Do what you have to....

Khaos

.... to get Canon L glass.

If you own a Canon DSLR, you have to do whatever it takes to get L glass. Get a paper route for extra cash, sell a kidney, embezzle, steal, beg, borrow, pray for divine intervention, anything, just get these lenses on your camera.

I just started post processing my Cleveland Zoo visit from today, and with the 70-200 2.8 IS L, the 400 4.6 L, and the 35 1.2 L, I am simply amazed, ecstatic, and awe struck at what these lenses can do.:bow Clear and sharp enough to cut you in half during processing. WOW! Plus, it's fun seeing someone with a 20D and a 75-300 zoom lustily looking at me while I'm shooting with the 400 while holding the 70 -200 and using as a weighted balance in my other hand.:D

OK, my fanboy kiss up:lust to Canon has ended. Look for many shots to come over the following weeks.

lynnesite

Khaos wrote:

.... to get Canon L glass.

If you own a Canon DSLR, you have to do whatever it takes to get L glass. Get a paper route for extra cash, sell a kidney, embezzle, steal, beg, borrow, pray for divine intervention, anything, just get these lenses on your camera.

I just started post processing my Cleveland Zoo visit from today, and with the 70-200 2.8 IS L, the 400 4.6 L, and the 35 1.2 L, I am simply amazed, ecstatic, and awe struck at what these lenses can do. Clear and sharp enough to cut you in half during processing. WOW! Plus, it's fun seeing someone with a 20D and a 75-300 zoom lustily looking at me while I'm shooting with the 400 while holding the 70 -200 and using as a weighted balance in my other hand.:D

OK, my fanboy kiss up to Canon has ended. Look for many shots to come over the following weeks.

I'll bow in homage to the 70-200 2.8L IS, and sing hosannas. And some day adding a 24-70 and/or 17-40L to my collection. For now, I get by with the 50 1.8 and the consumer grade 24-85 USM. The 20D really enhanced the performance of my cheap lenses, but I shoot 90% plus with the 70-200. Huzzah!

Andy

another convert

but don't forget a few of the unsung non-Ls:


50 f/1.4
85 f/1.8
100mm macro

these three are really good, too.

Khaos

andy wrote:

another convert

but don't forget a few of the unsung non-Ls:


50 f/1.4
85 f/1.8
100mm macro

these three are really good, too.

Oh yeah, I have the 100 and I will be getting the 50 sometime, which means adios to the Tamron 28-75, which is good, but no comparison to having the 35 L and the 50 1.8. What I'd really like is that 200 1.8 that you have.:D

Khaos

andy wrote:

another convert

but don't forget a few of the unsung non-Ls:


50 f/1.4
85 f/1.8
100mm macro

these three are really good, too.

I'm also pretty darn impressed with the 10-22 EF-S lens also.

USAIR

Khaos
The 70- 200 f/2.8L is a great lens
I love mine

Have you ever tried the Canon 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Manual ?
I am looking at both and trying to decide which one.

How does this compare to the 100mm macro?
Are they two completely different animals?

Thanks
Fred

Khaos

USAIR wrote:

The 70- 200 f/2.8L is a great lens
I love mine

Have you ever tried the Canon 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Manual ?
I am looking at both and trying to decide which one.

How does this compare to the 100mm macro?
Are they two completely different animals?

Thanks
Fred

I haven't used one but I've read up on it and it seems that they are completely different. The 65 is truly a specialty lens that is manual focus only and that's generally done by moving or adjusting the 1-5 magnification. Currently I can't justify the cost for something that I wouldn't use very often. I'd still like to have it though.:D

ubergeek

I don't know how...
...but somehow I have survived just fine--so far--without any "L" glass: Canon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6, Canon 28mm f/1.8, Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8, and Canon 50mm f/1.4. I don't even find myself wishing for a 24-70 f/2.8L.

However, I'm not yet very well covered on the wide or tele ends. On the wide end, there really aren't any L lenses that are wide enough anyway, taking into consideration a 1.6x crop factor. The Tokina 12-24mm f/4 is what will probably end up in my bag eventually. Canon's 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5? Sure, it looks nice, but it's also $300 more--a 60% premium over the Tokina's price tag.

