- This topic is empty.
canon l lens
-
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.
J
Yep Alan 16-35.. typo.. fixed!
I originally wanted to get this instead of the 17-40 but couldnt afford it.
Are you using it on a full frame camera?
do you get abberations in you image on the edges?Didn’t realize the feckin lens info was in the EXIF!!! Just seen it now in Lightroom.
Yes, the L version is far sharper in the bottom left corner if you view the original RAW files. Zoomed in 1:1 around the area where the grass meets the footpath you can seen that the L version is better.
Alan: I use it on a 400D and 40D so no major problems on the wide end.
nfl-fan wrote:
Didn’t realize the feckin lens info was in the EXIF!!! Just seen it now in Lightroom.
Yes, the L version is far sharper in the bottom left corner if you view the original RAW files. Zoomed in 1:1 around the area where the grass meets the footpath you can seen that the L version is better.
Alan: I use it on a 400D and 40D so no major problems on the wide end.
Lightroom makes it very easy to compare the two pix.
Why is the L so soft/oof half way up on the right?Queries to Canon… I’ve no idea.
Back to the original JPGs posted:
#1 is the L lens
#2 is the Kit LensJ
Back to DerryCity… few questions:
1. Do you shoot in RAW or JPG?
2. Do you use a tripod?
3. Do you apply sharpening during post processing?J
well john thanks for all the feed back , as i said to my eye there is no big differance , but as its my 50th my family said they would get me one.
thanks philInteresting comparison John. And I couldn’t tell the difference. But shooting at f8 is going a bit gently on the lenses. Guarantee if you shoot them at the wide end and max aperture, you will see a more noticeable difference. More so with the 17-40. That is where the L lenses start to shine- they remain useably sharp at wide open.
Agreed Pete… this isn’t a true test at all… more a 5 minute example. I chose F8 cos I thought it might be a fair playing field for both lenses just to illustrate how your expectations should be managed in terms of lenses.
I think the moral of the story is that top dollar lenses are better… but only marginally… they’re not going to make your photos better… it’s up to the photographer to do that.
The 17-40L is supposed to be a v. good lens… I’d buy one myself if I had the money and didn’t own the 16-35. They say L is for Luxury… but I think it’s for Lure… because the sexiness really does suck you in.
f8 certainly levelled the playing field and proved your point.
Agreed a lens will do nothing to improve your photos. Sharp photo, fuzzy idea and all that.
I’m studying graphic design at the minute and I showed some photos to a few of my classmates. They liked them. One girl said, ‘Wow you must have an amazing camera- a really big one.’ I replied, ‘Yeah, you must have amazing colouring pencils…’
nfl-fan wrote:
Queries to Canon… I’ve no idea.
Back to the original JPGs posted:
#1 is the L lens
#2 is the Kit LensJ
Feck it !
nfl-fan’s comparison is interesting, but I think that dull sort of light does level the playing field a bit. I’ve used a few Sigmas, and currently own the 12-24 alongside Canon’s 17-40L, and where the L shines IMHO is in bright sunlight with blue skies. I swear the damn thing has a hidden polariser in there somewhere. Saturation and colour rendition really does beat the hell out of the Sigma (although these differences can be post-processed out, I prefer to get it as right as possible in the camera, particularly when shooting film). The 17-40 is also usable wide open (although when you start pixelpeeping it does have fairly soft corners); the Sigma is strictly an f/11 lens, it’s utterly useless wide open. I keep it mainly for the mad angle of view on a 35mm camera; it doesn’t get much use on the 30D.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
