Do you HAVE to Buy an L Lens?

[Kit]

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.

Your equipment doesn't have to restrict what you can do or where you can go. Like I said, I used a beat up 20-35 lens through salt spray, rain, etc. Protecting your gear doesn't means you don't take them out for fear of damages. You protect your gear by exercising some common sense and knowing what it can do for you. Many a times, these thing will out perform most people's expectations.

Commodore? Ai yah...skip that, rent a Clubsport. :devil:

 

[mpenza]

seems quite evenly split in opinions

 

[glt]

I take B+W shots on my canon and would like to improve on my shots and the quality of the prints i make. I enlarge my prints to A3 size (12x16) and 35mm negs just can't "keep up" with the details and sharpness for that size.

I thought my only option was to upgrade to L Lens (which obviously would be quite a hefty investment). Some friends of mine (professional photographers) suggest that i give MF cameras a serious thought. Not apple to apple comparison with Canon, but it does give me a neg thats upto 4.5x bigger than the 35mm and good quality lens. Price wise it can be comparable. Size and weight again can be comparable or even lighter than a Canon EOS plus L Lens (depends on the MF cam you choose).

These factors combined would be probably help me achieve what i want. I know that i would need to adjust to using MF cams (no autofocus, fixed focal lens, less exposures per roll,etc) but i think it's worth a shot. Given my requirements, i think that it's a feasible alternative for me.

Just my 2 cents worth, and i hope this food for thought for those of you who want to upgrade but haven't yet.

Cheers.

 

[dkw]

I take B+W shots on my canon and would like to improve on my shots and the quality of the prints i make. I enlarge my prints to A3 size (12x16) and 35mm negs just can't "keep up" with the details and sharpness for that size.

I thought my only option was to upgrade to L Lens (which obviously would be quite a hefty investment). Some friends of mine (professional photographers) suggest that i give MF cameras a serious thought. Not apple to apple comparison with Canon, but it does give me a neg thats upto 4.5x bigger than the 35mm and good quality lens. Price wise it can be comparable. Size and weight again can be comparable or even lighter than a Canon EOS plus L Lens (depends on the MF cam you choose).

These factors combined would be probably help me achieve what i want. I know that i would need to adjust to using MF cams (no autofocus, fixed focal lens, less exposures per roll,etc) but i think it's worth a shot. Given my requirements, i think that it's a feasible alternative for me.

Just my 2 cents worth, and i hope this food for thought for those of you who want to upgrade but haven't yet.

Cheers.

Sorry, that's a totally different issue. If you are using a poor lens, no amount of film/sensor resolution can help you.

 

[glt]

Well my point is that MF cameras (the better ones) have high quality lenses. I am told that the quality would be better than the L Lens, if not just as good. So with a larger format, more details can be captured on the neg. This obviously pays off the bigger you enlarge it.

No bashing please, but despite having a good lens, you still have the disadvantages of a small format. Anyway, there many pros and cons to both 35mm and MF cameras - which i don't intend to get into. I'm just stating that there's an alternative worth considering if you're already planning to invest a good sum of money in L Lenses.

But like i said, i am not a expert on the subject, just sharing what my more experience friends have told me.

 

[dkw]

Well my point is that MF cameras (the better ones) have high quality lenses. I am told that the quality would be better than the L Lens, if not just as good. So with a larger format, more details can be captured on the neg. This obviously pays off the bigger you enlarge it. But like i said, i am not a expert on the subject, just sharing what my more experience friends have told me.

That's why I say those are two separate issues, lens quality and film/sensor resolution. You need to determine which is compromising your image quality before you rush headlong into changing systems. It is well known that fixed focal length lenses (aka primes) will have better optical quality than the equivalent zooms. Heck, my $140 dollar 50/1.8 plastic toy is definitely sharper at f/5.6 than my $2K+ 100-400L IS. Does that mean I should junk the L? Of course not, you are paying for build quality, flexibility, fast AF and IS. There are plenty of reasonably priced fixed focal length lenses for 35mm that are fantastic, you don't have to go to MF to find them. To your other point, I don't shoot B&W film, but my friend who does tells me that 35mm film has PLENTY of resolution for A3 size, you can read these links below--->

http://photography.about.com/library/weekly/aa090202c.htm

http://www.photographyreview.com/Bl...ord ,Pan-F,Plus,ISO,50/PRD_83277_3119crx.aspx

So what I am saying is this, before you junk the SLR, it will be well worth your while to investigate if it is your lens that is limiting your image quality, 'coz that's usually the culprit. It is easy to diagnose and easy to fix, and you would have saved yourself a whole lot of bother.

Cheers,

 

[glt]

Don't disagree with you.

