Canon lenses

L

ldmelsa

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2006
Messages
5,694
Reaction score
2
Location
East London
have you considered the canon 450d?
the kit 18-55mm IS lens is very sharp (i checked it out for myself)

for telephoto:

canon also make the excellent "Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM"
canon_f4_70-300mm_is_usm_lense.jpg

i used this lens once and was amazed by the sharpness throughout the entire range and f/stops

there was no, real world, image quality deference between this lens and the more expensive 70-200 L f4 lens
plus this one has IS (a godsend for telephoto lenses)
 
Last edited:
Has anyone tried this one? I saw one for the first time yesterday in Jessops, and they wouldn't let me try it out :(



It's quite a bit more compact and much more expensive. Pity that it's a touch slower than the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
 
koffiejunkie said:
Has anyone tried this one? I saw one for the first time yesterday in Jessops, and they wouldn't let me try it out :(



It's quite a bit more compact and much more expensive. Pity that it's a touch slower than the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
Click to expand...

it's to expensive when compared to the other one
you are just paying for the size
the picture quality is the same, if not a little worse :(

ps - love the gif with the alpha channel :D
 
the "Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM" is the best bang for buck telephoto
it's sharp, really sharp :eek:
 
ldmelsa said:
what is wrong with it? :confused:
Click to expand...
They disagree with your assessment that it is as good as the 70-200 L f4.

According to the review it is not parfocal, doesnt have full time manual focusing, has soft corners, slow focusing . . . . and so on.

Of course I'm not in a position to compare - I've got the 70-200 f4 so my getting the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM would be pointless. :)
 
bwana said:
They disagree with your assessment that it is as good as the 70-200 L f4.

According to the review it is not parfocal, doesnt have full time manual focusing, has soft corners, slow focusing . . . . and so on.

Of course I'm not in a position to compare - I've got the 70-200 f4 so my getting the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM would be pointless. :)
Click to expand...

i have shot with all of these lenses and what they are talking about are things that can be discussed at dpreview/vb
but for real world use i can't recommend this lens enough
slow focusing: that's very strange - i can only talk about the one i used, and it was very fast - instantaneous, actually (as fast as any other lens)
has soft corners: not even at 300m f/5.6 :eek::confused: (perplexing to say the least)

this lens can also do more than the 70-200 f4 because it can go to 300mm and has IS, and all this at the same image quality and for less money
that's a no brainer

if one was going higher one would get the
Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 L USM
or
Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM



bwana said:
They disagree with your assessment that it is as good as the 70-200 L f4.
Click to expand...

i did not say it's as good as
i said it's better :D
 
ldmelsa said:
i did not say it's as good as
i said it's better :D
Click to expand...
I've yet to find a supporting source for your assertions but I'll see if I cant borrow a 70-300mm f/4-5.6 for a few minutes and do an actual side by side - like the people at the digital picture. :)
 
bwana said:
I've yet to find a supporting source for your assertions but I'll see if I cant borrow a 70-300mm f/4-5.6 for a few minutes and do an actual side by side - like the people at the digital picture. :)
Click to expand...

I thought you already have a telephoto lens. Are you thinking of getting one of these?



ps - you can't compare the image quality (practically the same) of a

70-200 f/4 L
to a
70-300 f/4-5.6 IS

deferent features/range
 
Last edited:
ldmelsa said:
I thought you already have a telephoto lens. Are you thinking of getting one of these?
Click to expand...
Of course not - its merely for my own edification.
ldmelsa said:
ps - you can't compare a

70-200 f/4 L
to a
70-300 f/4-5.6 IS

deferent features/range
Click to expand...
:confused: You must have to have arrived at the conclusion that the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS was the better lens.
 
bwana said:
You must have to have arrived at the conclusion that the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS was the better lens.
Click to expand...

sorry - i meant there is no point in comparing image quality because they are different in other ways like:

200mm VS 300mm
non is VS is
ergonomics
weight
price

but image quality is more or less the same
 
ldmelsa said:
sorry - i meant there is no point in comparing image quality because they are different in other ways like:

200mm VS 300mm
non is VS is
ergonomics
weight
price

but image quality is more or less the same
Click to expand...
Was that a comparison-less comparison? :confused:

Maybe I'll wait until after I get the teleconverter I've been lusting after - that should reduce the impact of the 200mm vs 300mm.

I'm not sure how ergonomics comes into it?
 
You cannot compare Canon L series lense image quality to the non-L series.

