L lens worth it?
- Thread starter trucatus
- Start date
- Status
TrailsofLife
Senior Member
A case for your reference:
Used to have all Ls (17-40, 28-70 & 70-200), They are technically very good lenses. Only if I can make full use of them. :think:
17-40L is sharp and colours is good, but its range is a bit short for portraits, so whenever I want to shoot portraits, I need to switch lens. If not I have move closer to subject, but the subject may get distracted, composition may be the way I saw it initially.
I had problem using 28-70L because of the 1.6x crop, always cannot make full use of its range even though f2.8 is nice. Whenever I shoot weddings, I always keep it attached to my other camera(300D), but very rarely able to use it because of timing and the trouble of switching cameras and flashes.
So I sold 17-40 and 28-70 for EF-S17-85 which covers the 2 ranges of L lenses. This EF-s lens may not be able to create the quality of Ls but its range is perfect for me to shoot weddings from group shoots to portraits, just nice! IS is a bonus, whenever I shoot with ambient lighting. The only weakness is lacks DOF control, I need to drop to f5.6 to get good sharpness, so will not get nice blurred background.
I kept 70-200 f2.8 because I really appreciated its ability to be used wide open to create the blurred-background effects I like for portraits and animal shots, not compromising sharpness. also f2.8 really speeds up my shots to prevent motion blur when my subjects are moving.
Some may say, like that may as well get a 28-200 :nono: not true, unless there's a lens that's fast(wide f) and long range and sharp. EF-S 17-85mm is just right and doesn't compromise too much quality.
I learnt to make of use of the way the lens is built to function. Not the way the lens is "label" or "branded".
Its only worth it if you know how to appreciate it and make full use of it.
PS: Now selling my 17-85 for 18-50 f2.8 because really like to control my DOF.
Used to have all Ls (17-40, 28-70 & 70-200), They are technically very good lenses. Only if I can make full use of them. :think:
17-40L is sharp and colours is good, but its range is a bit short for portraits, so whenever I want to shoot portraits, I need to switch lens. If not I have move closer to subject, but the subject may get distracted, composition may be the way I saw it initially.
I had problem using 28-70L because of the 1.6x crop, always cannot make full use of its range even though f2.8 is nice. Whenever I shoot weddings, I always keep it attached to my other camera(300D), but very rarely able to use it because of timing and the trouble of switching cameras and flashes.
So I sold 17-40 and 28-70 for EF-S17-85 which covers the 2 ranges of L lenses. This EF-s lens may not be able to create the quality of Ls but its range is perfect for me to shoot weddings from group shoots to portraits, just nice! IS is a bonus, whenever I shoot with ambient lighting. The only weakness is lacks DOF control, I need to drop to f5.6 to get good sharpness, so will not get nice blurred background.
I kept 70-200 f2.8 because I really appreciated its ability to be used wide open to create the blurred-background effects I like for portraits and animal shots, not compromising sharpness. also f2.8 really speeds up my shots to prevent motion blur when my subjects are moving.
Some may say, like that may as well get a 28-200 :nono: not true, unless there's a lens that's fast(wide f) and long range and sharp. EF-S 17-85mm is just right and doesn't compromise too much quality.
I learnt to make of use of the way the lens is built to function. Not the way the lens is "label" or "branded".
Its only worth it if you know how to appreciate it and make full use of it.
PS: Now selling my 17-85 for 18-50 f2.8 because really like to control my DOF.
I just recently picked up a Canon 20D with an EF-S 17-85mm f4.5-5.6 IS USM lens and went on a street shoot with this lens and a friend's EF 24-70mm f2.8L USM lens. Weightwise, the 17-85mm is much lighter, and has the same ring USM motor that gives the same quiet autofocus. The 24-70mm is a tank, heavy but sturdy. Mounted on the Canon 20D, the camera easily crossed 1kg. At least I've got an idea of what Mr T feels like with those gold chains.
Now, I went on the street and took several shots of the Singapore City Hall and the Padang with both lens. I also ensured that all shots were taken at f8. Upon examining the shots taken by both lenses at home, I found that the 17-85mm lens to be as sharp as the 24-70mm lens. Even my wife blindly commented that she liked the 17-85mm shots better. Both lenses very nicely resolved details and captured many of the cracks on the walls of the city hall. I've read that the 17-85mm tends to be soft, but it didn't show up in the shots taken. Both the 17-85mm and the 24-70mm did not have much flare either.
In terms of autofocus speeds, the 17-85mm was easily as fast as the 24-70mm. Resolution and sharpness wise, the 17-85mm is easily as good as the 24-70mm, despite it not being a L lens.
However, beyond resolution and sharpness, I found some problems with the 17-85mm. It had some purple fringing at the edges of dark objects, which the 24-70mm did not display much of. At 17mm, the lens also had noticeable distortion. But both this distortion and the purple fringing are not immediately noticeable, as I found them only upon printing the photos out(Something tells me my monitor needs tuning).
Color. Almost forgot to comment on this. Both lenses gave very similar color, namely, dull. I'm not sure why, but it seems like I need to read the 20D's manual(bah, RTFM, I hate that).
In short, are L lens worth it? I would summarize it to this. ~$960 vs ~$2450. The new lenses coming to the market are all sharp and very capable of resolving detail. L lenses might have an edge in the more subtle optical qualities, such as better coating for flare reduction, or less purple fringing, etc. Another advantage that L lenses seem to have are larger apertures.
Are all these advantages worth the increase in price? Only way I know is to, borrow the lens, take some shots, and then decide for yourselves.
