Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 30

Thread: worth for a L lens?

  1. #1

    Default worth for a L lens?

    my 40d comes with a EFS 18-55 IS lense. how is sharpness of this lens compared to 16-35 f/2.8L USM II? worth to change?

    i'm actually looking for a good walk around lense for my 40d... target will be people and architecture and some landscape..

  2. #2

    Default Re: worth for a L lens?

    Check the lens reviews at photozone.de
    Alpha

  3. #3

    Default Re: worth for a L lens?

    Quote Originally Posted by zzyzx View Post
    my 40d comes with a EFS 18-55 IS lense. how is sharpness of this lens compared to 16-35 f/2.8L USM II? worth to change?

    i'm actually looking for a good walk around lense for my 40d... target will be people and architecture and some landscape..
    I think that this will be a nice upgrade
    The larger aperture, and slightly wider angle is good. It's also bigger, heavier and without IS, but I prefer larger aperture over IS.

    Get the 16-35 if you need the larger aperture
    It is the camera, not the photographer.
    my flickr - adamloh.com

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Clementi
    Posts
    10,596

    Default Re: worth for a L lens?

    Do you need the upgrade? Are you absolutely sure the lack of sharpness (I'm assuming the tug to upgrade comes from a lack of sharpness) is purely due to the lens, or is it (hopefully not, but possible) user error?

  5. #5

    Default Re: worth for a L lens?

    How abt the 17-55 f2.8 IS ?
    Advantages are F2.8 , IS and longer reach, esp if u want to shoot people.
    Plus it's cheaper.
    That's if you don't intend to go FF yet.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    73

    Default Re: worth for a L lens?

    Quote Originally Posted by zzyzx View Post
    my 40d comes with a EFS 18-55 IS lense. how is sharpness of this lens compared to 16-35 f/2.8L USM II? worth to change?

    i'm actually looking for a good walk around lense for my 40d... target will be people and architecture and some landscape..
    unless the resolution and larger aperture (no point mentioned weather-sealing) is what you need, the 16-35 mm has a smaller focal range and burns a hole in the pocket (unless you are intending to upgrade to larger sensor sizes eventually) ...
    1D3, EF 16-35mm F2.8L II, EF 24-70mm F2.8L, EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS, Speedlite 580EX II, 420EX

  7. #7
    Senior Member Kit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Upper Bukit Timah
    Posts
    11,668

    Default Re: worth for a L lens?

    .....

  8. #8

    Default Re: worth for a L lens?

    got the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM instead. dunno why my image become much sharper..
    [Canon EOS 5D II + 40D | EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II + 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II] [Fuji X-Pro1 + XF35mm f/1.4]

  9. #9

    Default Re: worth for a L lens?

    you can't compare the kit lens with the 1000+ bucks lens dude

  10. #10
    Member lennyl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    1,520

    Default Re: worth for a L lens?

    Quote Originally Posted by zzyzx View Post
    got the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM instead. dunno why my image become much sharper..
    Many possible reasons:

    1) f/2.8 focuses better
    2) scene / conditions are different
    3) bad copy of 18-55 IS
    4) end user perception - image with lens costing $1k more had better look sharper

    If you feel up to it, set up controlled conditions (tripod, MLU, static subject, artificial light, multiple apertures) and do an exhaustive comparison.

    Or just be happy with new lens and go out and shoot something.

  11. #11
    Senior Member StrifeYun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Rivervale Drive
    Posts
    2,216

    Default Re: worth for a L lens?

    got $$ just get , fullstop.
    or
    until the day you can justify the $$ on this lens.
    Last edited by StrifeYun; 12th June 2008 at 10:04 AM.
    Canon EOS "Luxury"
    [flickr]

  12. #12

    Default Re: worth for a L lens?

    Actually it work in this way, higher price higher quality.. And Good things don come cheap, cheap things don come good all the time..

    So its no doubt that yr new lens can get sharper images.
    Last edited by danielskl; 12th June 2008 at 10:45 AM.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Clementi
    Posts
    10,596

    Default Re: worth for a L lens?

    Honestly, if you know what are doing, you can actually get very impressive results with the 18-55 IS.

    I was shooting on my friend's (alternatve) 40D with the 18-55 IS, and I don't think you'd come across a much sharper lens at that price point.


