Is Canon L glass worth the $$ ?

wxwaxwxwax Registered Users Posts: 15,471 Major grins
edited February 11, 2004 in Accessories
Here's a fascinating link where the guy shoots a comparison between a 28-70L and a 28-105 USM.

Just looking at the images tells the story.
Sid.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au

Comments

  • fishfish Registered Users Posts: 2,950 Major grins
    edited February 9, 2004
    wxwax wrote:
    Here's a fascinating link where the guy shoots a comparison between a 28-70L and a 28-105 USM.

    Just looking at the images tells the story.
    Wow. Certainly the 28-70L is a stellar lens, but oh my gawd...I never realized how crappy the 28-105 was. It can't really be that bad, can it?

    70mm_28-105mmUSM_007.jpg


    I must say, Ludwig's article would be a little more credible if he had run it through a spellchecker first. :puke1
    "Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk." - Edward Weston
    "The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
  • wxwaxwxwax Registered Users Posts: 15,471 Major grins
    edited February 9, 2004
    I wuldn't get hung up on speling.
    Sid.
    Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
    http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
  • wxwaxwxwax Registered Users Posts: 15,471 Major grins
    edited February 9, 2004
    fish wrote:
    Wow. Certainly the 28-70L is a stellar lens, but oh my gawd...I never realized how crappy the 28-105 was. It can't really be that bad, can it?

    Unless he's manipulated the images? ne_nau.gif The difference is night and day. Just click on the images of each of the two cameras on this page. Once the full photos have revealed, the difference in detail is stunning.
    Sid.
    Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
    http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
  • fishfish Registered Users Posts: 2,950 Major grins
    edited February 9, 2004
    It looks like the 28-105 images were handheld and the 28-70 images were on a tripod...maybe even sharpened a little. You don't think somebody would do that, do you? Nah.
    "Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk." - Edward Weston
    "The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
  • cletuscletus Registered Users Posts: 1,930 Major grins
    edited February 9, 2004
    Hey guys,

    I'm a Nikon guy, so I don't have any experience with the Canon glass. I would just point out that I Nikon (and probably Canon as well) has been known to make a real dog from time to time. This may not be an issue of one series of lens being vastly superior, more likely it is a "this particular lens sucks" issue.

    Regardless, you Canon boys sure do have a lot of cool options for glass. If I didn't have so much money tied up in Nikon gear, I'd probably be shooting Canon too.
    ab0wa.smugmug.com
  • pathfinderpathfinder Super Moderators Posts: 14,708 moderator
    edited February 9, 2004
    fish wrote:
    Wow. Certainly the 28-70L is a stellar lens, but oh my gawd...I never realized how crappy the 28-105 was. It can't really be that bad, can it?
    I am on my monitor at work so I do not have the contrast range I have at home - but does anyone else think the exposures are different with the two lenses - The L looks much brighter as well as sharper - I am not sure they are JUST due to differences in the lenses, but look like differences in exposure also, possibly. Anyone see these images this way too?
    Pathfinder - www.pathfinder.smugmug.com

    Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
  • cmr164cmr164 Registered Users Posts: 1,542 Major grins
    edited February 9, 2004
    fish wrote:
    It looks like the 28-105 images were handheld and the 28-70 images were on a tripod...maybe even sharpened a little. You don't think somebody would do that, do you? Nah.
    I have had both lenses and the 28-70L is better than the 28-105 but either
    he was fudging the results or he has the worst 28-105 ever made. The
    true differences are in minor distortions at the ends of the zoom range
    and of course the f2.8 on the 'L'
    Charles Richmond IT & Security Consultant
    Operating System Design, Drivers, Software
    Villa Del Rio II, Talamban, Pit-os, Cebu, Ph
  • aj2aj2 Registered Users Posts: 11 Big grins
    edited February 9, 2004
    wxwax wrote:
    Here's a fascinating link where the guy shoots a comparison between a 28-70L and a 28-105 USM.

    Just looking at the images tells the story.
    I also have the 28-70L, and while the differences aren't THAT dramatic, it's very obvious in any head-to-head comparison that the L is much more accurate. I don't think I'll be able to dig up the comparison photos I took, as it was quite some time ago, but the difference is very obvious.

