- This topic is empty.
canon l lens
-
i currantly use a sigma 20-40 f2.8 ex dg
and at times i find it soft and colour appears dull ,, am i correct in asking a canon l lens will produce great sharpness will it give me better colour tone’s
i’am thinking towards a 17-40 L F.4 THEY CAN BE BOUGHT FOR AROUND £400.00 ON EBAY.
OR DOES ANY BODY KNOW OF A GOOD RETAILER AT THE SAME PRICE.Hard to say whether you’ll notice anything truly or remarkably different in terms of image quality from lenses.
I’ve seen images from a P&S side by side with the same image taken with a Canon 1D Mark III and you’d be pushed to the difference between each pic.
L lenses are of a higher caliber… but some of the benefits might only be evident to a trained eye.
I’m going to go outside now and take two identical pics one with an L lens and one with a kit lens… and I’ll post both without any processing. You can then decide. Back shortly.
J
OK.. here are two images in no particular order. one taken with a Canon 18-55 kit lens, the other taken with a Canon 16-35 L lens. Settings used for both were the same
24mm
F/8
ISO100
1/160secCan you tell the difference? Do you know which one was taken with the L lens?
Image 1:
Image 2:
thanks for going to all this bother but i must admit i cant see any differance is it that i dont have the trained eye
the only thing i see is the foilage in pic 2 is abit darker,, other than that both look the same.John you’re a legend !
but
we can only really compare colour and contrast here on PI.
Sharpness and abberations cannot really be tested with a 100kb file.
Derry,
I use only L lenses and I use a 17-40 F4 L but i get Blue/Red abberations
wide open at 17 on a 5D! and a pro wedding photographer in Galway here using
a similar 17-40 F4 l lens has the same results !!!My twist on the L lens thing is if you can afford it go for it. they are not priced
4 or 5 times higher than a kit lens for nothing. think of the build quality along
with the quality of the images.What John says in his first reply is true it is hard to recognise the difference
between two or more lenses but you are giving yourself the best possible chance
if you have the best equipment you can afford.There was a thread a while back debating the merits of the L series and whether they
were worth the money, cant remember what section though.whether its worh it, is another thing.
again if you can afford it go for it and the 17-40 is cheap for an L.
Alan
i would say the bottom one with the the 16-35
but like you say it is close
Exactly… the point being here that the difference between top of the range lenses and standard lenses in terms of image quality is not huge… but it is mild and to an expert probably quite noticeable.
Quite often you’re paying for things like Image Stabilization, USM, Higher/Fixed Apertures. You won’t see an immediate and huge difference when you take these factors out of the equation.
Now that’s not to say that there’s no difference… if you put the two aformentioned lenses to some “real” tests that would really put them through their paces you would see that the L lens will be far superious than the cheap kit lens.
However… after forking out top dollar for L glass… you’ll find that you almost instantly see a difference… not because you physically see… but mentally you want it to be there to justify the cost.
If you could get a lend of a 17-40 L and give it a try out I would recommend doing so… but the lure of top glass is very appealing.
I’ll not tell for a bit… wait and see do we get any other opinions.
Being honest.. I own 3 L lenses.. and I really love two of them… 16-35 F2.8 and 70-200 F4.
The third, the 100-400, is more out of necessity for wildlife and I wouldn’t rate it that highly but it does it’s job.
Why do I feel this way about these lenses… I don’t really know… the first two that I mention certainly give me images that look the way I hoped they would but I couldn’t for a fact say why.
Does the 18-55 kit lens excite me… probably not… it’s light weight, simple and not very sexy. Am I happy with it.. not sure really cos I never use it.. but I have a few images from back in the day when it was all I had that I really like.
Hey John,
Is it a 16-35 2.8 ??
As far as the comparitive pics above goes, im gonna run with image 2 as an “L” image.
this is after studying at close range the pixels of a 100kb file :lol: :lol: and john is
going to have us prove his theory . . . if we are wrong! :lol: either way.A
No excuses now.. two original RAW files zipped and uploaded to the web (24mb).
http://www.filefactory.com/file/2935ff/n/2008-08-22_zip
_MG_4656 is Image 1 above
_MG_4657 is Image 2 above.I’ve just viewed both at 200% and it’s damn tricky to tell the difference.
