image]
Make = Canon
Model = Canon EOS 40D
Orientation = top/left
Date Time = 2008-01-12 18:07:20
[Camera]
Exposure Time = 1/8"
F Number = F4
Exposure Program = Aperture priority
ISO Speed Ratings = 1600
Exif Version = Version 2.21
Date Time Original = 2008-01-12 18:07:20
Date Time Digitized = 2008-01-12 18:07:20
Shutter Speed Value = 3 TV
Aperture Value = 4 AV
Exposure Bias Value = ±0EV
Metering Mode = Pattern
Flash = Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode
Focal Length = 189mm
User Comment =
Subsec Time =
Flashpix Version = Version 1.0
Color Space = sRGB
Exif Image Width = 800
Exif Image Height = 533
[Thumbnail]
Thumbnail = 160 x 120

How did you obtain the Exif information? I clicked on those pictures but no link to the Exif information. Am I missing something here?

http://www.opanda.com/​en/iexif/

There's a saying that goes:

Amateurs blame it on the body,
Professionals blame it on the glass,
and the Accomplished just let their work do the talking

bond007 wrote in post #5773745
Does the lens make the picture regardless of camera?

There are several elements that create an image but if forced to summarize it into only one point it would be:

Post processing makes the image...

This is because you can have every other need met and still fall short.

Good ISO
Good Light
Good Subject composition

No, no. There are many lousy images post processing can't save, but a truly outstanding pictures doesn't need any postprocessing.

Images are created in the camera, as good as the lens/camera (when digital) can do, whilst following the photographers commands.
Then it's of course so that a very good lens will make a medium camera do better, but it may take a top-of-the-line camera to fully utilize such a lens.

Either the clock on the wall, or the clock in the camera, is wrong.

apersson850 wrote in post #5775016
No, no. There are many lousy images post processing can't save, but a truly outstanding pictures doesn't need any postprocessing.
....
Then it's of course so that a very good lens will make a medium camera do better, but it may take a top-of-the-line camera to fully utilize such a lens.

I want to agree, but I can take a junk camera and a junk lens and make a saleable image... I would not want to... but I could... Good lighting is the key, but post processing (taking days or weeks) can simulate it however...

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.

My rant about the f/4 over the f/2.8 is the deep DOF...
I personally love shallow DOF and good bokah.. To me, the f/4 just doesn't\won't cut it (I have yet to purchase either 70-200 but the f/2.8 version is next on my wish list!). So it also comes down to personal preference... Would you rather cheap out and buy a good lens, but then be dissapointed in it's deep depth of field and not so great bokeh? Or spend the extra $400 for the better DOF, better bokah, and better low light abilities?

bond007 wrote in post #5774675
How did you obtain the Exif information? I clicked on those pictures but no link to the Exif information. Am I missing something here?

If you want to right click on pictures and see EXIF, use Opera. IMHO, Opera is superior to IE and Firefox.

Tumeg wrote in post #5778391
My rant about the f/4 over the f/2.8 is the deep DOF...
I personally love shallow DOF and good bokah.. To me, the f/4 just doesn't\won't cut it (I have yet to purchase either 70-200 but the f/2.8 version is next on my wish list!). So it also comes down to personal preference... Would you rather cheap out and buy a good lens, but then be dissapointed in it's deep depth of field and not so great bokeh? Or spend the extra $400 for the better DOF, better bokah, and better low light abilities?

There is always the 200 f/2.8L prime.

Tumeg wrote in post #5778391
My rant about the f/4 over the f/2.8 is the deep DOF...
I personally love shallow DOF and good bokah.. To me, the f/4 just doesn't\won't cut it (I have yet to purchase either 70-200 but the f/2.8 version is next on my wish list!). So it also comes down to personal preference... Would you rather cheap out and buy a good lens, but then be dissapointed in it's deep depth of field and not so great bokeh? Or spend the extra $400 for the better DOF, better bokah, and better low light abilities?

For any given focal length and focus distance the difference between 2.8 and 4 is only 50%. So if your DOF at 2.8 is 1/2 inch at 4 it's 3/4 inch. It will be much more significant when using shorter focal lengths or when subject is far away but I don't think for me it'd matter that much. The f/4 is a third the price of the 2.8 with 90% of it's capabilities so it's a good value.

To answer your question, their is a difference in picture quality when using two different camera bodies.
I shoot weddings with my brother, and we will take the same exact picture with the same lens, with the same basic settings, and his will be better. I shoot with an XTI and he shoots with a 5D.
With that said, I have never used a lens that wasn't an "L" series lens, so I can't comment on lens quality.

-Dustin

On a side note, I just got my 70-200 f/2.8 and I can say that I do find it a bit heavy. Really surprised me just how heavy it does feel. I figured it wouldn't feel like much after using the 100-400L, but it does.

When it comes to image quality alone and not image content, I wouldn't put the user first in the list. Though the user has some influence in IQ, a user can not get IQ better than the equipment is capable of delivering. The user can do things like shake the camera, use poor settings and such to reduce IQ but glass is the most important element when it comes to IQ. As to the body, ever since the XT/20, there hasn't been a huge increase in body IQ. So I'd put the list glass, user, body.