sequitur, goering.... have you guys actually used those lens that you said is mediocre and slow and bad?
The Logic of L-itis
- Thread starter dkw
- Start date
- Status
oeyvind said:
Are you referring to the EF28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM and EF70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM which I have said "IMO very slow, very expensive and optically mediocre at best"?
Nope I have not used them.
For the 70-300 DO, have seen pics in other forums and someone in this forum (bluz) already posted his thoughts
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=75850
and said it is "not so good value for money and not near L quality". For $2,200 I'll rather get the 70-200/4 with 1.4X with quite a lot of spare change. of course, I did understand that in bluz's case, it was the compactness that mattered
For the 28-300, there was a review in luminous as well as seen pics in various forums. Again, I would prefer to spend $4K+ elsewhere. This lens is also rather heavy at 1.6kg so would probably need to be on tripod most of the time
Quality optics, fast lenses at decent prices are the what attracts me. I'd rather not have the compactness and the long zoom range. These 2 lenses unfortunately compromise too much on speed and quality for compactness & zoom range and at stratospheric pricing.
i think that it can be safely assumed that most of us don't own lenses that we like to talk about.
If we own the lenses, we don't find a need to talk about them as we're too busy shooting with them.
If we own the lenses, we don't find a need to talk about them as we're too busy shooting with them.
mpenza said:
I know, that's why I offered to pick it up in the US for him. I'm there at least twice a month.
erwinx said:i think that it can be safely assumed that most of us don't own lenses that we like to talk about.
If we own the lenses, we don't find a need to talk about them as we're too busy shooting with them.
:bsmilie: :sweatsm: :bsmilie:
erwinx said:i think that it can be safely assumed that most of us don't own lenses that we like to talk about.
If we own the lenses, we don't find a need to talk about them as we're too busy shooting with them.
lol that's right ! but well, it's an equipment discussion thread so more or less, talking about lenses you've used or own or heard of sort of serves as a "review" for people who intend to use/buy/rent the lenses... like i'm the kind who would really read extensively on reviews before trying out a lens.. coz no $$$ to burn anyhow...
yeah oeyvind - i do not own the 75-300 DO which i have said is bad (i think it's the only one i've said it's bad).. no i have not tried it either. lots of user opinions on dpreview and some who have tried it - it's not worth the money and optical quality does not stand out. some have indicated that a normal 75-300 will provide equivalent or nearly equivalent optical quality compared to the DO version which costs xxx times more.
I would say that for the 75-300 DO, it just serves two simple purposes. First to make the lens light for people to use and secondly make it better than the normal 75-300IS lens; Canon's first IS lens.
The only sucky thing about this DO lens is the price range. I would rather get a 70-200L IS than this one because they cost a little bit more.
The only sucky thing about this DO lens is the price range. I would rather get a 70-200L IS than this one because they cost a little bit more.
hmm...
i don't know if this applies to others, but i personally prefer a telephoto zoom to weigh in around 1-1.5kg. when it's too light, the CG tends to run a little bit short and it's a little harder to handhold IMO than if it were from 1-1.5kg.
anything heavier is okay, but would be too heavy for my personal preference..
oh well ~
i'm not too much of a telephoto person anyway..
i don't know if this applies to others, but i personally prefer a telephoto zoom to weigh in around 1-1.5kg. when it's too light, the CG tends to run a little bit short and it's a little harder to handhold IMO than if it were from 1-1.5kg.
anything heavier is okay, but would be too heavy for my personal preference..
oh well ~
i'm not too much of a telephoto person anyway..
I agree with sequitur in what he just mentioned. I have tried the EF 400 f/4 DO IS USM and it is really very light on a 1D Mk II. It is hand holdable, but the important thing is that lenses are these are not really meant to use in lower light conditions because of the f/stop. :what:
However, in broad daylight and outdoor shots, that one is really very good. Whatever people have said of the lens, I beg to differ. At the same time, I would also add that I have only used this lens only one time and still need much more exposure for lenses like these to test.
However, in broad daylight and outdoor shots, that one is really very good. Whatever people have said of the lens, I beg to differ. At the same time, I would also add that I have only used this lens only one time and still need much more exposure for lenses like these to test.
hmmm
i guess with the IS technology probably it's pretty manageable to hold around 1/125 for reasonably useable images ? for a 400mm ?
i guess with the IS technology probably it's pretty manageable to hold around 1/125 for reasonably useable images ? for a 400mm ?
sequitur said:
I wouldn't do that, even with my 100-400, I try not to shoot at anything slower than 1/320 at the longer focal lengths. Even with IS, hand shake is not fully eliminated.
Terence said:
What is the guide anyway?
