actually, L or not is not the issue. you'll just want to get the appropriate lens to use. The appropriate one might be an L or non-L, Canon or third party. The important thing is to have the final results that you desire. Of course, budget is a prime concern for those whose pockets are not very deep.
L lens worth it?
- Thread starter trucatus
- Start date
- Status
at this moment, you already know what you are paying for, you are paying "cheaper" for a lens that is probably lighter than its equivalent EF counterpart (if and when they arrive) .
the other thing to note is how long will it take for FF camera's to trickle down to 300D pricing? taking note that ALL the camera manufacturers will most likely protect their interest at market segmentation. I hardly doubt it will take any shorter than 5 years (probably 7),
assuming if FF camera's drop to 300D pricing, what can you say about the price of lenses then? would there still be market segmentation, ie: a 1.6x DSLR crop camera at $300 thus still requiring ef-s lens for affordable wide angle?
we also don't know the practical limit of pixel density on a cmos, for all you know, 44 megapixel on a aps-c sized sensor can be achieved, that certainly would make redundant 35mm format for the sake of 35mm familiarity wouldn't it?
Well said! I use a mix of L, non-L and third party lens as well, both prime and zoom. Its all about getting the right lens to do the job, based on your budgeting and needs, and its the results that matter. Remembered this quote from Micahel Reichmann of Luminous Landscape, he said "Most lenses are better than most users". How true.mpenza said:
Belle&Sebastain
Senior Member
generik said:
the older L lens 20-35 2.8L etc has no USM. Some L lenses has moderate apertures. What i'm saying is that some times the lenses you need can only be found in the L line. some not, so do not be so uptight if you need L lenses or not rather what lenses you need for your work, L or not L doesn't matter right?
white cat/black cat, can catch mice is a good cat.
L lens or not, can use and acheive the results you want is a good lens.
Slow? wut slow? this lens AF Damn fast man... ;p hahahaha...generik said:
Neitherway, F/4 on this range is all right, not too slow, and considering a constant F/4 and the Superb built... it's worth every penny spend.
And accordance to the shutter speed == 1/focal length rule, at the focal length of 17 to 40, your shutter speed should be quite sufficient in most case...
This ruling refers to the instances when you are handholding a lens, a shutter speed of 1/focal length and above is the rule of thumb for ensuring that the image produced is not affected by handshake. Some people can handhold way below that speed and still get good results, but it may vary from person to person and also your handholding technique is critical. So a safe bet is stick to the rule.generik said:
benny
Senior Member
There's 3 types of members in Clubsnap..
01. The camera/lens hobbyist that need to know whether is it worth it? Is it better? Is it obsolete? Is it justified? etc.
02. The image concious type (also known as photographers) are more concern about where to take or how to take the picture and in general ignore posts by the above.
03. Those that keep quiet and just read.
Depending on who from the above replies to this thread, the opinions will be skewed accordingly. But then again, given the tendencies of the second and third group, seems like this is just another "yeah! Justified! Buy!" thread.
My conclusion to the question of whether "L lens worth it?" would be.. it is if you think so (or can afford).
Cheers,
01. The camera/lens hobbyist that need to know whether is it worth it? Is it better? Is it obsolete? Is it justified? etc.
02. The image concious type (also known as photographers) are more concern about where to take or how to take the picture and in general ignore posts by the above.
03. Those that keep quiet and just read.
Depending on who from the above replies to this thread, the opinions will be skewed accordingly. But then again, given the tendencies of the second and third group, seems like this is just another "yeah! Justified! Buy!" thread.
My conclusion to the question of whether "L lens worth it?" would be.. it is if you think so (or can afford).
Cheers,
trucatus
Senior Member
Actually, i started out using "cheaper len" to get the job done. Till the day my EOS 300D with the 18-55mm lens produces "softer" picture than my Epson 3000Z. Switch to 20-35mm which then produces the same "sharpeness" as my Epson. Hence now I am wondering if the L would be even more significantly "sharper" than the lens I am using now. I enjoyed the post and replies here. Love this forum already...!!!
hey, not far leh, you are obviously praising your own lens. :nono:
believe me, from your screen & just looking at the above pic, you cannot really tell. But try it on the humble sun birds and you can count the individual lines on a 50% enlarged small sized sunbird.
I did not regert spending that $1.9k on the 100-400L with the image stabilizer.
it is worth every cents.
Weight etc etc... like carrying your child, you will so forget about the weight when you see the results....
lets go for another shoot out when I am back from Taipei lah...
believe me, from your screen & just looking at the above pic, you cannot really tell. But try it on the humble sun birds and you can count the individual lines on a 50% enlarged small sized sunbird.
I did not regert spending that $1.9k on the 100-400L with the image stabilizer.
it is worth every cents.
Weight etc etc... like carrying your child, you will so forget about the weight when you see the results....
lets go for another shoot out when I am back from Taipei lah...
fengwei said:Nice shots :thumbsup: But I'm sure the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 can get similar or better shots
trucatus
Senior Member
From what I know, the lens is Zeiss as the one Sony use to have....they cannot tell the difference between the two that is why I bought the camera. If it is the sharpness by the camera, why is the picture I took looks sharper with my 20-35mm? I still think it is the lens. i might be wrong though.....
seems like Canon, Sony and Epson might be using the same lens ;p http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong1/
It's probably used in Casio QV3000 too!!! http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/casioqv3000/
It's probably used in Casio QV3000 too!!! http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/casioqv3000/
what I meant was to apply the same level of sharpening to the 300D's pics and compare the sharpness with pics from the Epson 3000Z (which applied a higher level of sharpening by default). many people moving from digicams find DSLR images soft when in fact, the issue is the lower level of sharpening applied in camera.
there'll still be some difference in image quality (sharpness, color, contrast, etc) between the 18-55 and 20-35 too, especially wide-open.
there'll still be some difference in image quality (sharpness, color, contrast, etc) between the 18-55 and 20-35 too, especially wide-open.
- Status
