Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 42

Thread: question for the experienced

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    beebox
    Posts
    2,078

    Default

    film user do not need USM to make it sharp.

    optical print from a 35mm is of very high quality.

    not to mention those medium and large format enlargement which will make ur 20D with ur kit lens look like a toy.

  2. #22

    Default

    eudoofus,

    instead of focusing on the quality of L or non L glass, why not focus more on composition and eye for detail?

    End of the day it is the skill that makes or breaks a photo not L lens or non-L lens.

    Let stop the debate else it will turn out to be another war.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Cocteau Twins
    Posts
    2,116

    Default

    there ARE some fashion/commercial photographers who are turning to DSLRs for their work, as an alternative/back-up to the higher-end digital backs - especially with DSLR technology becoming better and better, not to mention having higher resolution.

    so Eudoofus, there ARE people out there who often have to blow up to 8R and bigger. over time, the pro lenses will prove their worth and weight in gold. it's unfair to put in comparison the different uses professional lenses and consumer level lenses have.

    pro lenses can be used to shoot what you have shot with equal, if not more, quality. however, the converse is usually not true.

    hope you have got your answers already
    Last edited by Stereobox; 13th November 2004 at 08:22 PM.

  4. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    GEYLAND LOR 15 LO
    Posts
    1,159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stereobox
    there ARE some fashion/commercial photographers who are turning to DSLRs for their work, as an alternative/back-up to the higher-end digital backs - especially with DSLR technology becoming better and better, not to mention having higher resolution.

    so Eudoofus, there ARE people out there who often have to blow up to 8R and bigger. over time, the pro lenses will prove their worth and weight in gold. it's unfair to put in comparison the different uses professional lenses and consumer level lenses have.

    hope you have got your answers already
    Well said! Otherwise ppl why not buy Kit-lens then those Pro-series lens can throw one side liao lo...rite?!

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,252

    Default

    i'd like to see u shoot low light stuff, no flash allowed with the kit lens...sorry, the main thing about L lenses in my opinion, apart from the fact that their white and boast better glass, is that they are often the only lens of that range with f2.8 or bigger. That aside, L lenses built is also better. Its a case of need really. I need f2.8 for most of shoots so no other lens will work. Heck, even the 17-40 is not good enuff for me sometimes. And this is shooting at 1600ISO so don't even talk about pushing ISO to compensate.

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Cocteau Twins
    Posts
    2,116

    Default

    take for example, Horseman has produced a Nikon-mount SLR camera to be used with interchangeable digital backs. even at 6MP or 11MP, use a lower end lens on it and all the lens' imperfections are there for the world to see.

    so it is also not true when people say it doesn't matter what lens you use, just concentrate on the shooting. yes, if you are starting out, it is not good to be obsessed with the more expensive glasses (unless you are damn rich). but ultimately, the lens is what light passes through before registering on your image capture device. it does matter.

  7. #27

    Default

    in time in time...one will notice tt glass does matter...

  8. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kex
    film user do not need USM to make it sharp.

    optical print from a 35mm is of very high quality.

    not to mention those medium and large format enlargement which will make ur 20D with ur kit lens look like a toy.

    film cameras do not have a low pass filter in front of the film, unlike digital cameras which do have a low pass filter in front of the sensor to cut down moire and other purposes, but also introduces the slight blurring. digital sensors are also mostly CFA grids, and need interpolation to fill in the missing info in between different colour pixels. for film, the light hits each particle of the photosensitive emulsion, nothing between film and subject except the lens elements, no irritating low pass filter or missing gaps of light recording elements (photosites).

    so for digital users, USM is a must. unless you are using the Foveon X3 sensor.
    Last edited by eudoofus; 14th November 2004 at 01:56 AM.

  9. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eudoofus
    of course not. L lens have better built quality, weather-sealed, better coating, reduced CA, sharper focus, less distortion, faster AF, much better resale value, bigger apertures, more blades for the aperture diaphragm, better bokeh etc. However all these come at a premium. $$$

    I'm saying for those who can't afford, normal kit, primes and post processing can still give acceptable images. Even CA can be post processed away with ACR for example. So for newbies not to be blinded by the BUY BUY BUY bug. Suggest to think carefully what your needs are. If your needs and photography work demand a L lens, go for it!

    of course film users LL, have to use L lens if they want quality. You can't post process away CA with a scanned colour film image.
    guys, read my previous post. i do not dispute getting L lens or better, if your work demands it. but i see some buy and sell posts here which suggest there are people who are not sure.

  10. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by szekiat
    i'd like to see u shoot low light stuff, no flash allowed with the kit lens...sorry, the main thing about L lenses in my opinion, apart from the fact that their white and boast better glass, is that they are often the only lens of that range with f2.8 or bigger. That aside, L lenses built is also better. Its a case of need really. I need f2.8 for most of shoots so no other lens will work. Heck, even the 17-40 is not good enuff for me sometimes. And this is shooting at 1600ISO so don't even talk about pushing ISO to compensate.
    if f2.8 is your main concern, there are 3rd party lens with f2.8 at a fraction of the cost as well, though the build quality is not as good. but sometimes it's the value for money factor. is it worth the investment. if you are shooting for hobby, you obviously have different considerations from paid photography.

    i can shoot low light with my 50mm/1.8 as well. just have to use my legs to compensate for the lack of zoom flexibility.

    but sometimes people overlook the value of prime lens. more value for money. tack sharp too. primes also have less lens elements than zooms, and no matter how good the glass and coating is, you can't run away from the laws of physics, which causes light transmission to attenuate with each additonal lens element. so a non L prime can also fight with L zooms for optical quality.
    Last edited by eudoofus; 14th November 2004 at 02:08 AM.

