Which will you do if you had ~$1k to spend?
- Thread starter jeryltan
- Start date
- Status
ah well.. at least I got a good laugh from it.
Hmmm if you check out here...
http://forum.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=188171
you'll see that 70-300 out performs both the 70-200f4l and 24-105f4l in terms of resolving power and sharpness, whilst losing slightly in terms of contrast. colour wise, hard to comment..
If me now, I've $1200, i'll get the 70-300is without hesitation.
Hmmm if you check out here...
http://forum.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=188171
you'll see that 70-300 out performs both the 70-200f4l and 24-105f4l in terms of resolving power and sharpness, whilst losing slightly in terms of contrast. colour wise, hard to comment..
If me now, I've $1200, i'll get the 70-300is without hesitation.
unseen said:
You are comparing a $100+ prime lens to a $600 prime lens and then to a $1200+ prime lens? :dunno:
Saying the quality of the bokeh is different is stating the obvious, but I think there are too many variables to write off the 50 f1.8 bokeh as unnatural or not pleasing. with a shorter prime, you are closer to your subject, and it is often easier to control the distance between the camera, the subject and the background compared to a longer tele like the 135L. I think the 50 f1.8 is a great lens for the money even though I no longer own it.
Max 2.8 said:
The point of a constant aperture is not to gain a stop of light, but the CONVENIENCE of being able to zoom without having to consider the available aperture at the tele end of the zoom. If you're shooting in M or if you use a flash that does not automatically compensate for the smaller aperture when zooming, then you will see the effect of the variable aperture. it's one more thing to think about.
Even if you shoot in AV mode, and you get a shutter speed you can handhold at 80mm, but then the next shot requires you to use say 200mm. the aperture automatically becomes smaller and your shutter speed decreases and yet typically you need to keep a higher shutter speed for longer focal lengths. this happens with or without a constant aperture, but the effect is more pronounced with a variable aperture lens.
Another thing to consider of course is the focusing speed of the lens. the 70-200 f4L focuses pretty quick, and i have not used the 70-300IS, but i used to have a 70-300 non-IS, and i found the 70-200 f4L significantly faster at focusing in all conditions.
Image quality from a resolution standpoint is pretty much moot as there is precious little to separate even the kit lens from a 17-40L when you stop down both lenses. However the colour and contrast is more noticeable, and this is where people make the decision to buy the "better" lens IMO.
Dunnomuch said:You are comparing a $100+ prime lens to a $600 prime lens and then to a $1200+ prime lens? :dunno:
Saying the quality of the bokeh is different is stating the obvious, but I think there are too many variables to write off the 50 f1.8 bokeh as unnatural or not pleasing. with a shorter prime, you are closer to your subject, and it is often easier to control the distance between the camera, the subject and the background compared to a longer tele like the 135L. I think the 50 f1.8 is a great lens for the money even though I no longer own it.
It was a direct answer to
jeryltan said:
I never seek to compare the lens with other lenses. I'm saying that if you look at the quality of the bokeh, you'll see immediately what's good and what's bad. If jeryltan had mentioned the 50f1.4, I wouldn't have said anything. I've not touched the lens before, but from my observations of other people's photos is that the bokeh is MUCH better.
I won't say that the 50 1.8 is not a good value lens, but it's simply not good for portraits.
TrailsofLife
Senior Member
Dunnomuch said:
I agree with your point. But 75-300IS's contrast and colour is pretty good as well. Its in the "better" lens range. Alot of time, people just think L lenses are supposed to be "better" but I have come across consumer lenses that out perform some L lenses. 2 good examples are 75-300 IS and 24-85mm. These are very sharp and contrasty consumer lenses, especially 75-300 IS.
Also, he uses a canon flash which have ETTL, so ETTL compensate according to camera settings, so it fine.
To jump from f4-5.6 to f4, not much difference under low light, but with IS, at least camera-shake is minimise. I'll recommend a f2.8 for low-light to minimise mothion blur in low-light, rather than a f4.
Just my point-of-view, I had a 70-200 f4 for about 2 months, sold my 75-300IS for it for the same reason. I felt its not very "helpful", like 75-300IS under low-like. In the end, I found a 2nd-hand 70-200 f2.8 at TCW at a pretty good price. And its been with me eversince. The difference between the f2.8 and the f4 is significantly obvious.
Reflection
Senior Member
jeryltan said:I already have a 350D, 10-22mm, 17-85mm and 70-300mm.. Getting an itch
Should I..
a) Upgrade to 30D (Sell 350D)
b) Upgrade to 24-105L (Sell 17-85mm)
c) Others.. (Please tell me what is "others" if you vote this)
Tks
I opt for c) Others
Spend it with a loved one.
Reflection
Senior Member
jeryltan said:My wife would love that suggestion
And indeed...she'll love you even more for that.:thumbsup:
NorthernLights
Senior Member
d) Invest the $ and earn more money.jeryltan said:I already have a 350D, 10-22mm, 17-85mm and 70-300mm.. Getting an itch
Should I..
a) Upgrade to 30D (Sell 350D)
b) Upgrade to 24-105L (Sell 17-85mm)
c) Others.. (Please tell me what is "others" if you vote this)
Tks
NorthernLights
Senior Member
Buy calamine lotion to stop the itch.
After you are cured, spend it with your wife or save it or invest it to grow more $
After you are cured, spend it with your wife or save it or invest it to grow more $
- Status
Similar threads
