Invest In Quality Glass? Really?

I'd get canon L lenses just for the sexy red stripe
 
Flash In The Pan said:
If you've never owned quality oem glass then you can't, in all honesty, make a valid statement that "you get far better quality for a lower price from the third party suppliers" as that is patently not the case. You may get "more bang for your buck" with third-party glass, but that doesn't make it better, just cheaper......
Click to expand...

I just went from the reviews presented by sites such as photozone. When choosing my standard zoom I went for the Tamron XR Di II but it was a close call against a Sigma model. At no point did I consider a Canon alternative simply because the resolution results simply didn`t match up to those offered by the Tamron or Sigma lenses.

I found the same when chosing my macro lens. I went for the 90mm Tamron simply based on reviews of the image quality which it provided. It seem to review very favourably against the Canon alternative.

With all purchases however I`ll consider all options before making a decision. I`m currently in the market for a wide angle...and Tokina is looking good.
 
RichieRich said:
At no point did I consider a Canon alternative simply because the resolution results simply didn`t match up to those offered by the Tamron or Sigma lenses.
Click to expand...

Are we talking the cheap canons or L canons as thats what this subject is about, premium glass, it's no good comparing the consumer lenses when this topic is about premium glass, I cant believe a Tamron would walk the floor with any top Canon or Nikon glass
 
RichieRich said:
I`m not sure it`s worth spending 1000 pounds on a lens, but upgrading to a quality third-party suppliers lens, such as a standard lens from Sigma or Tamron (costing up to 300 pounds) will make a huge difference.

I own a 50D and I`d never buy a Canon lens unless I really needed IS as on the whole you get far better quality for a lower price from the third party suppliers.
Click to expand...


I have to disagree..bit of a bold statement, cos I assume you don't own any Canon glass. If you owned decent Canon lenses, I'm 1000% sure you would retract your comment
 
I love L glass, for all the reasons given above, and for a couple of others.

1. L Glass makes me *want* to use my camera. Half of this is me thinking 'I've spent £500 on this damn lens, I'm going to use it' and the other half is me thinking 'and it's so very, very sexy'.
2. Maybe this is just me, but if I have the best lens money can buy, I can't blame crap photos on anything apart from myself. It's too tempting to look for excuses, and bad glass is an easy one. With L, you don't have that excuse, and that pushes me harder.
 
yourapocalypse said:
I love L glass, for all the reasons given above, and for a couple of others.

1. L Glass makes me *want* to use my camera. Half of this is me thinking 'I've spent £500 on this damn lens, I'm going to use it' and the other half is me thinking 'and it's so very, very sexy'.
2. Maybe this is just me, but if I have the best lens money can buy, I can't blame crap photos on anything apart from myself. It's too tempting to look for excuses, and bad glass is an easy one. With L, you don't have that excuse, and that pushes me harder.
Click to expand...

I was thinking about this last night and the fact that I own a couple of top spec lenses and I can see the results I'm getting from them, really encourages me to use my camera.

This isn't a gloat by the way, I just feel incredibly lucky to own them and I guess in a bizarre way I owe a thanks to the a******e who nicked my stuff.

RichieRich, the Tamron 90mm is a nice lens, probably the best piece of glass they've ever produced, but for telephoto lenses, Tamron are crap IMHO.
 
Just thought I`d wait for the dust to settle and to give you chaps chance to receive your royalty cheques from Canon.

I`ve just been reading though loads of Canon L lens reviews on photozone. Yes, you`re correct, I`ve never owned one, and on the whole the results are impressive, but in many cases figures indicate that they are in no way superior to third party lenses in terms of resolution. In addition, I was surprised to read that build quality is rather inconsistent and that there is considerable disparity of resolution between the best and worst examples. Rather worrying give the ticket price of these items.

Returning to the issue. I`m just saying that a buyer who believe that he / she is required to pay 1000 pounds (sorry, I`m in Japan and no pound sign on the keyboard) for a lens would do well to review all alternatives. 1000 pounds for a body and another 1000 pounds for lenses could buy you an extremely good setup including 2-3 lenses if third party suppliers are considered. Having said that, I agree, if something like a 100-400mm with IS is required, then Canon may be the clear choice.

Yep, the 90mm Macro is amazing,,,but not as good as my Tamron XR Di II. Check the resolution results on photozone...plus, the pictures look as good as the results claim. Having said that, it`s soddin` noisy.
 
Canon/Nikon/Olympus etc must be rubbing their hands with glee due to the mass acceptance of digital.

Think about it, prior to digital how many of us ever used to regularly print over say 5X7? At that size you simply don't see much of a difference between a £100 lens and a £1000 lens. Now though, we all zoom into 100% on the screen, pixel peep and moan about the sharpness of the "kit lens".

