A conundrum
Results 1 to 6 of 6

This is a discussion on A conundrum within the Member Show-Off & Photography forums, part of the Community - Meet other Enthusiasts category; So I'm taking this photo class, and the instructor is a pretty decent guy and a good photographer. I was ...

  1. #1
    Registered User dsel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Chocolate City
    Posts
    3,769

    A conundrum

    So I'm taking this photo class, and the instructor is a pretty decent guy and a good photographer. I was talking to him about equipment the other day, and he said - and apparently a lot of people agree with him - that if you're using a camera with under 12 MP and a less than full-size sensor, there's no reason to get top-end lenses.

    In fact, he said virtually no one would be able to tell the difference between a picture taken with a L series or a plain old EF. I have tried to look into this elsewhere and can't find much.

    My questions is, as I try to build a decent collection of lenses for my 20D, for amateur/advanced amateur applications, is a top-end lens overkill?

    Your opinions would be greatly appreciated.
    Dead is Hard. Life is Much Easier. Be Adequite.
    -Lindsay Lohan

  2. Remove Advertisements
    ClubWRX.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Registered User mykedude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Queens NY
    Posts
    1,331
    The long and short of it in my opinion is this. If you are building a lens collection and either plan to upgrade to a full sensor camera and or planning on selling your photographs, then yes I would invest in L series lenses. If you are going to stick with your 20D and cropped sensor cams then I would say that Ef/Ef-S lenses are fine.

    I own a 50mm 1.4 and love that lens. It is super fast and it is really nice to work with a prime. I have borrowed a EF 24-105L f/4 many times and I absolutely love that lens. However, for $1200 it isn't worth it for me to get as I can get results i like out of my 50mm. The thing about L lenses that I think people like (including myself) is the way the lenses handle. They feel solid and the rings are smooth.

    My .02

    ~myke
    ::2004 JBP WRX::

  4. #3
    Registered User c00lbeans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    2,222

    Red face

    your teacher is very wrong. It dosnt matter what sensor you have, theres a very noticeable difference in quality between L and the normal lenses, they are much sharper and have alot less chromatic aberration. Plus most of the normal lenses have floating apertures which makes them pretty much worthless for shooting sports or any low light stuff unless your shooting still life on a tripod.

    Some of the normal prime lenses are ok. like the 1.8 50mm is very sharp and pretty quick. The specialty lenses like fisheye and tilt shift are all super sharp. the only ef-s lense worth getting is the 17-55 f2.8is. its basicly L glass but they didnt give it the L name cuase it was made specificly to work on 1.6x sensors. if your on a budget then your forced to buy the cheaper stuff. for a 20 d the only lenses you need are 17-55 2.8, 70-200 2.8, and 50mm 1.8or 1.4. The 15mm fish eye, 100mm macro, and any tilt shift are also good to have but wont get used nearly as much as the 2 zooms i listed.

  5. #4
    Registered User dsel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Chocolate City
    Posts
    3,769
    I have the 70-200 f4 L series, but the 2.8 is WAY too pricey for me. I need a good macro lens and a better wide angle than I have. With my sensor, I have to get to 10mm, I reckon.
    Dead is Hard. Life is Much Easier. Be Adequite.
    -Lindsay Lohan

  6. #5
    Registered User TurbeauxREX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Des Allemands, La.
    Posts
    1,097
    Daniel,

    Ask your instructor for a refund. Tell him you're going to use the money to buy some L-glass.

    Obviously, this guy is a megapixel-snob. Oh, and as coolbeans already mentioned, the guy is absolutely wrong. If what he said were in any way true then all of the pro sports shooters you see on the sidelines of every pro & college sporting event has wasted a ton of money. The vast majority of Canon shooters use a EOS 1D / 1D MkII / 1D MII N, all of which use a sensor that has a 1.3 crop factor. The full-sized sensor Canons (1Ds/1Ds MkII/5D) are designed for studio use as a substitute/replacement for medium format film cameras. These cameras do not have the same speed capabilities of the aforementioned 1.3 sensor cameras, either in frame rate or autofocus speed.

    The best glass you can afford is always a good bet. While camera value plummets with every new model/version introduction, the (L) lenses hold their value. I've upgraded bodies four times since 2002, but still have the first 100-400L IS lense I bought in that year. And it's still worth close to what I initially paid for it. Can't say the same for the bodies, though.

    Peace,

    Curtis

    PS: Would you be interested in a new, in the box, never used Canon 2x teleconvertor? I bought two, but really don't need both of them.
    Last edited by TurbeauxREX; 09-28-2006 at 03:17 PM.

  7. #6

    Admin - Scooby Hooligan

    Weasel 555's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    UK,NY,AK,FL
    Posts
    23,104
    I Support ClubWRX
    +1 too what c00lbeans said and TurbeauxREX

    quality of your glass/lens counts for a better image
    ScoobyDMC #000,HawkEyeAlliance#000,Blobeye Syndicate #000, SQC-NY #009, "Dragon Slayer"
    "All We'll Drive"

    I <3 boobies: rallyarmor/keepabreast/mud flaps limited edition

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •