Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 30 Oct 2009 (Friday) 09:36
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

L lens versus Consumer

 
Ralph ­ III
Goldmember
1,335 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Alabama
     
Oct 30, 2009 09:36 |  #1

Hello,
I am getting into event photography and want to also expand with portraits, seniors and weddings. My budget is limited at the moment and have a few questions in regards to lenses.

This summer I shot a number of tennis tournaments with my ef 28-135 IS lens, which served well. However, I am considering eventually selling that one and getting the 24-105 f4.0 L lens. That is a quality lens which could be used for other venues, obviously.

General question is this. Will the quality of the L lens allow me to crop aggressively and to what degree? Will such cropping be more than adequate in making up the difference in focal lengths of the two lenses? Is the 4.0 a fixed aperture and what difference can I expect versus the 3.5-5.6? I can moderately crop with the 28-135 lens and still get good 16 x 20 and yes even 20 x 30 prints. This was very surprising as articles suggest that IQ not possible, much less at the low and medium pixel setting on my 30d, as shot.

Also, why can't Canon make an 18-200 2.8 L lens???? Your left debating between the 18-300 L and 70-200 2.8 L. Just venting on that one as my desired lens would serve better with the sports I wish to shoot, without having to change lenses.

Take care


"SOUTHERN and SAVED!"
POTN FEEDBACK...............ITEMS FOR SALE

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
egordon99
Cream of the Crop
10,247 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Philly 'burbs
     
Oct 30, 2009 09:39 |  #2

Ralph III wrote in post #8923887 (external link)
Also, why can't Canon make an 18-200 2.8 L lens????

Because it would be absolutely massive. Most f/2.8 lenses (which are already quite big) only cover a small zoom range to balance quality and size/weight.

Most folks shooting professionally who need to cover a wide range of focal lengths use two bodies.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
chauncey
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,696 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 460
Joined Jun 2007
Location: MI/CO
     
Oct 30, 2009 09:49 as a reply to  @ egordon99's post |  #3

Read this, including the reviews http://www.the-digital-picture.com …Lens-Work-III-Review.aspx (external link)
Then this http://www.canon-europe.com …n/ef_lens_work_​iii_en.asp (external link)
Followed by this http://software.canon-europe.com …F_Lens_Work_Boo​k_9_EN.pdf (external link)


The things you do for yourself die with you, the things you do for others live forever.
A man's worth should be judged, not when he basks in the sun, but how he faces the storm.

My stuff...http://1x.com/member/c​hauncey43 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ralph ­ III
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,335 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Alabama
     
Oct 30, 2009 09:51 |  #4

egordon99 wrote in post #8923897 (external link)
Because it would be absolutely massive. Most f/2.8 lenses (which are already quite big) only cover a small zoom range to balance quality and size/weight.

Most folks shooting professionally who need to cover a wide range of focal lengths use two bodies.

OOPS, I meant to say the 28-300 L 3.5-5.6 lens, which is massive and has a much greater focal range than the 70-200 L 2.8.

Your saying by adding a wider focal of only 42mm, yet keeping shorter focal length 200mm, it would bloat that lens to larger than the 28-300?


"SOUTHERN and SAVED!"
POTN FEEDBACK...............ITEMS FOR SALE

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
advaitin
Goldmember
Avatar
4,620 posts
Gallery: 432 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 829
Joined Jun 2003
Location: The Fun Coast of Florida
     
Oct 30, 2009 09:54 |  #5

18-300 L? If there was such a beast it would be at least as popular as the 28-300 L.

Yes, I understand it was a typo--just a little funning. However, there is a reason the 28-300 doesn't go into a lot of pro bags. It is just as much a dust pump as the 100-400L and just as bulky without the speed of the f2.8 lenses. I have an f 2.8 120-300 and it is no lightweight. Like the responder above, most shooters assess what they need for a shoot and carry the lenses and a couple or three bodies to cover their needs.

It really doesn't matter what you have in your bag or on the camera--in the lifespan of every photographer there will be a moment when the shot of a lifetime will be just out of reach or too close or just after you've turned away. Some sort of Murphy's law.


Canons to the left, Canons to the right,
We hold our L glass toward the light,
Digitizing in a snap reflective glory
That will forever tell our imaged story.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ralph ­ III
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,335 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Alabama
     
Oct 30, 2009 09:54 |  #6

Thanks for the articles and I like Bryan's site also.


"SOUTHERN and SAVED!"
POTN FEEDBACK...............ITEMS FOR SALE

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
advaitin
Goldmember
Avatar
4,620 posts
Gallery: 432 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 829
Joined Jun 2003
Location: The Fun Coast of Florida
     
Oct 30, 2009 10:00 |  #7

I should add, for Sigma to get f2.8 on a 120-300mm lens, requires a lot of glass and a 105mm filter to cover the front element. It's 10.7 inches long without the hood and weighs at 5.7 pounds.


Canons to the left, Canons to the right,
We hold our L glass toward the light,
Digitizing in a snap reflective glory
That will forever tell our imaged story.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ralph ­ III
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,335 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Alabama
     
Oct 30, 2009 10:00 |  #8

advaitin wrote in post #8923950 (external link)
18-300 L? If there was such a beast it would be at least as popular as the 28-300 L.

