Do you HAVE to Buy an L Lens?

[jnifur]

I suppose L lens really make a diff in photo quality.
But...it depends on wat the user think. If the kind of photos that he/she took requires L lens to perform better...why not buy it.
But, if a person got L lens and still the picture composition and technical skills is crappy...I dun see how L lens is gonna work

 

[lfchang]

I'm a newbie in photography... recently bought a dlsr and happened to test out the canon 17-40 L series len..Instantly i was impressed and quickly I understand y ppl throw in so much money for a pc of glass. Though I do alot of post processing on my current 300D pics, I guess I'll still prefer the real sharpness and contrast. Think my next investment will be a L series len. One thing I would like to know is can 3rd party lenses offer the same type of sharpness as compare to canon original L series len?

17 - 40, sharp on both ends... good lens...

 

[oeyvind]

I'm a newbie in photography... recently bought a dlsr and happened to test out the canon 17-40 L series len..Instantly i was impressed and quickly I understand y ppl throw in so much money for a pc of glass. Though I do alot of post processing on my current 300D pics, I guess I'll still prefer the real sharpness and contrast. Think my next investment will be a L series len. One thing I would like to know is can 3rd party lenses offer the same type of sharpness as compare to canon original L series len?

yes, you can on macro lenses... Sigma, Tamron both offer great alternative to Canon's choices.

 

[AReality]

One thing I would like to know is can 3rd party lenses offer the same type of sharpness as compare to canon original L series len?

Some 3rd party lens are comparable to the L lenses.
For eg. the Tamron 17-35 is better than the Canon 17-40 for some aperatures.

There're other excellent 3rd party lenses out there also.

 

[lingfoo]

Some 3rd party lens are comparable to the L lenses.
For eg. the Tamron 17-35 is better than the Canon 17-40 for some aperatures.

There're other excellent 3rd party lenses out there also.

But how iz the built of the Tamron 17-35 compare to the Canon 17-40?

Thou when judging a lens, Image quality is the main qualifier... but sometimes the built of the lens also have to be taken into consideration...

 

[Kit]

But how iz the built of the Tamron 17-35 compare to the Canon 17-40?

Thou when judging a lens, Image quality is the main qualifier... but sometimes the built of the lens also have to be taken into consideration...

Built of both lenses are more than adequate for most users here.

 

[lingfoo]

Built of both lenses are more than adequate for most users here.

Oh? so the Tamron version comes with a environmental seal sort of thingi as well?

 

[justarius]

Oh? so the Tamron version comes with a environmental seal sort of thingi as well?

How many photographers here take their lenses into situations which require environmental seals?

 

[oeyvind]

How many photographers here take their lenses into situations which require environmental seals?

Your camera body needs to be sealed as well... I have used 16-35 in the rain before 2 weeks ago in Seoul, Spring rain for about a few hours, works great.

Tried before with the 70-200 IS as well.

 

[lingfoo]

How many photographers here take their lenses into situations which require environmental seals?

huh... beaches for example... another extreme would be... desserts...

 

[justarius]

huh... beaches for example... another extreme would be... desserts...

True true, but again, how many photographers here would be going to deserts? Or even frolicking in the waves at the beach while taking pictures?

And one shouldn't look down on built quality of 'consumer' or third party lenses. I took my polycarbonate mount super plasticky consumer lens out into the pouring rain 2 weeks ago to shoot the London Marathon... everything went well. No water got into the lens, etc and I wasn't using a rain guard or umbrella or anything. Picture quality is fine as well eventhough my max aperture was 5.6 and I needed to stop down to f8 to get acceptable image quality, which I compensated by using 800 film to get acceptable shutter speeds.

 

[Kit]

huh... beaches for example... another extreme would be... desserts...

That's like saying I need to get a Ferrari because I go above 200km/h once in a while.'

Environmentally sealed equipment are meant for prolonged usage in harsh conditions. How much time do you actually spend shooting in harsh conditions? If you asked me, this concern over built quality is way over hyped among hobbyists as most equipment most probably exceed their requirements. It has become more of a "want" or "lust" rather than "need".

In case you wonder, I too had taken an old beat up Nikkor 20-35 f/2.8 through rain, salt spray, sand, dust, you name it. Still turned out ok.

 

[mpenza]

huh... beaches for example... another extreme would be... desserts...

i'll probably not bring my dslr to a beach ;p even if the lens is ok, the camera may not ;p

 

[Michael Ang]

i'll probably not bring my dslr to a beach ;p even if the lens is ok, the camera may not ;p

hi, if u don't bring your dslr to the beach, then how are u ever to go get those beautiful beach sunrise, sunset?

esp when using those prosumer cameras won't bring u the quality you want....

haha, just use lah.... just be careful not to dunk it into the sea water accidentally.

 

[mpenza]

have bought a Yashica T5 for such a purpose ;p but guess would still be tempted to bring the DSLR.

 

[shuttlebox]

Well, it happened to me when I took my DSLR for a vacation in perth... went to sunset coast, went to pinnacles desserts... and at the end of the day when I was examining my equipments... found tat when I turn the zoom ring, there is a scratchy sound from the lens... and tat cost $$ get it cleaned... sob sob...

200km/h? did tat with a rented mitsubusi Magna V6 3.2 in australia... wua hahahahaha... rave it to the max... 233km/h... :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

 

[Kit]

I believe most camera, if not all are capable of good results in the hands that are equally capable. That being said, I don't see the point in restricting the usage of cameras. You bought it, use it well.

 

[Kit]

200km/h? did tat with a rented mitsubusi Magna V6 3.2 in australia... wua hahahahaha... rave it to the max... 233km/h... :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

See? You don't nee a Ferrari to do 200. Although doing 200 with a Magna is erm.......... :devil:

 

[shuttlebox]

I believe most camera, if not all are capable of good results in the hands that are equally capable. That being said, I don't see the point in restricting the usage of cameras. You bought it, use it well.

But having your equipment restricting where you could go... :think: :think: :think: wish I had a L lens then... it's really :bheart: 'ing hearing that scratchy sound ya know... and the hassle if getting it clean...

like... yea, you're right on the Magna, still prefer a Holden Commodore V12, 251km/h still steady... ( wua hahaha... another rented car )

I guess sooner or later, all the car rental is gonna band me cos whenever I rent one, I rave it, spin it... do whatever tat I won't do on my OWN car... wua hahahah.

 

[clive]

lolzz..u all still discussign this age old question ah?? :bsmilie: ..no need to waste so much brain juice one lah..just do it! it just do! impossible is nothing! whatever lah! just buy and live happily ever after can already!!!!! ;-)