For most of us, me included, L glass is a waste of money. I feel better now :D
 
My feeling is quite simple really. End of the day surely you should buy the best quality glass you can afford.
 
wcavanagh said:
My feeling is quite simple really. End of the day surely you should buy the best quality glass you can afford.
Click to expand...

On the whole I`d agree, although determining what is the best can be quite tricky, as it may well not be the most expensive.
 
RichieRich said:
I just went from the reviews presented by sites such as photozone. When choosing my standard zoom I went for the Tamron XR Di II but it was a close call against a Sigma model. At no point did I consider a Canon alternative simply because the resolution results simply didn`t match up to those offered by the Tamron or Sigma lenses.
Click to expand...

One reason for choose Canon over the 3rd party is the AF motor. In the 24-70 range there isn't anything apart from the Canon with quiet AF and that can count for a lot. A Sigma or Tamron buzzing away during a wedding is not going to do you many favours :(
 
pxl8 said:
One reason for choose Canon over the 3rd party is the AF motor. In the 24-70 range there isn't anything apart from the Canon with quiet AF and that can count for a lot. A Sigma or Tamron buzzing away during a wedding is not going to do you many favours :(
Click to expand...

My Tamron doesn`t buzz....it grinds!!!
 
RichieRich said:
Yep, the 90mm Macro is amazing,,,but not as good as my Tamron XR Di II. Check the resolution results on photozone...plus, the pictures look as good as the results claim. Having said that, it`s soddin` noisy.
Click to expand...

No arguments there - you've picked the star Tamron performer without a doubt, but it is a noisy sod. I have to stick my earole against the side of my Canon 180 macro to hear anything at all.
 
RichieRich said:
I`ve just been reading though loads of Canon L lens reviews on photozone. Yes, you`re correct, I`ve never owned one, and on the whole the results are impressive, but in many cases figures indicate that they are in no way superior to third party lenses in terms of resolution.
Click to expand...

Once again, if you have no experience of using something like an "L" lens then you cannot, with any conviction, make such a sweeping statement as you did

Returning to the issue. I`m just saying that a buyer who believe that he / she is required to pay 1000 pounds (sorry, I`m in Japan and no pound sign on the keyboard) for a lens would do well to review all alternatives. 1000 pounds for a body and another 1000 pounds for lenses could buy you an extremely good setup including 2-3 lenses if third party suppliers are considered.
Click to expand...

According to what you said initially it wouldn't buy you "an extremely good" setup, it would buy you a superior system...
but not as good as my Tamron XR Di II. Check the resolution results on photozone...plus, the pictures look as good as the results claim. Having said that, it`s soddin` noisy.
Click to expand...

Mmmm...Photozone again, at least you're not quoting Uncle Ken.....:lol:

I get the feeling you'd buy a new Porsche and then run it on £25 Hanook tyres and argue the case that rubber is rubber.....
 
Maybe the question should be....

How many people with L lenses have tested there lenses with a sharp (good copy) competitor piece of glass?
 
dcash29 said:
Maybe the question should be....

How many people with L lenses have tested there lenses with a sharp (good copy) competitor piece of glass?
Click to expand...

I've tested the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 against the Canon F2.8 version, sigma walks it to be honest (edit: for image quality). But, and for me this is the biggest argument in favour of L glass, I kept the canon because of the weather proofing.
 
"All the gear, no idea…"

Good glass is without doubt a big advantage (to an extent) but knowing how to use it and get the most from it is a different matter. I've seen work from professionals who use relatively 'bog standard' lenses and they get a lot out of it.

There are a lot of flash Harrys on here who have pro-spec gear but can't take a shot to save their lives. Kind of proves a point...

You have to cut your cloth accordingly I say.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
I get the feeling you'd buy a new Porsche and then run it on £25 Hanook tyres and argue the case that rubber is rubber.....
Click to expand...

And I get the feeling that you`re the kind of person who`d by a Porsche over a superior Japanese modified car and claim that it must be better because it cost more.

Seriously, at what point did I suggest buying an expensive body and fitting it with a kit lens? I`ve based all lens buying decisions on data gathered in multiple reviews in addition to advice of other photographers.

I also get the feeling that you`re rather arrogant given the general tone of your last response.
 
There seems to be a lot of posturing lately about the quality of lenses from some of the more 'vocal' forum members but very little from those same 'posturers' to back it up – example shots to prove that quality glass helps you take a better shot wouldn't go amiss methinks...
 