Yes, I understand it was a typo--just a little funning. However, there is a reason the 28-300 doesn't go into a lot of pro bags. It is just as much a dust pump as the 100-400L and just as bulky without the speed of the f2.8 lenses. I have an f 2.8 120-300 and it is no lightweight. Like the responder above, most shooters assess what they need for a shoot and carry the lenses and a couple or three bodies to cover their needs.

It really doesn't matter what you have in your bag or on the camera--in the lifespan of every photographer there will be a moment when the shot of a lifetime will be just out of reach or too close or just after you've turned away. Some sort of Murphy's law.

Thanks and as noted just venting! Having the perfect lens for the perfect situation is truly not in my hands.

What about the question of quality differences of the 24-105 L and 28-135 consumer?

Ralph


"SOUTHERN and SAVED!"
POTN FEEDBACK...............ITEMS FOR SALE

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
egordon99
Cream of the Crop
10,247 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Philly 'burbs
     
Oct 30, 2009 10:02 |  #9

Ralph III wrote in post #8923935 (external link)
OOPS, I meant to say the 28-300 L 3.5-5.6 lens, which is massive and has a much greater focal range than the 70-200 L 2.8.

Your saying by adding a wider focal of only 42mm, yet keeping shorter focal length 200mm, it would bloat that lens to larger than the 28-300?

So you want a 28-200mm f/2.8? Think how big the 70-200mm f/2.8 is. Getting from 70mm to 28mm will make it quite a bit bigger.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
egordon99
Cream of the Crop
10,247 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Philly 'burbs
     
Oct 30, 2009 10:03 |  #10

Ralph III wrote in post #8923983 (external link)
What about the question of quality differences of the 24-105 L and 28-135 consumer?

Ralph

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …&FLI=0&API=0&Le​nsComp=116 (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
advaitin
Goldmember
Avatar
4,620 posts
Gallery: 432 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 829
Joined Jun 2003
Location: The Fun Coast of Florida
     
Oct 30, 2009 10:05 |  #11

Ralph III wrote in post #8923983 (external link)
Thanks and as noted just venting! Having the perfect lens for the perfect situation is truly not in my hands.

What about the question of quality differences of the 24-105 L and 28-135 consumer?

Ralph

Wish I could say. My memory of a 28-135 was that I traded it rather quickly for a 17-85mm IS (for my EFs mount cameras) and I was lucky to get a good copy of that lens. I also now have a 24-105 and I'd say it is excellent. I just was on this thread covering the same ground:

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=772992

I posted sample images there.


Canons to the left, Canons to the right,
We hold our L glass toward the light,
Digitizing in a snap reflective glory
That will forever tell our imaged story.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ralph ­ III
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,335 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Alabama
     
Oct 30, 2009 10:08 |  #12

A comparison chart. That is great and will read up on it. However, until then, do you have any professional and personal input as I have not had an L lens?

Thanks, Ralph


"SOUTHERN and SAVED!"
POTN FEEDBACK...............ITEMS FOR SALE

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ralph ­ III
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,335 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Alabama
     
Oct 30, 2009 10:17 |  #13

advaitin wrote in post #8924011 (external link)
Wish I could say. My memory of a 28-135 was that I traded it rather quickly for a 17-85mm IS (for my EFs mount cameras) and I was lucky to get a good copy of that lens. I also now have a 24-105 and I'd say it is excellent. I just was on this thread covering the same ground:

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=772992

I posted sample images there.

Your thread is excellent and will read on! That input is what I was looking for.

Take care, Ralph


"SOUTHERN and SAVED!"
POTN FEEDBACK...............ITEMS FOR SALE

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mbellot
"My dog ate my title"
Avatar
3,357 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Jul 2005
Location: The Miami of Canada - Chicago!
     
Oct 30, 2009 12:08 as a reply to  @ Ralph III's post |  #14

Ralph III wrote in post #8923887 (external link)
Hello,
I am getting into event photography and want to also expand with portraits, seniors and weddings. My budget is limited at the moment and have a few questions in regards to lenses.

"Event" is a rather large category.

If you're looking at theater "events" then f/2.8 glass is the bare minimum to consider usable.

I shoot a couple dance recitals along with other school stuff each year and frequently find myself at ISO6400 f/2.8 and still lacking adequate shutter speed to properly stop action.

advaitin wrote in post #8923981 (external link)
I should add, for Sigma to get f2.8 on a 120-300mm lens, requires a lot of glass and a 105mm filter to cover the front element. It's 10.7 inches long without the hood and weighs at 5.7 pounds.

Mine arrived yesterday. :D

Compared to the 70-200/2.8 IS its not bad size wise, but its a beast weight wise. I really wish it had IS/OS, but I'll just have to learn to use the friggin' monopod I guess. :lol:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
toxic
Goldmember
3,498 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2008
Location: California
     
Oct 30, 2009 15:46 |  #15

Ralph III wrote in post #8923887 (external link)
General question is this. Will the quality of the L lens allow me to crop aggressively and to what degree? Will such cropping be more than adequate in making up the difference in focal lengths of the two lenses?

Short answer: Get the focal length you need. Get it right in-camera.

A higher-resolution lens will allow slightly more cropping and still yield the same print resolution. How significant is it, I don't know - you need numbers for that (resolution of the lenses at different f-stops and focal lengths), and you need to define what your print resolution goal is in ll/mm.

However, a larger sensor (and appropriate lens) will make more of a difference than upgrading lenses. More megapixels also helps to some degree.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,365 views & 0 likes for this thread
L lens versus Consumer
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is julianribinik
822 guests, 292 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.