Stopping the L gotten gains

Les McLean

Les McLean

In Memoriam
Suspended / Banned
Messages
6,793
Name
Les
Edit My Images
Yes
I have always been able to resist the L obsession in respect of good glass, and although do have some L lenses, I also have other makes that I'm more than happy with.

A while ago, I decided to replace some of my zooms with primes, the reason for changing is firstly, I'm pretty comfortable working within the restrictions of primes and secondly, the quality of a 50mm F1.4 really impressed, likewise the 85mm L and 24mm L lenses I subsequently purchased.

All this change from zooms to primes, while never a no cost option, was comfortably a low cost option.

Then came the slippery slope to L lust, I bought a 135mm f2, rationalising (we can always rationalise quite easily can't we), that it would give me f2 rather than F2.8 on my sigma zoom, lighter and better IQ.

I then had my sights on a 200 F2.8 L, and then the penny slowly dropped, and I realised I was wanting the lenses because they had a red ring around them, using my heart instead of my head. I already had a sigma 70-200 F2.8 that I was more than happy with, rationally, a 200 F2.8L would be a backward step, and if I sold my sigma to help purchase a 200 F2.8L, I'd have to find at least a couple of hundred to do so, for what?

So I did a simple comparison (with some gentle prompting from HWMBO) 135mm F2L (at f2.8) against sigma 70-200 F2.8 (at 135mm @ f2.8 -although shot at 126mm to get similar sized images?)

Tripod mounted using bounced flash, self timer.

Although never a definitive test, the results are comparable, bokeh looks similar, and even blown up to 400 % , no significant difference in IQ.

So I hope I've got over my recent 'illness', and equilibrium has returned :)

I've kept the exif in the images, no adjustments whatsoever apart from re-sizing and saving to around 200K

VK0I0529.jpg


VK0I0530.jpg


400%
VK0I0529s.jpg


VK0I0530s.jpg
 
Les, interesting reading.

I used a friends 85mm 1.8 Canon lens over the last few days and it really is something else for what a quarter price of the L lens.....
 
Yep, I'd agree with that Pete, I got mine last week and it's a little belter! :)
 
The 85mm 1.8 should be L glass, its absolutely stunning.

I don't have Lust in any form, but I do want some focal lengths for animal pics that mean I have to have L, or sigma alternatives that would be EX so I guess that's comparable
 
If your going to use a 135mm f2 at 2.8 most of the time or a 85mm 1.2 at 1.8 then i can see a good reason for alternatives. Now show the sigma 70-200 F2.8 at f2 or the 85mm 1.8 at 1.2 please;), having the option of an extra stop or 2 can be the difference between getting the shot and a blurry mess...
 
blinkerz said:
If your going to use a 135mm f2 at 2.8 most of the time or a 85mm 1.2 at 1.8 then i can see a good reason for alternatives. Now show the sigma 70-200 F2.8 at f2 or the 85mm 1.8 at 1.2 please;), having the option of an extra stop or 2 can be the difference between getting the shot and a blurry mess...
Click to expand...

Not questioning the reason for having lenses that go wider, but why is the 85mm 1.8 not an L lens considering there are other focal lengths, or zooms, where there are mutiple lenses with L designation.

200mm f2 and 2.8
300mm f2.8 and f4
400mm f2.8 and f5.6
70-200mm f2.8, f2.8 IS, f4 and f4 IS

why not make the 85 1.8 an L to as it is so superb?
 
Maybe because "L" is a marketing moniker and it doesn't describe the quality of a lens. Also, I don't believe the 85/1.8 has a flourite element and the build quality probably isn't as high as many of the "L" branded lenses.

If you think it's a good lens, why does it matter what stripe it has?
 
grumpybadger said:
Maybe because "L" is a marketing moniker and it doesn't describe the quality of a lens. Also, I don't believe the 85/1.8 has a flourite element and the build quality probably isn't as high as many of the "L" branded lenses.

If you think it's a good lens, why does it matter what stripe it has?
Click to expand...

True but I dont brush my teeth with it :geek::lol::lol:
 
Some good discussion, and points of view here.

My main point was that I'd started to think with my heart instead of my head, I've always taken a fairly pragmatic approach to lenses, horses for courses mainly, and have tried not to be dazzled by the allure of L lenses, when an alternative can do the job just as well.

It's a moot point regarding the 85mm F1.8, similarly the 50mm f1.4, it's the cheapest lens I own, but probably the sharpest (apart from the 85mm F1.2), but Paul has a point too, L lenses have a build quality that the 85 1.8, 50mm f1.4 don't have, regardless of the IQ.

I do like fast glass, not particularly so you can shoot at the widest aperture, more because they focus quicker, and as I often shoot in low light, the 1.2's and 1.4's still focus remarkably well, and even if you are manually focussing, the viewfinder is so much brighter to aid focussing.

Saying that, on a recent studio shoot, I liked the ambient light of the studio far more than the glam flash heads/lights, so I was able to shoot at F1.2/f1.4 and still retain a reasonable shutter speed, low ISO.
 
Diego Garcia said:
I used a friends 85mm 1.8 Canon lens over the last few days and it really is something else for what a quarter price of the L lens.....
Click to expand...
I really want one of these... am shopping desperately for one at the moment.
:love:

Stroller.
 
I have to say I'm really surprised by the results, Les, and also that you say there's "no significant difference in IQ."

To me, the Sigma stands out as strikingly better image - the colour of the bottle is brighter and the text seems clearly sharper. After a longer comparison I guess I can say that the background blur & one spot of bokeh is better in the image taken by the L-glass, but then again look how the unfocussed spot at the top of the doorhandle in the background is brighter on the Sigma pic. The reflective surface of the tiles in front of the bottle looks better, too.

I am quite prejudiced against Sigma, due to a long-standing grudge, but I guess this photo makes me glad I can't afford L-glass. ;) Especially when I consider what rave reviews the EF 135 seems to be getting in the FredMiranda reader reviews!

As others have said, the Sigma is sure to be at its best in the middle of its range - but it's beating a prime at the same focal length!!

I don't know much about Sigmas (and I'll never buy one again) - is this a particularly expensive lens?

Stroller.



PS: I hope I haven't embarrassed myself here: I'm reading the first photo (VK0I0529) to be the Canon, the second (VK0I0530) the Sigma. I'd also better confess that I haven't had my monitor calibrated, or anything like that, but I do think this is quite a decent screen at its default settings.
 
I think gear lust is okay up to a point but there must come a time where simply desiring the newest and best lens or camera leaves off and you get out there and try to take pictures.

With the crazy prices for all things camera just now there has been a conversely positive effect. Instead of lusting over the lenses I am simply contenting myself with what I have and just trying my hardest to get better at taking pictures. I believe somebody has mentioned this in another thread and I can't agree more.

For me my gear lust right now is aiming for photobooks which haven't gone up in price.
 
Strolls said:
I have to say I'm really surprised by the results, Les, and also that you say there's "no significant difference in IQ."

To me, the Sigma stands out as strikingly better image - the colour of the bottle is brighter and the text seems clearly sharper. After a longer comparison I guess I can say that the background blur & one spot of bokeh is better in the image taken by the L-glass, but then again look how the unfocussed spot at the top of the doorhandle in the background is brighter on the Sigma pic. The reflective surface of the tiles in front of the bottle looks better, too.

I am quite prejudiced against Sigma, due to a long-standing grudge, but I guess this photo makes me glad I can't afford L-glass. ;) Especially when I consider what rave reviews the EF 135 seems to be getting in the FredMiranda reader reviews!

As others have said, the Sigma is sure to be at its best in the middle of its range - but it's beating a prime at the same focal length!!

I don't know much about Sigmas (and I'll never buy one again) - is this a particularly expensive lens?

No, I saw a s/h one for sale in the Buy and Sell for around £320

Stroller.
Click to expand...

It wasn't a 'scientific' kind of test, and I think the brightness difference is due to the light changing in between shots (sun came out-effecting flash?)

Agree about the 135mm F2, it's one sweet lens, and I'll use it a lot.
 
subseasniper said:
I think gear lust is okay up to a point but there must come a time where simply desiring the newest and best lens or camera leaves off and you get out there and try to take pictures.
Click to expand...

I agree entirely, but how many times have you heard/read read about 'If only......I had x, y or z' then it would turn me into Joe Cornish/David Bailey/DiddyDave/Pete Carr etc


Fortunately, I'm far too long in the tooth to fall into this trap :)
 
The thing I don't understand is why most people seem to want to put all the emphasis on image quality when an 'L' is about much more than that. If image quality is to be the only consideration than there are lenses available from all manufacturers that anyone would be hard pushed to be able to see any difference in image quality from that of an 'L'. Personally I doubt the majority of amateurs and wannabe professionals really need the superior build quality of an a lens from the 'L' range and would function perfectly well with one on the lesser (if I can use that word) lenses. I know I would.
 
I own a Canon 28-135 IS USM, and don't really feel the need to upgrade to an L series lens (unless I get a pay rise).

Im far from a professional and am just happy that the 28-135 IS kicks the arse of an 18-55 kit lens (and it fits my EOS 300)

From what I have heard the 28-135 IS isnt too far from the quality of the 24-105 L (I may be wrong, its just what I've heard) it's a fraction of the price, and rarely gets seperated from my camera body.

Jym
 
TheVDM said:
I own a Canon 28-135 IS USM, and don't really feel the need to upgrade to an L series lens (unless I get a pay rise).

Im far from a professional and am just happy that the 28-135 IS kicks the arse of an 18-55 kit lens (and it fits my EOS 300)

From what I have heard the 28-135 IS isnt too far from the quality of the 24-105 L (I may be wrong, its just what I've heard) it's a fraction of the price, and rarely gets seperated from my camera body.

Jym
Click to expand...

I have the same 28-135mm lens and would agree it is a fab lens... however when I have the money after my wedding and the credit cards are paid off I probably will go for the 24-105mm L series.

My choice/ resoning for this is not one of neccessity... but one of pure want... and not want because it has a red line... but want that its the only other good zoom lens which covers such a wide range without going into superzoom territory and as I do alot of travel photography the build quality is important to me. The other big thing is that I often find myself constantly swaping lenses between my 28-135 and my 15-30mm sigma, however I prob rarely use the 15-30mm below the 24mm in most cases and I think the focal range of the 24-105 would be a better tool for me requiring less lens changes!

I think it is true to say I dont need this lens though... I simply want it... I will be able to afford it... and photography is my one hobby/ interest in life... and I firmly believe if you can afford it and your not harming anyone/ animals or children or breaking the law what people do with their money is up to them... what is one persons waste of money is another persons interest! I mean I bet there are plenty of men out there and women who could not justify paying allot for a designer handbag as its just not there thing... but there will be plenty women who equally dont get spending a couple of grand on a camera...

Each to their own I say... And yes I think people do want L series because it has the red line... Not everyone does... but there are gear junkies out there... as long as they are happy im happy...

Another thing to add is that L series lenses are better... pure and simple... there will be individual ups and downs but as a series... not much beats them on all round performance!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top