RichieRich said:
And I get the feeling that you`re the kind of person who`d by a Porsche over a superior Japanese modified car and claim that it must be better because it cost more.
Click to expand...

No, but I would buy a factory Porsche in preference to something that had been tampered with, Japanese or not
Seriously, at what point did I suggest buying an expensive body and fitting it with a kit lens?
Click to expand...

At what point did I say that you would do that?

I`ve based all lens buying decisions on data gathered in multiple reviews in addition to advice of other photographers.
Click to expand...

and not one of those reviews or other photographers found in favour of Canon glass?

I also get the feeling that you`re rather arrogant given the general tone of your last response.
Click to expand...

That still wouldn't make your comments valid ;)
 
I've got a mixture of L lenses and Sigma.

Wide angle, I have the Sigma 15-30mm (I shoot on full frame)
My walk about and studio lens is a 24-104mm f4L
Sigma 24-70mm f2.8
I have the Canon 100mm f2.8L Macro
The Canon 70-200mm f4L
The Sigma 70-200mm f2.8
and the Canon 100-400mmL
Oh and the ubiquitous nifty!

So I can see both sides of this one. At what point is the crossover between the third party and the Manufacturers lenses?

Each lens is different. The 70-200mm Sigma is an absolute dream and to be honest I only keep the Canon for taking pics outdoors in good light (It's a nice weight )

At the shorter end the Sigma 24-70mm is pants beside the Canon version and if I were to change one, that's the one that would go. I bought it to get f2.8 at that range and thankfully it was cheap because it's not staying!

The wide angle does not get so much use so I'm not too worried about it, I've not been particularly disappointed by it so it's got a home. I'm going to shoot some night scenes with it and that will determine how happy I am with it.

It also very much depends what you are shooting. Ask WeddingHack or Hacker if f4 will cut it at a wedding? If you are going to work in that environment then top quality wide open lenses are a must. Those tend to be the environments that the manufacturers lenses excel. These guys don't spend the money they earn for fun!

If it's a hobby and you are happy with your choice then that's fine but please bear in mind that others here earn a living or part of it from photography and to them, it's an investment.
 
specialman said:
There seems to be a lot of posturing lately about the quality of lenses from some of the more 'vocal' forum members but very little from those same 'posturers' to back it up – example shots to prove that quality glass helps you take a better shot wouldn't go amiss methinks...
Click to expand...

Sometimes it's a case of getting the shot at all. You can't compare that.
I'm thinking of a particular shot that WeddingHack posted that he took with a 35mm f1.2. He said that the shot would have been impossible with any other lens, he needed that f1.2 to get the shot at all, even with high ISO.
 
I think the wide aperture factor is the key thing holding the argument together. I love my f/2.8 70-200mm and it helps me get stuff that my old 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 wouldn't allow me (faster shutter speeds, lower ISO), but it's a lens that i don't use all the time and is there for a specific job.

However, I guarantee you that for all the talk of f/2.8 28-70mm zooms and f/1.8 50mm lenses - lenses that are 'walkabout' glass - the majority of those harping on about them will use them at f/8 most of the time, negating the whole point of a wide aperure.

AliB, can you point me to the shot. I'm intrigued... :)
 
specialman said:
However, I guarantee you that for all the talk of f/2.8 28-70mm zooms and f/1.8 50mm lenses - lenses that are 'walkabout' glass - the majority of those harping on about them will use them at f/8 most of the time, negating the whole point of a wide aperure.
Click to expand...

Using an f/2.8 lens at f/8 doesn't negate the point of it opening to f/2.8. If that were the case then an f/8 lens would suffice, however a lens that had a max aperture of f/8 would provide a very dark viewfinder image and would struggle (if it could do it at all) to provide autofocus on most dslrs.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Using an f/2.8 lens at f/8 doesn't negate the point of it opening to f/2.8. If that were the case then an f/8 lens would suffice, however a lens that had a max aperture of f/8 would provide a very dark viewfinder image and would struggle (if it could do it at all) to provide autofocus on most dslrs.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but what you've pointed out rarely gets a mention. Everyone seems preoccupied with DOF so shallow that you'd struggle to get a sewing needle in focus.

It seems that narrow DOF is the overriding factor for so many people, it's as if they've been educated to beleive it's the only thing to consider - can you imagine what they'd be like if they discovered Schiemflug? :)
 
specialman said:
Agreed, but what you've pointed out rarely gets a mention. Everyone seems preoccupied with DOF so shallow that you'd struggle to get a sewing needle in focus.

It seems that narrow DOF is the overriding factor for so many people, it's as if they've been educated to beleive it's the only thing to consider - can you imagine what they'd be like if they discovered Schiemflug? :)
Click to expand...