Then there's the telephoto end. (I do have a Canon 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6, but that's just to have some kind of tele capability until I decide what real lens I want ). L glass doesn't command quite the premium here: the 70-200mm f/2.8L goes for about $1100, not even $300 more than the comparable Sigma. Worth the 30% premium? Maybe. But more interesting is Sigma's 120-300mm f/2.8 at $2400. Canon doesn't make anything comparable, at any price. Of course the Sigmas aren't white with pretty little red rings on them, so you may not earn the envy of the guy on the other side of the tiger exhibit. On the other hand, you'll probably have your house paid off sooner than the guy who just took out a third mortgage for a bag full of glass and painted-white metal so he could get razor-sharp headshots of monkeys from 100 feet away.

Of course there is one "L" that I'd agree with you on--beg, borrow, steal, or get a paper route to get your hands on a 200mm f/1.8L. A pity they're out of production--not that I'd be getting my hands on one anytime soon anyway!

Cheers,
Jeremy

Khaos

:duel

but somehow I have survived just fine--so far--without any "L" glass

Good for you. Many people do survive with out L glass whether by choice or by financial choice not under their control. I've survived quite fine driving my Hyundai Sonata and not having a Jaquar X series, but it doesn't mean I wouldn't want one.

L glass doesn't command quite the premium here: the 70-200mm f/2.8L goes for about $1100, not even $300 more than the comparable Sigma. Worth the 30% premium? Maybe.

I hope that price is for non IS, if not, people will soon be flooding your area to buy that 70 -200. It's worth it. The ability to shoot in low light, extremely quick focus, which is one feature you've not mentioned, that is very important to many people, allows for use in indoor sports, concerts, etc.

But more interesting is Sigma's 120-300mm f/2.8 at $2400. Canon doesn't make anything comparable, at any price.

Seriously, who cares? Past 200, I much rather have a prime than a zoom. But then who cares what I think? If someone wants that type of zoom with that speed, then they'll buy the Sigma. Why are we comparing apples to no oranges?

Of course the Sigmas aren't white with pretty little red rings on them, so you may not earn the envy of the guy on the other side of the tiger exhibit. On the other hand, you'll probably have your house paid off sooner than the guy who just took out a third mortgage for a bag full of glass and painted-white metal so he could get razor-sharp headshots of monkeys from 100 feet away.

Well, you were stating your opinion and then it turned into :soapbox and a :argue .

Yes, Canon did make their lenses stand out by making them white, but did you notice, it's only the telephoto lenses, the ones that are generally used outside in the sun, that white reflects light and black absorbs it, and that the L glass under 200mm is black and the red ring is barely noticable? I don't show off my lenses, I show my photgraphs. I will give praise were it's due, and the L glass that I own, deserves the praise.

The last thing I've ever thought about is making someone envious of my lens. I also use my lenses to shoot more than monkey heads at the zoo. It just happens I recently went to the zoo and I've been sharing those shots.

Let's go over what you failed to mention in comparison.

The pictures may be close in sharpness with non L glass, but does that glass focus as quick? Is that glass as quiet when it is focusing? Is that glass built to last a lot of use over the years? Does that glass keep it's value? If I decided to sell my L glass, I do not lose much money if any at all. And the small loss I may incur was well worth the shots I got from it. It's like the world's cheapest rental.

It's great that you're happy with your lens collection, and I will agree that I wouldn't spend the money on the 24 - 70 L either, but that's only because the I spent it on the 35 L and, no, the Tamron 28-75 doesn't even compare. I own both, and while the Tamron is avery good lens for the money, the 35 blows it away. It's worth the extra money.

I think starting your own thread stating the virtues of saving money and getting great shots with non L glass would of been good. I wouldn't of posted in it disagreeing with you by saying that people should have a pretty white painted, red ringed, impress the sigma guy, monkey head shooting lenses, instead. :curtsey

ubergeek

I surrender
It wasn't my intention to start a flame war. I merely sensed the insinuation that one cannot truly take excellent photos without equipping oneself with "L" glass, and I merely pointed out that there are numerous high-quality alternatives if one wants to balance the desire to take technically perfect photos with the desire to keep some cash in one's pocket for other purposes. My potentially offensive comment about photographing monkeys was intended with tongue firmly in cheek, hence the --I'm sorry if my attempts failed to inject some humor into what can often turn into a religious war.

I was, however, puzzled by a few statements in your response:

Khaos wrote:

I don't show off my lenses, I show my photgraphs.

and

Khaos wrote:

The last thing I've ever thought about is making someone envious of my lens.

