Comments on: Is That Fancy Lens (or Camera) Really Worth It?

By: Sam L

Sam L — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 17:05:15 +0000

Interested to know why you think the 24-70 l lens and others are superfluous Tron. Is it because you are talking about the L primes?

I appreciate the prime won’t be matched in terms of IQ but depending on your requirements, the lenses you mention can be useful if not essential.

Take any reportage style wedding photography for example, or travel. Or my situation where I want maximum quality over a decent range without the expense of multiple primes.

By: James Watt

James Watt — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 13:00:58 +0000

I would have to say the canon lens in the first comparison is the sharpest but the xti shot looks sharper in the comparision with the 5d. I would be interested in seeing a comparision of canon L lenses and canon “budget”lenses ie 70-300mm because there is a huge price difference there too.

By: tron

tron — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 22:49:31 +0000

The difference is huge, but you’re using the wrong stuff to show it. Primes would show the differences better. For zooms though, I was recently comparing the 70-200 f2.8 mk1 to the mk2, both mounted to 5D mkII’s. Even with such strong similarities in build, the difference was insane.
I’d say the problem is you’re using such (please don’t flame me) newbie lenses. No one would expect any sharpness out of anything like an 18-200. It could only deliver middling performance, no matter what focal length or f-stop it was set to.
But the original question is whether this stuff is worth it, right? My lenses have paid me back over and over. They are very expensive and very fancy. I doubt Tamron or Sigma could achieve the image quality I need. My answer is “yes” as long as you’re not talking about superfluous L’s like the (eg. 18-200, 24-70, 24-105. That stuff is nonsense).

By: Mike Siesel

Mike Siesel — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 20:34:38 +0000

You’re comparing Apples to Orangutans

Sigma DC lenses fit a crop sensor, just as the “L” fits the full frame on the 5D. Then there’s the difference in focal lengths, and you really can’t compare the lenses when on is zoomed in and the other is wide open. Further there’s no information on the aperture.

Compare the contrast of the lenses on the XTi and the Sigma appears to have more contrast.

Compare the “L” on both cameras at 300mm and the 5D shows more contrast.

I use Sigma DG EX lenses on a crop sensor Canon and they are tack sharp and contrasty because I’m capturing the image in the sweet spot of the lens, just as you are doing with the “L” on the XTi.

As to the value question, read the review of the “L” on Luminous Landscape http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-28-300.shtml

My opinion (since you asked): you’ve got too many dollars and not enough sense. But then I’m frugal.

By: Rob Wilson

Rob Wilson — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 16:39:41 +0000

I was fortunate and was able to move up from kit lenses on my Olympus E-620 by getting sponsored by Olympus for a 7-month road trip to national parks. I was so “afraid” of my new lenses – the cheapest of which was $1200 – I did not use them for the first six parks we visited. When we got to Arches National Park, I slapped on one of those babies and it was like a new world. Great clarity, sharpness, detail; made my kit lenses look really bad. In fact, when I first opened up those Arches photos in Aperture, I could not believe I took the photos.

Could I get similar results with a lens between the kit and the semi-pro lens? Likely. All I know is that having the more expensive lens changed my whole approach to photography…..

By: Wm. Reed Lovick

Wm. Reed Lovick — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 03:08:19 +0000

I shoot with a 7D using L lenses capped off with B+W filters and I have used a few Sigmas and Tamrons as well. I feel there is a difference in the image quality with the more expensive glass. In fact, my images speak volumes for the more expensive glass. The 7D, though not as fancy and not a full frame, is all the camera anyone needs.

A more expensive lens is further proven on the 27inch iMac where my post processing takes place. Granted, I use a tripod for 90% of my shots, but if I can’t count hairs, wood grains, feather sprouts, or pores I’m NOT a happy camper.

I did compromise recently and bought the Sigma 10mm F2.8 EX DC Fisheye because it took so long for the 8-15 Canon L fisheye to hit the market. The Sigma has given me printable images about 70% of the time. I will also admit a bit a shame when I have the Sigma on my camera. That could be pride more than anything else. Not good to admit but I love the red ring and/or white body of an L almost as much as I love the final images they produce.

Anybody else feel that way?

By: Jim Fitz

Jim Fitz — Sat, 01 Jan 2011 00:08:12 +0000

I liked tis topic. I own the sigma lens used in its test. The canon lens are by far better but its not in the sharpens that you will see it. The sigma is a lot cheaper thats why I got it. I have the canon 18-55mm lens that came with my 400d, ever that is better than the sigma in low light.

Its in low light that I belive any canon lens is miles in front. I have not been taken real photos for a year yet. But I belive the sigma is a very good lens if your not going to be in low light.

In the next few weeks I’m going to buy the sigma 120-400mm lens, I am will to pay for the canon 100-400mm L series but with with the sigma been half the price I just can’t do that.

By: Sam L

Sam L — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 15:55:29 +0000

Yes, interesting test and (in my opinion) a clear result.

Pro lens comes out on top.

These results alone would not lead me to buy the pro lens. As another comment mentioned, there are added benefits such as build quality, support etc etc. Also – and for me, most importantly, the pro lens allows you to shoot in many more conditions than the cheaper version.

I find my photography is constantly limited by lens speed, and while the image quality is a massive factor in this decision, it is secondary to the photos I would capture that just could not be done with the cheaper lens.

By: Bob

Bob — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 21:10:16 +0000

The more expensive lens gives a slightly sharper image (although the axe isn’t sharp in any shots…te he.). However, for me the extra cost would NOT be justified.
I suppose if you were taking photographs professionally, then it would make a difference and the more expensive lens would possibly be a must.

By: Lawrence

Lawrence — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:31:33 +0000

Your ‘controlled’ experiment isn’t controlled at all.

For a number of reasons; first you’re using two different bodies. How can you compare lenses, when you’re using different bodies. To get results that are comparable, the same body would have to be used.

The second reason, is the fact that you’re shooting outdoors, when way too many light sources could be modifying the image results.

Third, the subjects were not clearly in focus in every shot.

Those are my thoughts on the subject.

I do like the topic, I just feel that the setup for the test was skewed highly.