Now, I went on the street and took several shots of the Singapore City Hall and the Padang with both lens. I also ensured that all shots were taken at f8. Upon examining the shots taken by both lenses at home, I found that the 17-85mm lens to be as sharp as the 24-70mm lens. Even my wife blindly commented that she liked the 17-85mm shots better. Both lenses very nicely resolved details and captured many of the cracks on the walls of the city hall. I've read that the 17-85mm tends to be soft, but it didn't show up in the shots taken. Both the 17-85mm and the 24-70mm did not have much flare either.
In terms of autofocus speeds, the 17-85mm was easily as fast as the 24-70mm. Resolution and sharpness wise, the 17-85mm is easily as good as the 24-70mm, despite it not being a L lens.
However, beyond resolution and sharpness, I found some problems with the 17-85mm. It had some purple fringing at the edges of dark objects, which the 24-70mm did not display much of. At 17mm, the lens also had noticeable distortion. But both this distortion and the purple fringing are not immediately noticeable, as I found them only upon printing the photos out(Something tells me my monitor needs tuning).
Color. Almost forgot to comment on this. Both lenses gave very similar color, namely, dull. I'm not sure why, but it seems like I need to read the 20D's manual(bah, RTFM, I hate that).
In short, are L lens worth it? I would summarize it to this. ~$960 vs ~$2450. The new lenses coming to the market are all sharp and very capable of resolving detail. L lenses might have an edge in the more subtle optical qualities, such as better coating for flare reduction, or less purple fringing, etc. Another advantage that L lenses seem to have are larger apertures.
Are all these advantages worth the increase in price? Only way I know is to, borrow the lens, take some shots, and then decide for yourselves.
Actually I think the main reason why L lenses are worth it is...
1) environmental sealing
2) USM
Like the 24-70 for instance, that lens is not rated very highly at all, in fact the other more popular Tamron 28-75/Sigma EX is said to eat it for lunch!
For 1/4 of the price, the only drawback is no USM. It is always USM that gives the camera that... obedience
1) environmental sealing
2) USM
Like the 24-70 for instance, that lens is not rated very highly at all, in fact the other more popular Tamron 28-75/Sigma EX is said to eat it for lunch!
For 1/4 of the price, the only drawback is no USM. It is always USM that gives the camera that... obedience
generik said:Actually I think the main reason why L lenses are worth it is...
1) environmental sealing
2) USM
Like the 24-70 for instance, that lens is not rated very highly at all, in fact the other more popular Tamron 28-75/Sigma EX is said to eat it for lunch!
For 1/4 of the price, the only drawback is no USM. It is always USM that gives the camera that... obedience
L lenses are worth due to...
1) Better build.
2) maintain high quality at wide open (f2.8 thru out).
3) Better constrast / sharper event at f4. Do not require f8.
TrailsofLife
Senior Member
generik said:Actually I think the main reason why L lenses are worth it is...
1) environmental sealing
2) USM
Like the 24-70 for instance, that lens is not rated very highly at all, in fact the other more popular Tamron 28-75/Sigma EX is said to eat it for lunch!
For 1/4 of the price, the only drawback is no USM. It is always USM that gives the camera that... obedience
There still a reason why L lenses are expensive. Evironmental sealing not all L lenses. I have had a tamron 28-75 before and Sigma's 28-70 EX, I sold the Tamron three days after I bought it, because I can't afford to wait for the lens to finish hunting then take the shot, I would have missed the world. Quality wise, Tamron is sharper than Sigma. Sigma AF is fast, but not faster than USM. After 2 trail lenses, I went back for 28-70(older 24-70)L. I was happy until I used it on 10D, I lost the wide side.
To be fair, I guess that's why 24-70 is expensive, but worth every cents for its speedy AF, sharpness even wide open.
Garion said:
Definitely worth every penny. If one uses the 200 prime as a benchmark, the 80-200/2.8 wins by a slight amount. Yes, I am serious! The only nit would be the weight. AF is considered pretty fast for a non USM lens.
Then to answer the poster's question. L lens is a luxury. U can get urself one if u have the spare cash to burn, else not worth it cause it's not a must have else will die thingy. :angel:
Belle&Sebastain
Senior Member
PhotoDog said:
well i'm still a person, there are many prime users in the market well.
Max 2.8 said:
Heh. I bought the tamron 28-75 from Max 2.8. OT, he's a nice seller. Anyway, So far, it has been serving me very well, been covering weddings and even stage events with it. Been very pleased with its sharpness and overall picture quality.
Focusing speed cannot be compared to Canon's USM, but that is not to say that it's so slow till it gets in the way of capturing The Moment. In fact, i think that the only time i will have problems with it's AF speed is during sports events. But then again, i will probably be using a telephoto to shoot sports.
I have tried the 24-70 L before. Personally,other than the AF speed, the overall quality and especially the picture quality of the tamron 28-75 is comaprable to that of the L counterpart.
At the end of the day, L lens or not, i feel it's really up to an individual's needs and budget at the point of time. Different strokes for different folks.
Just my own humble opinion. :bsmilie:
I won't necessarily shell out huge sums for the purported 'superior' image quality that 'L' lenses provide (it exists, only that at 8R print size its not that noticeably better than some excellent standard lenses), but I WILL pay out for USM, larger apertures and IS. These features of course, tend to exist in 'L' lenses.
Belle&Sebastain
Senior Member
dkw said:
yes to quote dkw, if you need silent motors zooming, bigger apertures and IS in/and your desired range sometimes you have just got to use a L lens.
But L is not everything. If you are lacking in some features either you make do or shell out money for it, only yourself will know. No point buying for the sake for buying.
another thing L lens tends to be bigger and heavier than its counterparts so factor this in as well.
- Status