  11. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Cocteau Twins
    Posts
    2,116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eudoofus
    ...for film, the light hits each particle of the photosensitive emulsion, nothing between film and subject except the lens elements, no irritating low pass filter or missing gaps of light recording elements (photosites).
    there you go! lens does matter

    Quote Originally Posted by eudoofus
    ...guys, read my previous post. i do not dispute getting L lens or better, if your work demands it. but i see some buy and sell posts here which suggest there are people who are not sure.
    we cannot stop people from buying or selling what they want, if they can afford it. i used to be jealous of people who started out with DSLRs right away, while i had to struggle with film cameras all the while. was thinking "what is the first thing they know about photography, to deserve a DSLR??" then i realise how naive and childish my reactions were. firstly, if people are able to afford it, why not?? secondly, everybody's level of understanding about photography is unique and different...i am in no position to judge how good one should be, in order to be able to own something.

    i am not saying you are in the situation i was in back then. i do understand and support your desire to re-educate people towards getting the right equipment for the job

  12. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stereobox
    there you go! lens does matter



    we cannot stop people from buying or selling what they want, if they can afford it. i used to be jealous of people who started out with DSLRs right away, while i had to struggle with film cameras all the while. was thinking "what is the first thing they know about photography, to deserve a DSLR??" then i realise how naive and childish my reactions were. firstly, if people are able to afford it, why not?? secondly, everybody's level of understanding about photography is unique and different...i am in no position to judge how good one should be, in order to be able to own something.

    i am not saying you are in the situation i was in back then. i do understand and support your desire to re-educate people towards getting the right equipment for the job

    actually, if not for these, there won't be a market for cheaper 2nd hand and relatively unused lens and equipment. so not all negative.
    like some time back there was someone who sold off 20D with battery grip... Santa Claus going the rounds early.

  13. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eudoofus
    actually, if not for these, there won't be a market for cheaper 2nd hand and relatively unused lens and equipment. so not all negative.
    like some time back there was someone who sold off 20D with battery grip... Santa Claus going the rounds early.

    Have you actually shot with an L lens before, and saw the result?

    From your posts, it seems like you never did before.

  14. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Cocteau Twins
    Posts
    2,116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AReality
    Have you actually shot with an L lens before, and saw the result?

    From your posts, it seems like you never did before.
    mm...let's not assume things, and get too personal here?

  15. #35

    Default

    i'm not really bothered if they get personal, there'll always be zealots and sensitive people around, not saying those who post negative potshots are zealots. just that online, there're all sorts of people, and just have to be thickskinned. after all, not my friend, why bother?

    even for tips and tricks, you can't swallow everything people tell you wholesale, you have to try it out yourself. same goes for equipment recommendations. no single person is correct, they have their own bias. you have to do research yourself, survey the general sentiments and compare different reviews.

    i'm sure there'll be people who'll comment that newbie not qualified to post, or qualified to hold a DSLR. big deal. as long as i get the photos i want, i don't need to seek anyone's approval, except maybe my clients if i do freelance.

    likewise for the post which said he'll promote me once i start to understand certain things. heh.

    missed the point eh? i'm telling newbies that not necessary to shoot with L unless your work needs it. and for people not to look down on non-L lens.
    Last edited by eudoofus; 14th November 2004 at 08:00 PM.

  16. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,252

    Default

    i don't think anyone really looks down on non L lenses around here. Its just a desire for something better thats all. And face it, we all have our own definitions of better.

  17. #37

    Default

    well, i've been scolded (not here) for using kit lens with 20D. was told that i know nothing, since using a lousy lens with good camera, and obviously a newbie with $ to spend on camera but not pro to use L lens.

    heh, just ignored this kind of comments.

  18. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Cocteau Twins
    Posts
    2,116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eudoofus
    well, i've been scolded (not here) for using kit lens with 20D. was told that i know nothing, since using a lousy lens with good camera, and obviously a newbie with $ to spend on camera but not pro to use L lens.

    heh, just ignored this kind of comments.
    next time you can retort : "are you ignorant or what? in digital photography, a good DSLR is an important factor in getting good pictures. you mean, i should get a good lens, and use it on a ______(quote any early generation, pre-2000 digital model)"

    that should shut him/her/it up.

  19. #39

    Default

    i don't want to assume things. he could know things i don't.

    for all i know, he could be taking great award winning photos with a disposable camera.

  20. #40

    Default

    regardin 3rd party build not being good... i tink prob u mean image quality???

    i tink my lens the build are great.... better than most of the non-pro 1st party lens....
    in fact i tink they are build better than the new range...

    preference preference...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •