L lens worth it?
- Thread starter trucatus
- Start date
- Status
trucatus said:
which ultra wide angle dont have distortion? and other ultra-wide zoom are even worse
back to topic...i will say L lenses are "worth it" because of the high resale value, furthermore the quality that it gives make these L lenses even more "worth it"
invert_studio said:
You sure they are around the same price
I bet the 80-200mm L lens is at least double the price of the Bigma. Maybe I'm wrong.Anyway, just got myself a Bigma, and I'm lovin' it
I think that for the most part, Canon L lenses have larger apertures than their cheaper Canon brethren of the same focal length, which in turn allows you to shoot in a wider range of conditions. Its like being able to use a higher ISO without the penalty of grain or noise. Larger apertures also allow a shallower depth of field.
These attributes can be more readily apparent than image quality when your final output isn't that big a printed or processed size.
These attributes can be more readily apparent than image quality when your final output isn't that big a printed or processed size.
trucatus said:
define better? what do you need? faster lens? sharp optics? longer range, wider range???
if you know, you no need to ask this question.
trucatus said:
Depends on what you shoot really.
For walkaround I think the 17-40 will be better. Longer range.. sharper at wide end.. plus cheaper and you don't NEED that extra speed.
But maybe for faster things like.. shoot bird? You get the faster one lor
Then again both are too short to shoot bird leh.. :bsmilie:
if you're using 20D or 300D, the EF-S 10-22 might be worth a look It's sharp and probably as good optically (and as expensive) as the 17-40F4L.... It's very very wide though ;p
It's sharp and probably as good optically (and as expensive) as the 17-40F4L.... It's very very wide though ;pmpenza said:if you're using 20D or 300D, the EF-S 10-22 might be worth a look
One thing about the APS-C sensor that irks me is.. will they be phased out in the future as it gets cheaper to make full frame DSLRS?
Then all the EF-S lenses will be obsolete right?
generik said:
i read somewhere canon is commited to the 1.6 crop for the next 5 years, the EF-S lenses will remain popular for a while whereas you see only 1 pro canon model in the forseeable future with full frames and fast frame rate.
No I will not consider a EF-S because I have a EOS 3 as well. Though the 10-22mm sounds good to me. I am concern of sharpness only 17-40mm with the 16-35mm beacuse John says better and sharper so I thought the 17-40mm L maybe a better buy.
fengwei said:You sure they are around the same price
Anyway, just got myself a Bigma, and I'm lovin' it
Hi,
I can confirm that the drainpipe range from $900 to $1000 while the sigma 70-200mm range from $800 to $900. The one that is double th price is Canon 70-200mm. Hope this clarify everything. Thx!
Hard to find the 'magic drainpipe' nowadays. Really a gem of a lens, reputed to be even sharper than its replacements, the 70-200mm f2.8L & 70-200mm f2.8L IS. And if you can find one ard $900 now, tremendous value for money.lwy said:
Garion said:
there were 1 or 2 f4L running ard some mths back... but, yah. its been a while since i last saw a f4L. for some strange reason, now its more f2.8L IS and the non-IS dats out on B&S. :think:
Er, the 'magic drainpipe' is referring to the legendary Canon 80-200mm f2.8L (black colour) which has been discontinued from Canon's lineup, not the 70-200mm f4L, not sure what nickname the f4L has. The 70-200mm f2.8L is called "Xiao bai" so maybe the f4L is "Xiao xiao bai?" :bsmilie:nightwolf75 said:
Garion said:
aiyah... :mad2: slap myself... wat am i doing today... gotta go complain abt the coffee at the canteen... :complain:
my mistake. :embrass:
I wish for a L lens.... frm 10 yrs age wish list. Still wishing....
Why?
The saved up money, is it wort it for one expensive, good-quality-build, best quality picture, prestige and etc.
My concept is in the new digital era... we have several computer softwares
that are enhancing the picture we just taken.Sharpening, Contrast etc. Digital post processing la.
I wonder is the processor in the camera works more wonder or the lens?
Like Digic 1 against Digic 2. 10D or 20D.
Most of times, when we look at photo (picture). What do we look at first?
Ask yourselves.
Give you an example, I've been in the selling business of 3D softwares like Maya, Softimage , Houdini, 3D max, Lightwave.
When I show them a finished rendered image, non of them can tell me what software or technique was use to create it!
Give a thought.
Why?
The saved up money, is it wort it for one expensive, good-quality-build, best quality picture, prestige and etc.
My concept is in the new digital era... we have several computer softwares
that are enhancing the picture we just taken.Sharpening, Contrast etc. Digital post processing la.
I wonder is the processor in the camera works more wonder or the lens?
Like Digic 1 against Digic 2. 10D or 20D.
Most of times, when we look at photo (picture). What do we look at first?
Ask yourselves.
Give you an example, I've been in the selling business of 3D softwares like Maya, Softimage , Houdini, 3D max, Lightwave.
When I show them a finished rendered image, non of them can tell me what software or technique was use to create it!
Give a thought.
- Status