Agreed, the assumption is if you buy an f/1.8 lens you must use it at f/1.8 all the time and pursue bokeh at all costs :shrug:
 
I love extreme DOF, its not what I consider most when buying a lens, but it is important I feel. At the opposite end, I think its VERY important to have a lens that does not suffer when you choose to close the aperture down as far as it goes. For example the nano coated (wtf?) 14 to 24 and the 24 to 70 from Nikon, are apparently superb throughout there entire range (f2.8 to f22), and as a DOF Junkie, and a Long Exposure Junkie, these are important considerations for me.

The trouble is I am not even remotely qualified to get the most out of the lens, but it does make me feel good knowing I can't blame the lens.

Gary.
 
EdinburghGary said:
The trouble is I am not even remotely qualified to get the most out of the lens, but it does make me feel good knowing I can't blame the lens.
Click to expand...
That sparked a thought. Bear with me.....

I don't play golf (a good walk spoiled and all that), but some of my friends who do say that one of the attractions is the fact that you don't have any excuses. No team-mates, no complications, just you and the ball. If it doesn't go where you wanted it to, there's nobody to blame but yourself.

That doesn't sound so attractive, but the flip side of it is that perfection is possible. You can put the drive right down the middle. You can dink it out of the bunker and up to the hole. You can hit a hole in one. You probably won't, but the only thing stopping you is yourself.

See the analogy? I wonder if half the good feeling comes from the knowledge that, using a top-notch lens, every time you press the shutter you can get a great shot. You probably won't, but the only thing stopping you is yourself.
 
StewartR said:
That sparked a thought. Bear with me.....

I don't play golf (a good walk spoiled and all that), but some of my friends who do say that one of the attractions is the fact that you don't have any excuses. No team-mates, no complications, just you and the ball. If it doesn't go where you wanted it to, there's nobody to blame but yourself.

That doesn't sound so attractive, but the flip side of it is that perfection is possible. You can put the drive right down the middle. You can dink it out of the bunker and up to the hole. You can hit a hole in one. You probably won't, but the only thing stopping you is yourself.

See the analogy? I wonder if half the good feeling comes from the knowledge that, using a top-notch lens, every time you press the shutter you can get a great shot. You probably won't, but the only thing stopping you is yourself.
Click to expand...

It keeps me going :D Long gone are my days of the D200 and cheap glass, after every shot me thinking that due to not having the best kit, I could not hope for a good shot. It was stupid, I know that, but as you say, who or what can I blame now?

Gary.
 
EdinburghGary said:
It keeps me going :D Long gone are my days of the D200 and cheap glass, after every shot me thinking that due to not having the best kit, I could not hope for a good shot. It was stupid, I know that, but as you say, who or what can I blame now?

Gary.
Click to expand...

the weather:bang:

Michael
 
All makes for an interesting read in this thread. But I think very differently it seems to many on here. I have a D80 with 18-70 kit lens (also a siggy 10-20 and nifty, but these aren't used half as much as the kit lens) and I love the fact that its not the best camera or lens currently out there on the market. I feel that it gives me more of a challenge to get that picture even more spot on and when it does I feel that the result is a lot to do with me and not the equipment as such, hope I am making sense here, but that still doesn't stop me wanting a pro end glass (currently saving for a Nikkor 24-70 2.8 not happening though lol). Think I will be renting out a 24-70 2.8 before splashing out £1k which is a lot for a 21 year old to see if its the right move for my development in my photography.
 
specialman said:
However, I guarantee you that for all the talk of f/2.8 28-70mm zooms and f/1.8 50mm lenses - lenses that are 'walkabout' glass - the majority of those harping on about them will use them at f/8 most of the time, negating the whole point of a wide aperure.
Click to expand...

Not I, I rarely shoot past f/2.8 for most jobs but I do a lot of low light work so fast glass that's sharp wide open is a big factor in choosing lenses. It's not lens snobbery just buying the right kit for the job. Show me a lens from Tamron, Sigma, etc. that could match the 135mm f/2L and I'd consider it, especially if it was cheaper. I have looked at the new Sigma 50mm f/1.4 but tbh I'm put off by the idea of having to play swapsies until I get a good copy. If Sigma's QC was a bit better I'd jump at one. If a local shop had several in stock I'd pay a visit and find a decent copy - Jessops don't even stock it!

Besides, shooting at f/8 doesn't mean you don't need the glass to get any faster, the more light the better the AF will perform. On most of the current Canon bodies f/2.8 or faster allows the X type sensors to kick in. Some focusing screens are also designed to work with f/2.8 or better, even on semi-pro bodies such as the 40D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top