I understand that some lenses have up to 3 stops compensation while others have 2.
Does this mean you can go up to 2/3 stops slower in generally accepted (1/focal length) shutter speed?
Cheers,
I have been infected with a deadlier German retro-mutant of the Japanese L virus ..... Leicaitis
It formed innocently enough through casual oral interaction with other infected carriers as a host tumor commonly classified as the M6 variety and 2 little maglinent parasites, one 28mm and the other 90mm in length that have since been diagnosed as inoperable. They threaten to copulate and spawn a third parasite of the 35mm variety.
My doctor says only new advanced digi-chemo can save me. Otherwise, I've got only 1.4 to 2.8 months to live.
Lesson learnt : AIDS (Aquired Image Deficiency Syndrom) kills .....
It formed innocently enough through casual oral interaction with other infected carriers as a host tumor commonly classified as the M6 variety and 2 little maglinent parasites, one 28mm and the other 90mm in length that have since been diagnosed as inoperable. They threaten to copulate and spawn a third parasite of the 35mm variety.
My doctor says only new advanced digi-chemo can save me. Otherwise, I've got only 1.4 to 2.8 months to live.
Lesson learnt : AIDS (Aquired Image Deficiency Syndrom) kills .....
wooo leicaitis even worse... the only way to save one from that is to have a sudden realisation that he has a lack of vitamin M !!
as for the IS thing.. apparently it's 2 stops standard. the only so called "3 stops IS" lens is 70-200 2.8 IS. the others are so called "2 stops IS". however with good handholding techniques - results will vary.
as for the IS thing.. apparently it's 2 stops standard. the only so called "3 stops IS" lens is 70-200 2.8 IS. the others are so called "2 stops IS". however with good handholding techniques - results will vary.
ed9119 said:
Fret not. Be my guinea pig to test out the latest Organo-Germanium drugs. Have been tested to cure even the later stage cancer when chemo does not help. :devil:
This guy appears to have an affinity for DOs. Check out his review here
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-70-300mm.shtml
Then , I still prefer the good old photo to photo comparison instead of some software benchmarking system.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-70-300mm.shtml
Then , I still prefer the good old photo to photo comparison instead of some software benchmarking system.
this might draw some flames,
but i think the way he keeps using that stupid DxO analyser whatever crap is really pissing me off. does anybody even want that kind of statistics ? i dunno i prefer real world tests than some weird DxO no idea what.
but i think the way he keeps using that stupid DxO analyser whatever crap is really pissing me off. does anybody even want that kind of statistics ? i dunno i prefer real world tests than some weird DxO no idea what.
The DXO machine is useful, but he's not using it the right way.
The right way is to do an extensive everybody-everylens combo and publish it in a database like what photodo with their MTF testing does, allowing users to pull data from different lenses for a meaningful side by side comparison. The standalone values are meaningless.
Of course, he's not going to do it. There's nothing in it for him, except publicity. Just like photodo stopped testing lenses since there was no money to be made from it.
The right way is to do an extensive everybody-everylens combo and publish it in a database like what photodo with their MTF testing does, allowing users to pull data from different lenses for a meaningful side by side comparison. The standalone values are meaningless.
Of course, he's not going to do it. There's nothing in it for him, except publicity. Just like photodo stopped testing lenses since there was no money to be made from it.
I buy L lenses for two reasons.
One is the faster AF (possibly from the f2.8 aperture that allows more light) and the other is the "quality" of the image wide open (say you're shooting at ISO1600 f2.8 in a dark theatrette without flash).
I have the 'basic' three L zooms which I've accumulated over the years and I agree that buying second hand is the way to go if you do not need the 'latest'! (willing to settle for 28-70 versus the new 24-70)
I've the 50mm f1.8 and wide open its just not sharp "enough" compared to the L lenses though at f2.8 is closer but then I don't get flexibilty of zooming.
Moral of the story? If you need it, buy it! :thumbsup:
Else the trick is to keep at eye out for rich kids and old collectors who wanna sell their 'old' L lenses...
One is the faster AF (possibly from the f2.8 aperture that allows more light) and the other is the "quality" of the image wide open (say you're shooting at ISO1600 f2.8 in a dark theatrette without flash).
I have the 'basic' three L zooms which I've accumulated over the years and I agree that buying second hand is the way to go if you do not need the 'latest'! (willing to settle for 28-70 versus the new 24-70)
I've the 50mm f1.8 and wide open its just not sharp "enough" compared to the L lenses though at f2.8 is closer but then I don't get flexibilty of zooming.
Moral of the story? If you need it, buy it! :thumbsup:
Else the trick is to keep at eye out for rich kids and old collectors who wanna sell their 'old' L lenses...
- Status
Similar threads