There is a place for each of these lenses, but I have to admit I would anytime choose a L-series.

the 70-300Is is twice the normal USM, but you wont take better pix with it.
Even 80-200F2.0 L series lense has the image quality which makes it preferable to the 70-300IS.

It all depends on what you want to do. I prefer primes lenses for IQ
 
ldmelsa said:
it's to expensive when compared to the other one
you are just paying for the size
Click to expand...

Contrary to popular belief, size does matter... :D

Yogotta B. Kidding said:
You cannot compare Canon L series lense image quality to the non-L series.
Click to expand...

Yes you can. If you read the 350D thread you would have read that I compared an L lens to a kit lens (of a different brand) shooting the exact same shot and found them to give me the same result. So the difference between the two lenses (granted, at that particular focal length) was everything *except* image quality.

Yogotta B. Kidding said:
There is a place for each of these lenses, but I have to admit I would anytime choose a L-series.
Click to expand...

Again, you're falling hook, line and sinker for the red line. :) If you spend any amount of time reading photography forums where Canon's lenses are discussed, you'll find that the 50mm f/1.2L is not as sharp, even stopped down a stop or two, as the significantly cheaper 50mm f/1.4 and the ridiculously cheap 50mm f/1.8. Despite what the reviews say. In the real world a lot of pro togs are very unhappy with that lens.

There are more lenses that are not L lenses but are as good. The 17-55 f/2.8 is widely accepted to be of L quality. It's in the L price range too. I've tried it - build quality doesn't feel much different from my 24-105L either. So the only real difference is the red line.

Not to mention some of the quality glass that's available from Sigma, Tamron and Tokina....
 
And in the end, it hardly matters, because that million dollar shot may end up being taken with your point&shoot because that's all you had with you when the opportunity presented it self. Who's gonna care? The days when commercially sold photos had to come from a pro with expensive SLR kit are over. I have seen images published in respectable publications taken with P&S cameras. Spend some time browsing flickr and see what's possible...
 
koffiejunkie said:
Contrary to popular belief, size does matter... :D
Click to expand...
ja, but the little one does not perform :p


koffiejunkie said:
you'll find that the 50mm f/1.2L is not as sharp, even stopped down a stop or two, as the significantly cheaper 50mm f/1.4 and the ridiculously cheap 50mm f/1.8. Despite what the reviews say. In the real world a lot of pro togs are very unhappy with that lens.
Click to expand...

wow
i did not know that

it's good at f/8 though:

Shutter Speed: 1/200 sec
Aperture Value: f/8
ISO Speed: ISO100
Lens: EF50mm f/1.2L USM
White Balance: Daylight
Picture Style: Landscape


if the f/1.4 is cheaper, what's the point of the f/1.2?
i really don't now why one would get the 1.2
 
ldmelsa said:
ja, but the little one does not perform :p
Click to expand...

The performance difference is small enough for me not to worry too much about it - it's not like I'm making a living off selling those pictures.

ldmelsa said:
it's good at f/8 though

...snip...

if the f/1.4 is cheaper, what's the point of the f/1.2?
Click to expand...

I didn't say it wasn't any good. Just that a lot of people complain that it's not as good as one expect for a lens that's almost $1000 more expensive than Canon's nearest alternative.

Interesting quote from photozone, and this just shows how people buy into the idea that a premium line of products are definitely better quality:

photozone.de said:
The AF accuracy is just Okayish on the EOS 350D but that´s surely more a fault of the camera´s rather mediocre AF rather than the lens.
Click to expand...

Amusing, since it's the very same 350D they're using for all their lens tests, resulting in "extremely" fast AF speed and pretty good accuracy (even for the kit lens).

So is "pretty good" better or worse than "okayish"?

ldmelsa said:
i really don't now why one would get the 1.2
Click to expand...

Ring type USM with full-time manual focus, weather proofing, bragging rights or maybe just being taken serious? It seems the idea that it's stupid to use anything other than L glass on the high-end camera is so widespread that being spotted with a 1Ds MK3 and a regular lens must surely be a career killer...
 
koffiejunkie said:
It seems the idea that it's stupid to use anything other than L glass on the high-end camera is so widespread that being spotted with a 1Ds MK3 and a regular lens must surely be a career killer...
Click to expand...

i've seen a top photographer in SA use a nikon 18-200 vr lens on her d300 for model work
that's what i would buy for me if i had nikon :eek:
you see, most modern lenses are sharp at their ideal f/stop
L lenses are sharp, even when wide open - they also have better corner sharpness (my subjects are never in the far corners :D) - they have also been known to survive falls of 7ft onto rocks :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X