    If you don't want to spend the $$$ to see if it's worth it, there is a very good 50mm lens. The EF 50mm f/1.8 II is around $50, and it is nearly as good at 50mm as the L zoom glass. If you like it and feel the difference is worthwhile, then spring for the L.

    There's a great website that does really detailed testing of every lens on the market, but I can't remember it for the life of me. I'll post if I find it.
  • Stunt ClownStunt Clown Registered Users Posts: 58 Big grins
    edited February 9, 2004
    aj2 wrote:
    There's a great website that does really detailed testing of every lens on the market, but I can't remember it for the life of me. I'll post if I find it.

    Was Photodo what you were thinking of? I think they basiclly reduce the MTF charts to a single number from 1 to 5. A good general indicator of the quality of the lens. Not the whole story of a lens but a good starting point.

    Photodo link
    -Pete-

    A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.
    Of course, so does falling down a flight of stairs.
  • wxwaxwxwax Registered Users Posts: 15,471 Major grins
    edited February 9, 2004
    Pardon my ignorance, but why doesn't that list have the 70-200 IS?
    Sid.
    Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
    http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
  • Stunt ClownStunt Clown Registered Users Posts: 58 Big grins
    edited February 9, 2004
    wxwax wrote:
    Pardon my ignorance, but why doesn't that list have the 70-200 IS?
    I've wondered the same. I think I saw something that said the webpage was last updated in 2000 (at least THAT page).
    -Pete-

    A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.
    Of course, so does falling down a flight of stairs.
  • aj2aj2 Registered Users Posts: 11 Big grins
    edited February 9, 2004
    Stunt Clown wrote:
    Was Photodo what you were thinking of? I think they basiclly reduce the MTF charts to a single number from 1 to 5. A good general indicator of the quality of the lens. Not the whole story of a lens but a good starting point.

    Photodo link
    Yes indeed. And yes, it is an old page, but the testing they do(did?) is pretty thorough, so you definitely get pretty good relative values, and I found their ratings to be quite accurate for the few lenses I've seen them do. I could've sworn it had the 70-200 IS, but I guess that's not the case.

    Anyone know if the glass in the 70-200L is the same as in the IS version?
  • cmr164cmr164 Registered Users Posts: 1,542 Major grins
    edited February 10, 2004
    aj2 wrote:
    Yes indeed. And yes, it is an old page, but the testing they do(did?) is pretty thorough, so you definitely get pretty good relative values, and I found their ratings to be quite accurate for the few lenses I've seen them do. I could've sworn it had the 70-200 IS, but I guess that's not the case.

    Anyone know if the glass in the 70-200L is the same as in the IS version?
    Definitely not the same. The IS has 23 elements in 18 groups and the plain 'L' has 18 elements in 15 groups. The IS focuses down to 1.3M and the 'L' down to 1.5M (about 8" difference)

    The mtf charts look like:
    Charles Richmond IT & Security Consultant
    Operating System Design, Drivers, Software
    Villa Del Rio II, Talamban, Pit-os, Cebu, Ph
  • dakar92dakar92 Registered Users Posts: 29 Big grins
    edited February 10, 2004
    Photozone.de
    I like photozone.de for lens reviews. Their interface is pretty easy to use and the database is comprehensive (at least for Canon EOS lenses, I haven't looked at anything else). They also give an overall optical rating based on a five-point scale.
  • Stunt ClownStunt Clown Registered Users Posts: 58 Big grins
    edited February 10, 2004
    dakar92 wrote:
    I like photozone.de for lens reviews. Their interface is pretty easy to use and the database is comprehensive (at least for Canon EOS lenses, I haven't looked at anything else). They also give an overall optical rating based on a five-point scale.
    photozone.de Great site! thumb.gif
    The overall number on optical quality is derived from the submitted subjective ratings. It looks like a good place to compare the photodo.com objective numbers.
    -Pete-

    A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.
    Of course, so does falling down a flight of stairs.
  • wxwaxwxwax Registered Users Posts: 15,471 Major grins
    edited February 11, 2004
    Stunt Clown wrote:
    photozone.de Great site! thumb.gif
    .
    I second that emotion. I spent quite a bit of time there last night, have bookmarked it, and intend to return. Great link, thanks dakar. clap.gif
    Sid.
    Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
    http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Sign In or Register to comment.