Lens quality Q's

mercphoto

I have never shot with a very good lens, am thinking of renting one to see what I am missing. Will the difference be striking? Is there anything I should look for in the print? Anything I should know before taking photos to insure good results? Will it be apparant even in 8x12?

I'm thinking of renting a Canon 200mm 2.8L, and comparing to my 75-300mm IS/USM lens. Or renting a 50mm L lens, compare to the EF-S lense that came with my dRebel.

What makes more difference: fixed versus zoom, or L versus non-L?

wxwax

I'm far from being an expert, Mercsterado, but let me get the ball rolling.

A prime (fixed) lens will show more difference than a zoom, generally speaking. The L lens should be superior. You should see a difference primarily in the sharpness of the image, and perhaps also in the colors. Also, look for sharpness all the way to the edges and corners. You might also compare your lenses at different f-stops. Some are not sharp corner-to-corner when wide open (from what I've read.) Most improve in the middle of their f-stop range. I strongly, strongly suggest that to maximize the potential of the lens, you use a tripod. If in a low light, use a remote shutter release as well.

I'm sure the more experienced in our group have other info to add.

Nigritude Ultramarine

mercphoto

Re: Lens Quality
Well I did rent a prime lens. Canon 200mm 2.8 L. I compared it to my 75-300mm IS/USM lens, trying to shoot the same type of shots, and at near 200mm, with similar apertures and shutter speeds (so I never got near f/2.8). I was impressed. Colors were slightly better. Focus a bit sharper. Texture a bit better, more real. It wasn't a huge difference, but I can see why people say primes are better lenses.

The zoom was more convenient, allowing me to get more shots because I could zoom in or out much faster than switching lenses. And the image quality is quite good. But I can see why people buy primes.

-- Bill