In the film days, i just send in my rolls in for developing and let them do all the work. I still get my pics.
Do you HAVE to Buy an L Lens?
- Thread starter Jason Ho
- Start date
- Status
In the film days, i just send in my rolls in for developing and let them do all the work. I still get my pics.
That is why only people who are really excited and keen in photography takes the trouble to post process their own photos in the film days.
So now with "them" to post process your digital photos, don't you think is time that you start picking up that skill? Another analogy will be during a maths exam where calculator is allowed to be used, but for some reasons, the person doing the paper refuse to use it.
Last edited:
I am excited and enthusiastic abt photography but it's only a hobby to me ultimately. Unless i'm doing it as a profession then different story. Sometimes i do a little post-process for pics which i do for model shoots but they're just simply contrast and saturation adjustments.
xunjas
Senior Member
oh, u intend to pay IS? ;p
Might as well since i've sold my non-IS one. But the 70-200 will not come that soon, so in the meantime, can wait until price reduces further.
engrmariano
Senior Member
according to canon its Luxury...
for us it can be Lust, Love, Lens thats expensive.:sweat:
xunjas
Senior Member
and Liao Lui~~ ;p
haha....correct to certain extend...i know some people buy cause is L..and don't know the difference
i think a few years ago i voted no, but after being such a longtime user of canon material, i must say that having an L lens is really almost necessary.
ease of mind, really.
of course, i do own my fair share of non-L primes that do the same work, but most of the L zooms are of good quality (build and image wise), and it really helps that i can just bring one lens traveling instead of several primes. gets the same sharpness (if not better), and greater focusing speed for grab shots, less CA than on certain primes.
that said, i've started to become an advocator (somewhat) of NOT using non-canon lenses - i do own non-canon lenses (i'm talking about sigma, tokina, etc, rather than the CZ, leica, nikon, etc "adaptor mounted" varieties), but in general performance is really not as good compared to canon lenses.
ease of mind, really.
of course, i do own my fair share of non-L primes that do the same work, but most of the L zooms are of good quality (build and image wise), and it really helps that i can just bring one lens traveling instead of several primes. gets the same sharpness (if not better), and greater focusing speed for grab shots, less CA than on certain primes.
that said, i've started to become an advocator (somewhat) of NOT using non-canon lenses - i do own non-canon lenses (i'm talking about sigma, tokina, etc, rather than the CZ, leica, nikon, etc "adaptor mounted" varieties), but in general performance is really not as good compared to canon lenses.
I've been a strong advocate of it's not the equipment but the eye behind the equipment. But recently I purchased a 70-200 f2.8 L and now i understand and regret not buying L lenses earlier. It's a whole new shooting experience. It's reliability and speed is something I appreciate.
Kit
Senior Member
Perhaps this should be re-phrased to.....
don't know how to use them to see the differences.....
engrmariano
Senior Member
can i change my vote to YES?...
i choose NO before when i got no L, but when i already got 2 L's, theres no more turning back.
i choose NO before when i got no L, but when i already got 2 L's, theres no more turning back.
dirtdynamics
Member
all so rich....over 2k for a lens..i just cant convince myself to spend so much until i know i really need it...
dirtdynamics
Member
dont say that bro..
lens are an investment and if you use a canon and you tried a L lens before,
sure you will be hooked on the performance and build quality
plus they de-preciatte better.. dont lose so much
- Status