But in your original message, you boast that

Khaos wrote:

Plus, it's fun seeing someone with a 20D and a 75-300 zoom lustily looking at me while I'm shooting with the 400 while holding the 70 -200 and using as a weighted balance in my other hand.:D

Not that there's anything wrong with that! I drive an Audi TT Roadster primarily because its rare combination of all-wheel-drive and convertible roof make the most of Colorado's sometimes unpredictable weather. But I'd be lying if I said I didn't sometimes appreciate the compliments it gets from time to time.

And to clear some other things up...

Khaos wrote:

I hope that price [$1100] is for non IS, if not, people will soon be flooding your area to buy that 70 -200.

Of course I was referring to the non-IS version (I didn't say "IS"), and you obviously knew which one I meant.

Khaos wrote:

I also use my lenses to shoot more than monkey heads at the zoo. It just happens I recently went to the zoo and I've been sharing those shots.

Don't get me wrong here--there's probably not a photographer alive who doesn't enjoy a shoot at the local zoo. You shared a zoo anecdote and I merely continued in that theme. I'm certainly not knocking zoo photography.

Khaos wrote:

Let's go over what you failed to mention in comparison.

Let's not. Every lens has its pros and cons. Certainly some of the Canon L's are the best in their class; I won't argue that. But to imply that only L glass is worth getting is disingenuous. (Similarly, it would be dishonest of me to suggest that for every L lens, there's a non-L that is just as good.) Furthermore, there are some interesting third-party lenses out there that just don't have a Canon equivalent, "L" or otherwise.

Khaos wrote:

I wouldn't spend the money on the 24 - 70 L either, but that's only because the I spent it on the 35 L and, no, the Tamron 28-75 doesn't even compare. I own both, and while the Tamron is avery good lens for the money, the 35 blows it away. It's worth the extra money.

Of course I wouldn't directly compare the 28-75 with the 35L. But I would say that for the price of the 35mm f/1.4L, one could have the 28mm f/1.8, the 50mm f/1.4, and the 28-75 f/2.8, and still have change left over. I'm sure the 35 is worth it to some, but I'd bet the vast majority of photographers would be better served bysome combination of the other three.

Khaos wrote:

I think starting your own thread stating the virtues of saving money and getting great shots with non L glass would of been good. I wouldn't of posted in it disagreeing with you by saying that people should have a pretty white painted, red ringed, impress the sigma guy, monkey head shooting lenses, instead. :curtsey

I apologize profusely. I wasn't aware of the rule that when a thread is started to state an opinion, no dissenting opinions are permitted on that thread. I hereby withdraw my previous post.

Cheers,
Jeremy

Khaos

I merely sensed the insinuation that one cannot truly take excellent photos without equipping oneself with "L" glass, and I merely pointed out that there are numerous high-quality alternatives if one wants to balance the desire to take technically perfect photos with the desire to keep some cash in one's pocket for other purposes.

From the end of my original post:

OK, my fanboy kiss up to Canon has ended. Look for many shots to come over the following weeks.

It was a fan boy post to begin with. I thought I made that clearly obvious. Apparently I failed just like your attempts to interject humor did. I was acting like a little kid excited about his new toys. I don't see anywhere were I was making it a serious post. That's why I took offense to your "difference of opinion." It wasn't posted to be a debate on how to spend your money the best way on lenses.

ubergeek

Gotcha
I think I know where you're coming from now. I don't know if you saw the movie Independence Day, but there's a scene in which Will Smith figures out how to fly an alien spaceship which has come into his possession. He proceeds to blast off in a ferociously high-G maneuver, and shouts gleefully, "I have got to get me one of these!" If that's how your original post was intended, then I really didn't mean to rain on it. You've got some great glass there, dude--by all means enjoy it!

Cheers,
Jeremy

Khaos

ubergeek wrote:

I think I know where you're coming from now. I don't know if you saw the movie Independence Day, but there's a scene in which Will Smith figures out how to fly an alien spaceship which has come into his possession. He proceeds to blast off in a ferociously high-G maneuver, and shouts gleefully, "I have got to get me one of these!" If that's how your original post was intended, then I really didn't mean to rain on it. You've got some great glass there, dude--by all means enjoy it!

Cheers,
Jeremy

Thanks. Sorry for getting pissy. Now lets go take some pics!:flash

System

so what's the going rate for a good kidney these days anyway?

i'm in serious need of some glass