Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 30 of 30

Thread: worth for a L lens?

  1. #21

    Default Re: worth for a L lens?

    hey i will agree the 18-55 IS is sharp, but i need something sharper and perform well in low light condition, which the 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM delivers. i haven;t seen any sharper image thru the 18-55 IS. on the other hand, one cost at least 7 times the price of the other, hence for 'not-so-serious' ppl it'll be sufficient. Even dpreview.com recommended the 18-55 IS. After you got the ferrari, will you still look back at your toyota?
    [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]

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    2,196

    Default Re: worth for a L lens?

    Since you are aware of your own needs, then it'll be totally up to you to weigh in the costs. "Worth" is really subjective.

    $200+ for a 50mm f/1.8 is worth it for some.
    $1200 for a 50mm f/1.2 is also worth it for others.

    As long as after you buy, you are sure you won't think you've wasted your money, can liao.

    And oh yah, absolutely nothing wrong with learning to drive in a Ferrari either.
    Sony Alpha system user. www.pbase.com/synapseman

  3. #23
    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
    How large do you print? 30"x20"?
    16x20 at most, and very rarely at that. But, then, what does that have to do with whether a lens is sharp? That's what we're discussing here, not if I need a lens so sharp I can shave with it in the morning.

    My position here is not that we should scrutinize photos at 100%. But if you say that a lens is sharp and offer an image as evidence, that image should not be resized.

    Now, I'm not saying you have to, or need to, present such evidence. I never doubted your assertion. And I never said the lens is not sharp enough for me, you, or the TS, and that we should all rush out and buy good copies of L primes, then spend the rest of our lives shooting charts (or newspapers).

    Your original statement is that the image you posted is useful for convincing people the lens is no slouch. If I take that to mean "see, this lens is sharp", I disagree. All I can tell from that image is "look, this lens takes great photos in the right hands".

    Let me ask you back the same question. In an online forum, someone said that a lens is sharp. What would you accept as scientific proof? Remember, we don't take the reputation of the person into account here.

  4. #24

    Default Re: worth for a L lens?

    if you are a total newbie and can afford those goodies straight together at once why not? its not a bad thing and u save the pain of upgrading later.

    if you are a total newbie who doesnt appreciate the added advantages then decide to sell it 1 week later on basis that its too heavy for me. but it doesnt really hurt anyway, u just lose probably 50+ dollars.

    on the other hand if u play with 18-55 kit lens first which has a good range for general stuff and ain't really that shabby, you would probably thank me for saving your $2xxx when u find out one day the 16-35 range is not your cup of tea.

    the canon f/2.8 17-55 IS USM is pretty good to start with.. 1mm wider, 2.8, IS, USM. should last you quite a while you plan for other lens purchase. do note 1mm wider is quite a big difference in the Wide end compared to the Telephoto end.

    the tamron f/2.8 17-50 seems to be pretty good for a starter according to many people at half the price of the canon lens above.

    to sum it up for worth or not, you wont know worth of high grade stuff if you didn't start low. if you fear that you lack the commitment into this hobby, maybe just forgo the Ls, f/2.8s, big glass for macho men and get kit stuff.

    Quote Originally Posted by zzyzx View Post
    hey i will agree the 18-55 IS is sharp, but i need something sharper and perform well in low light condition, which the 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM delivers. i haven;t seen any sharper image thru the 18-55 IS. on the other hand, one cost at least 7 times the price of the other, hence for 'not-so-serious' ppl it'll be sufficient. Even dpreview.com recommended the 18-55 IS. After you got the ferrari, will you still look back at your toyota?
    looks like you got your answer yourself?
    Last edited by keast; 13th June 2008 at 03:03 AM.
    :devil:Flick Her

  5. #25
    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
    16x20 at most, and very rarely at that. But, then, what does that have to do with whether a lens is sharp? That's what we're discussing here, not if I need a lens so sharp I can shave with it in the morning.

    My position here is not that we should scrutinize photos at 100%. But if you say that a lens is sharp and offer an image as evidence, that image should not be resized.

    Now, I'm not saying you have to, or need to, present such evidence. I never doubted your assertion. And I never said the lens is not sharp enough for me, you, or the TS, and that we should all rush out and buy good copies of L primes, then spend the rest of our lives shooting charts (or newspapers).

    Your original statement is that the image you posted is useful for convincing people the lens is no slouch. If I take that to mean "see, this lens is sharp", I disagree. All I can tell from that image is "look, this lens takes great photos in the right hands".

    Let me ask you back the same question. In an online forum, someone said that a lens is sharp. What would you accept as scientific proof? Remember, we don't take the reputation of the person into account here.
    Ah then well we have started off on the wrong foot then. I am absolutely with you in not scrutinizing photos at 100%.

    Why I asked about print size is because some lenses are able to resolve detail wonderfully, and they'll appear fine in smaller prints, but when you print big (similar to viewing big), you are going to see the loss of detail if the lens does not resolve that well.

    As far as scientific proof goes, I doubt I'm in any position to provide that, so I'll just link to photozone.de

    BTW, I like that bit of humour bout newspapers.

  6. #26

    Default Re: worth for a L lens?

    haha i agree photography is not all abt taking newspaper and compare which lens is sharper than which.. i just feel my 40D worth some better lens. otherwise why get 40D? might as well get the cheaper 450D which most likely deliver same level of IQ.

    i was initially considering the 16-35 L lense but at 35mm max, i dunno how long i can survive for walk around purpose. no doubt i can get a second lense for farther reach, but i'm a lazy shooter. the 17-55 f/2.8 should be sufficient for me now and it give me better night shots (comparing the 18-55 kit lense at hand held) too... dun think this lense will leave my camera body anytime soon.

    P/S: the L is so tempting..
    [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]

  7. #27
    Member MarkTan89's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Boon Keng
    Posts
    591

    Default Re: worth for a L lens?

    Quote Originally Posted by synapseman View Post
    Since you are aware of your own needs, then it'll be totally up to you to weigh in the costs. "Worth" is really subjective.

    $200+ for a 50mm f/1.8 is worth it for some.
    $1200 for a 50mm f/1.2 is also worth it for others.

    As long as after you buy, you are sure you won't think you've wasted your money, can liao.

    And oh yah, absolutely nothing wrong with learning to drive in a Ferrari either.
    Whoa, if the EF 50mm f/1.2L is that price, I would have bought it already

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Clementi
    Posts
    10,596

    Default Re: worth for a L lens?

    Quote Originally Posted by zzyzx View Post
    ...the 17-55 f/2.8 should be sufficient for me now and it give me better night shots (comparing the 18-55 kit lense at hand held...
    What kind of night shooting are you planning to do?

  9. #29

    Default Re: worth for a L lens?

    sorry should be low light shots eg indoor or evening time. for night shot i'll use a tripod instead.
    [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]

  10. #30
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,502

    Default Re: worth for a L lens?

    I sold my EF-S 18-55 F/3.5-5.6 and got the 2nd hand EF 17-35 F/2.8L.
    It's value for $, you got F/2.8 and L quality. Love using it...

    I don't think i will get the EF 16-35 F/2.8 L II.
    Need to spend more $ not using FF cam. Not alot better than what I having.
    See what other have to say at:
    http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=27&page=1

    Hope this help...happy buying...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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
  •