J
Yep Alan 16-35.. typo.. fixed!
Just a few other quick points here:
1. A superior lens will only improve your final image by a tiny percentage point. If the image content is good enough, composition is good and it’s well photographed from a technical perspective then I don’t think the choice of lens is really going to be that much of a factor.
2. Sharpening is something that you really want to take control of during post processing. Some pros will openly admit to sharpening ALL their images… not some, ALL.
3. Back to Point 1, if you’re happy with where you’re at in terms of your photography capabilities then I say to raise the bar maybe stepping up a level equipment wise will do no harm. If you still at the early days stage then I’d say there’s a lot more you could be concentrating on other than hardware… composition, exposure, everything it takes to make a strong image etc.
4. Post Processing is a bit of a must for an awful lot of Digital Photography these days… if you get good at it then it can make much more of a difference to your final image than an expensive lens ever will.
5. If you’ve plenty of dosh and money isn’t a factor then ignore 1-4 and lash out and get the damn lens!!!!
6. The desire for the best hardware is human nature for the vast majority of us and bypasses everything that I’ve mentioned above. Photography is a bottomless pit money wise.
J
nfl-fan wrote:
No excuses now.. two original RAW files zipped and uploaded to the web (24mb).
http://www.filefactory.com/file/2935ff/n/2008-08-22_zip
_MG_4656 is Image 1 above
_MG_4657 is Image 2 above.I’ve just viewed both at 200% and it’s damn tricky to tell the difference.
Unfortunately, you didn’t strip out the EXIF data. The pic with the 16-35 isn’t sharp at the right hand side. The kit lens shows coloured fringes on the left; the L lens is distinctly sharper in the bottom corners [even if very soft at the houses on the right edge].
derrycity wrote:
i currantly use a sigma 20-40 f2.8 ex dg
and at times i find it soft and colour appears dull ,, am i correct in asking a canon l lens will produce great sharpness will it give me better colour tone’s
i’am thinking towards a 17-40 L F.4 THEY CAN BE BOUGHT FOR AROUND £400.00 ON EBAY.
OR DOES ANY BODY KNOW OF A GOOD RETAILER AT THE SAME PRICE.1. Are the colours dull by comparison with other lenses? – Is it a question of PP?
2. Sharpening in PP?
3. What is the final output? Web or print, and if print what sizes? For web or small prints a change of lens won’t make much difference. But if you want to crop the pix and print them mega big, then it might be worthwhile.
nfl-fan wrote:
Just a few other quick points here:
1. A superior lens will only improve your final image by a tiny percentage point. If the image content is good enough, composition is good and it’s well photographed from a technical perspective then I don’t think the choice of lens is really going to be that much of a factor.
2. Sharpening is something that you really want to take control of during post processing. Some pros will openly admit to sharpening ALL their images… not some, ALL.
3. Back to Point 1, if you’re happy with where you’re at in terms of your photography capabilities then I say to raise the bar maybe stepping up a level equipment wise will do no harm. If you still at the early days stage then I’d say there’s a lot more you could be concentrating on other than hardware… composition, exposure, everything it takes to make a strong image etc.
4. Post Processing is a bit of a must for an awful lot of Digital Photography these days… if you get good at it then it can make much more of a difference to your final image than an expensive lens ever will.
5. If you’ve plenty of dosh and money isn’t a factor then ignore 1-4 and lash out and get the damn lens!!!!
6. The desire for the best hardware is human nature for the vast majority of us and bypasses everything that I’ve mentioned above. Photography is a bottomless pit money wise.
J
1. It depends on the final output. For web or ‘normal’ sized prints a kit lens is probably adequate.
2. Many people advise [a] input sharpening just after importing into PP, and output sharpening depending on web, or print: and if print, what size and paper.
4. Exactly.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