    No sharpening, B&W conversion and Levels in Photoshop. Vignetting and border added in Photoshop.


    (Hehe I know this photo is pretty widespread on CS already. It's useful in convincing everyone that the 18-55 IS is definitely not a sloppy lens.)

  14. #14
    Member lennyl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    1,520

    Default Re: worth for a L lens?

    Quote Originally Posted by calebk View Post
    (Hehe I know this photo is pretty widespread on CS already. It's useful in convincing everyone that the 18-55 IS is definitely not a sloppy lens.)
    Darn, it looks so familiar, I just can't recall where I saw it before

    Can't tell much about sharpness from that though without a 100% crop, but I believe you. Most lenses, under right conditions can produce sharp photos, and from all reports the 18-55 IS is no slouch.
    Last edited by lennyl; 12th June 2008 at 12:19 PM.

  15. #15
    Senior Member jnet6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    not here often anymore
    Posts
    8,170

    Default Re: worth for a L lens?

    17-40L is also a gd bargain.

  16. #16

    Default Re: worth for a L lens?

    Quote Originally Posted by calebk View Post
    Honestly, if you know what are doing, you can actually get very impressive results with the 18-55 IS.

    I was shooting on my friend's (alternatve) 40D with the 18-55 IS, and I don't think you'd come across a much sharper lens at that price point.


    No sharpening, B&W conversion and Levels in Photoshop. Vignetting and border added in Photoshop.


    (Hehe I know this photo is pretty widespread on CS already. It's useful in convincing everyone that the 18-55 IS is definitely not a sloppy lens.)
    Heh, it's everywhere! And taken with my 40D + 18-55 IS, though not with my hands.. :P

    The 18-55 IS is indeed a good lens, even when you compare it against it's big brother Ls. Sure it flares and the build quality is poor but the IQ really makes up for it. Continue to play with it until you really need to step up. Also, the 16-35 is not really a walkaround lens IMO, more of a kit with a tele zoom combined.

    Samuel
    f/8 and be there.

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Clementi
    Posts
    10,596

    Default Re: worth for a L lens?

    Quote Originally Posted by lennyl View Post
    Darn, it looks so familiar, I just can't recall where I saw it before

    Can't tell much about sharpness from that though without a 100% crop, but I believe you. Most lenses, under right conditions can produce sharp photos, and from all reports the 18-55 IS is no slouch.
    Doesn't anyone get it...If you are shooting a 10MP photo, and you view it at 100%, don't tell me you are going to make a print that huge so that you can peep at it from 30cm to tell pixel for pixel whether it is sharp.

    Viewing at 100% is not a test for sharpness; it is simply put, not the best thing to do with your time.

  18. #18
    Member lennyl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    1,520

    Default Re: worth for a L lens?

    Quote Originally Posted by calebk View Post
    Doesn't anyone get it...If you are shooting a 10MP photo, and you view it at 100%, don't tell me you are going to make a print that huge so that you can peep at it from 30cm to tell pixel for pixel whether it is sharp.

    Viewing at 100% is not a test for sharpness; it is simply put, not the best thing to do with your time.
    I disagree - I have images that look fantastic scaled down to 800 pixels wide, but there is no way I would call them sharp. I didn't say they have to be pixel perfect at 100%, but looking at it scaled down to 4% the # of pixels and saying "look, it's sharp" is hardly convincing.

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Clementi
    Posts
    10,596

    Default Re: worth for a L lens?

    Quote Originally Posted by lennyl View Post
    I disagree - I have images that look fantastic scaled down to 800 pixels wide, but there is no way I would call them sharp. I didn't say they have to be pixel perfect at 100%, but looking at it scaled down to 4% the # of pixels and saying "look, it's sharp" is hardly convincing.
    How large do you print? 30"x20"?

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    2,196

    Default Re: worth for a L lens?

    You get what you pay for.

    But to TRULY appreciate the upgrade, you need to understand first hand, what your cheaper kit lens can do, and can't. If you're relatively inexperienced, use your kit lens andd push it as far as it will go. Sharpness isn't everything. Some famous photographer once said that there's nothing worse than a sharp photograph of a blur idea.

    Getting an L-lens as a newbie, well there's nothing wrong with that. It's just like learning how to drive in a Ferrari, that's all.
    Sony Alpha system user. www.pbase.com/synapseman

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •