Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 16, 2005, 9:09 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
BoYFrMSpC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 339
Default

Today, I went into a camera store, and I finally decided that I wanted to try out some of the L lenses. With my experience with the kit lens and the sigma 30 f/1.4 it was probably the biggest mistake I've done.

I've tried out the 16-35, 70-200 2.8 IS, the 24-105, the 24-70 and then the efs 17-85.
I also tried out the 580ex and 430ex flashes.

O...M...G...

You can feel the quality just by looking at it upclose and attaching it to the camera. This is definitely one of the reasons L's are so damn expensive. And the USM... geez it puts my sigma's 30mm HSM to shame... it's just so incredibly fast... you have to see to believe... Include the weather sealing and it feels worthwhile to pay tons just for the build quality.

When I took a closer look at the images, the 16-35 was a wee bit soft wide open... at least when I did a max zoom on the LCD and also compared to the 70-200! man, that one was a monster... I enjoyed that one the most... f/2.8 + IS is really amazing.

The 24-105 I really wasn't impressed. F/4 is really really slow and even with IS it's hard to take a shot at 105mm indoors with decent ISO settings (<1600).

I liked the 24-70 but after playing with the 70-200 I think it would be a lot more spiffy if IS was on this one too... But I still prefer this one over the 24-105. It felt nice with the XT.

Finally, after all that L rush I wanted to try out the EFS lens... USM still amazed me but what didn't amaze me was f/5.6 at 85mm.. and of course, the build quality...

So in conclusion, I was looking at the sigma 70-200HSM for a while but after this little incident, I don't think I can shrug away my experience with the 70-200 IS (and the 16-35 is also nice)... You can look at the pricetag and think, "Ouch!", and also say, "Eww.. white..." but when you're holding it, it's really something...

Anyway... if you cannot (or do not want to) afford the L, don't ever try it... I can't even look at my kit lens without frowning, anymore... I mean... I could still stop it down to f/11 and get good results at 18mm...

...
BoYFrMSpC is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Dec 17, 2005, 7:12 AM   #2
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

BoYFrMSpC

I agree with everything said however you're comparing apples and oranges...

1. The Sigma's 30mm HSM is not slow compared to my 50mm f/1.4 USM for example
2. I have the 100-400L IS and the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 EX and I can assure you that the EX is faster in focus (try it at the store) - check my recent posts in the wildlife section and can you tell which lens shot which images? :?

IMO the perceived quality is proportional to the price one pays - but most folks just don't want to pay much for 3rd party lenses - until they actually try one out like I did...
BTW I also have the 85mm f/1.2L if you want to talk about sluggish USM (i.e. apple vs oranges)... :idea:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 17, 2005, 9:39 AM   #3
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

(sigh)
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 17, 2005, 5:36 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
BoYFrMSpC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 339
Default

Well, the 50 f/1.4 and 85L aren't equiped with the "real" usm... which, if i'm not mistaken, why the 85L doesn't have FTM...

But then again, what is considered "real" after abusing the USM name? I thought sigma would try to stay consistent, but I guess the mechanics of HSM changes for every lens...

I would like to go and try out the 120-300, but all my local stores only sell the item as a special order.

But now I'm thinking about going back and trying some of the sigma lenses... it's actually fun to try out a bunch of lenses just for the heck of it.
BoYFrMSpC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2005, 5:19 AM   #5
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

BoYFrMSpC wrote:
Quote:
and 85L aren't equiped with the "real" usm... which, if i'm not mistaken, why the 85L doesn't have FTM...
I can assure you my 85mm f/1.2L has USM (ring-type) and Full-Time Manual overide of the AF since I used to use this feature a lot when I was in the studios
Isn't the focusing speed also related to the lens type :idea:
... and how far their optical elements have to move - Check how fast a macro do its AF for example regardless of USM or not (or WA vs tele)?
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2005, 3:38 PM   #6
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

to prove this point of lens type... take a non-usm ultrawide lens.. any of them are fine and then compare its focus speed to say amedium telephoto USM motor.. you will see the non-usm ultrawide will be much faster.. simply has less element travel..
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2005, 3:39 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Paul(UK)'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 290
Default

BoYFrMSpC wrote:
Quote:
I don't think I can shrug away my experience with the 70-200 IS (and the 16-35 is also nice)...

I have those two lenses.

The 16-35mm has not beenoff the camera since I bought it a few weeks ago.




Paul(UK) is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 2005, 1:56 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
UrbanPhotos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 382
Default

I had an even worse experience with L glass... I got to borrow a 28-70 2.8 and a 100-400 IS for a weeklong trip to the east coast. And by saying it was a bad experience, I mean that it was totally awesome but now I feel the need to buy some L lenses of my own.
UrbanPhotos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 2005, 10:41 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 117
Default

I have the 70-200 L f/2.8 and the 24-70 L. Fantastic products, and I agree you get what you pay for. These lenses just don't let me down. My third lens is the Canon EF-S 10-22, IMHO the image quality is right up there with an L (not full frame and it doesn't have the build quality). I tried to buy a full frame lens in this wide range area but couldn't find one that I was happy with (I returned two and settlend on the Canon).

I'm just now getting seriouswith Digi after spending years shooting with a Blad 500CM. I was spoiled from shooting with the Zeiss Glass on the Blad, but these L lenses aren't to shabby.

Joe
jlacasci is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 28, 2005, 4:52 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

Im not trying out an L lens until I win a lottery as I know I will never be satisfied with anything else once Ive used one.:-)
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:53 AM.