I've done my own research and have come to my own conclusion. You're right to say that it's a big leap to move from a Canon EOS SLR to a MF cam. I guess i'll find out in time if my investment is worth the move.

As for A3 enlargements, I've done them, and as far as i am concerned, i would like them sharper and with more detail. I'm sure that the lens will improve the quality, but without doubt a much large neg won't hurt either. There's a reason most pros who need to make large enlargements use MF or LF cameras. If fact, it's some would say that even A3 enlargements are pushing it for MF cams.

I guess it boils down to what you personally deem as important.

Thanks for your thoughts though.

 

[glt]

http://photography.about.com/library/weekly/aa090202c.htm

http://www.photographyreview.com/Bl...ord ,Pan-F,Plus,ISO,50/PRD_83277_3119crx.aspx

Cheers,[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the links though, very good reading.

 

[rainman]

I asked the same question when I just started photography (which is not so long ago)
after trying one of the L lens I think It really deserve the price, good sharpness and contrast and excellence build. And furthermore it has very good resale value compare to other 3rd party lens..

My opinion is if u want the quality so badly and have extra cash, get the L lens else just live on with other cheaper alternatives and do some PS..u r equally happy!

Guess as a hobbyist, it is good not to over spend unless u can capitalise on the equipments itself

 

[OzOn3]

yeah, i've tried 2 L lens.. the build quality and feel is totally different from the third party lenses that i own.. the L is.. smooth, Solid, and it's quiet..

I feel that it's quite worth the money to invest in the L. You're paying for the quality and technology (and of course for the 'brand name' ar)..

If i had the dough, i'd invest in a L.. Somehow, i feel that for hobbyist, maybe just myself, the 70-200 F2.8/4 L is quite likely the most useful lens.. Quite versatile range..

btw, i've been using primes all the way, well not a long time anyway, so maybe a constant aperture zoom lens might be one of the influencial factors

Did i say the USM focusing is silent and fast? haha..

Did i mention constant aperture zoom lens? haha =x

 

[mpenza]

not all L lenses are constant aperture zoom lens though. some have "consumer-like" apertures. USM focussing is also foundin non-L lenses and focussing could be real fast with it

 

[glt]

For those of you who are interested, there's an interesting article about the difference between 35mm and larger formats. It also deals with the effect of good lens etc.

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/formats.html

 

[DigitalLady]

i love sharp photos the glass is great

 

[Witness]

nikon user here....but i guess L lens have become a stigma in canon...today's outing practically all the canon users got L lens....haha...cool.....when will i be able to afford the nikon counterpart ..VR...

but i still feel that at the end of the day, know ya equipment well....for me i use this cheap 100-300...compact and light....but image quality wise so-so....but its good for my needs...for other uses i may lug out a bigger lens....haha...

end point is...if u guys feel that using an alternative would stifle the quality of ya photos....GO for L....if not...juz live wif it ya...

 

[fleek]

My opinion is to get the best that you can afford. I have seen people getting the best bodies and cheap lens and subsequently trade these lenses for better lenses hoping to get what they really want until a point when they have to get the L lenses. I would think that in the end, this path leads to even more money loses.

Just look at the number of 3rd party lenses here and in other forums, don't you see a whole lot of 3rd party lenses up for grabs?

Yes, primes are the best, but I can't imagine myself having to change lense all the time and missing those wonderful shots.

 

[John Tan]

Get the 'L' series len if you can as almost all kit or non-L len colour/ contrast/ sharpness is no par with 'L' like 70-200 F4L. I had sold away all my non-L len at low price. (Lost all my hardworkship's $)

One of the main factor to force me to sold away all non L len is the result from Sony Prosumer camera F828's Carl zeiss len(28-200mm F2.0~2.8)!!! This cam's len is perfect and sharp except it due to the 8mega pixel to squeeze into a small CCD size(suitable for 5mega pixel original) and cause high noise level when using higher than ISO 100.

 

[STboy]

Juz a point.

How many time have we got back home happily after a photo shoot and only to find out we are have 'soft' pictures? And swear that we have gotten a better performance len. I think the thread was created on the opinion of the importance of buying a L len.

MF for sure have their advantages, it is a good advancement to upgrade to MF. Juz remember bigger sensor/ negative, higher price to pay(ie.think about the RP for film/ digital back lor...).

For the rest of us, continue to chase for the dream to own expensive or quality(ie expensive=\= quality) lens of the 35mm format(ie not only L lens is good).

 

[scott]

You don't have to

 

[mpenza]

get the best you can afford, not the best out there in the market ;p I have no lens that cost >$1k or weigh more than 800g.

 

[GitS]

and i know u take excellant pics!