Lens Comparisons for Canon

[Colin Southern]

This is something that is not always mentioned in the on-going tug of war between prime and zoom advocates.

I agree.

Some thoughts that come to mind ...

- As you say, the "zoom with your feet" is great advice - if - you're able to. If I'd taken that advice last time I needed it I'd have fallen down a cliff! Theory -v- practice

- At the same focal length (eg 85mm) there's no doubt that my EF85/1.2L is sharper, and with better colour and contrast than my EF70-200 F2.8L IS at 85mm - but - that doesn't mean that the 70-200 is "bad"; just as a GP2 car isn't slow just because there's an F1 car in the race. My experience is that you can end up with (for all intents and purposes) the same result from either; the zoom just requires a little bit more processing.

Here's a quick "case in point" - one of these was shot with the 85/1.2L and the other 70-200/2.8L - just wondering if anyone can find any issues with colour / contrast / sharpness with either of them?

[Andy]

Here's a quick "case in point" - one of these was shot with the 85/1.2L and the other 70-200/2.8L - just wondering if anyone can find any issues with colour / contrast / sharpness with either of them?

Can't see anything wrong with either of them (both lovely shots) but am I right in thinking the first is the 70-200mm and the 2nd the 85mm? (although it is a bit of a guess at this resolution)

[Andy]

.... I seldom have do do much if any cropping.

I couldn't claim this if I were shooting with a prime or even two primes on two cameras.

I've installed a swear filter in photoshop

[Colin Southern]

am I right in thinking the first is the 70-200mm and the 2nd the 85mm?

Nope

Honestly, even at 100% view they're both razor sharp (I'd dig out a crop, but I can't post images properly until pbase.com gets up to full strength again).

[Andy]

Nope

Ah well....no shame in liking the bokeh in shots form either lens...looks silky smooth in the 2nd

[Colin Southern]

Ah well....no shame in liking the bokeh in shots form either lens...looks silky smooth in the 2nd

They're both great lenses (which is my point really) (I knew there was one coming sometime!). I know of so many who still have the notion that "primes are better than zooms" when perhaps they should be thinking "Primes are often sharper than zooms (at the primes focal length) but both are most often more than adequate.

[Andy]

They're both great lenses....

Aye, shame I don't have a good enough excuse to get either of them. Have enjoyed a few shots on 70-200's and have no complaints about the quality they deliver but have no real use for one.

I thought of a few other lenses that wouldn't be a waste on a 50D - EF-S 10-22mm and 60mm macro. I don't need either of them myself but would happily use them just as I would the L lenses above.

Most of the reason I don't have big, heavy lenses is because I don't drive so have to carry everything everywhere on foot or by bike. I can only go as far as my legs can take me (a 24-70/2.8 is 4 times the weight of a 50/1.4 and 4 times the price if I crash!)

[Colin Southern]

Aye, shame I don't have a good enough excuse to get either of them. Have enjoyed a few shots on 70-200's and have no complaints about the quality they deliver but have no real use for one.

So what kinds of things are you normally shooting?

Most of the reason I don't have big, heavy lenses is because I don't drive so have to carry everything everywhere on foot or by bike. I can only go as far as my legs can take me (a 24-70/2.8 is 4 times the weight of a 50/1.4 and 4 times the price if I crash!)

I hear "weight" comments quite often in relation to L-Series lenses, but to be honest, I just don't get it ... An L-Series lens can't add more than 1% to the all up weight of a 70 to 100kg person carrying it. A bit like a mountain guide that one of my family was telling me about - he cracked up when he heard two of his clients arguing over who's camera was 1/2 oz lighter ... and both had big pot bellies!

[Andy]

So what kinds of things are you normally shooting?



I hear "weight" comments quite often in relation to L-Series lenses, but to be honest, I just don't get it ... An L-Series lens can't add more than 1% to the all up weight of a 70 to 100kg person carrying it. A bit like a mountain guide that one of my family was telling me about - he cracked up when he heard two of his clients arguing over who's camera was 1/2 oz lighter ... and both had big pot bellies!

What do I normally shoot?....this would be a large subject for most days out shooting:


It's more the weight of the rucksack that bothers me when I'm cycling...on steep bumpy bits the weight can shift and the less weight above the CoG the better. It's even worse with a tripod strapped to the outside. What weight I don't take in camera gear I can take in chocolate and fizzy juice

Walking isn't so much of a problem...I'll carry a full kit and a heavy tripod then but even so I hardly use anything other than my macro lenses. I have 3 zooms but haven't used them in anger for about 5 years (and 2 of them are less than 5 years old!!!).

[Colin Southern]

Here's the solution for you

http://jameyprice.files.wordpress.co...07/dsc7631.jpg

[Andy]

Here's the solution for you

http://jameyprice.files.wordpress.co...07/dsc7631.jpg

I just got a wee helmet cam which I may try mounting on the bike like that...looks like fun My helmet cam is in a waterproof (to 100') housing which will hopefull be good for splashing through puddles and stuff.....

.....the lens on my compact was a little gritty after that. Can't imagine why

There's also the effects of bumps on a SLR to consider as I want to use it in places like this too:

[Colin Southern]

The helmet cam looks interesting. I think I need something like that to record my life (to be used in evidence when my kids start out with ... "Daddy, last weekend you said ...".

I don't think that bumps will bother an SLR too much, but I'm sure it would appreciate being in a foam lined box if possible (based on the theory that you can never be too careful, but you can be not careful enough). It would make an interesting youtube video to put an old one in a concrete mixer for 10 minutes and see how it fared afterwards - might need a lens hood on the lens for "protection" though

[Andy]

The helmet cam looks interesting.

Mine was an impulse buy at a bike shop but the 5MP wide version looks even more interesting

Wish I'd tried that concrete mixer test with my ex g/f's Nikon

[Colin Southern]

Mine was an impulse buy at a bike shop but the 5MP wide version looks even more interesting

Wish I'd tried that concrete mixer test with my ex g/f's Nikon

Women eh - can't live with 'em, can't shoot 'em either (speaking in purely photographic lingo!)

[I Simonius]

I studied EVERY lens comparison site and comparted lenses until I was going crosseyed before I bought my 'L" lenses.
What I have found after owning virtually every L lens under300mm is that they worth the extra, but forget the comparison charts, there is too much variation lens to lens to matter.

The 17-40 is one of the very best WA lenses and is a s good as any of the primes except in the corners, and is very light to carry. That matters to some ( like me) If really notice with my back if Im carrying heavy lenses for any time. BTW I had to send my 17-40 to Canon several times to get it right , but once fixed it is a cracking lens ( it was OOF down one side)

[will_c]

For some of us the issue is not 'the expensive zoom is effectively as sharp as the expensive prime', but getting quality for limited money, and if you don't actually need zoom then you can get results that are at least as good as an 'L' zoom with a 'consumer' prime, at least in the (very useful) 50-100mm range, at a quarter of the price, with a fraction of the bulk, and end up with an extra stop or two of optical speed up your sleeve. The main trade-off is having to put more effort in to get into position. Obviously if your subject is kilometres away, or likely to fly off at any moment, or you are in an awkward spot then that might not be practical. But people have done a lot with primes and that includes a reasonable fraction of what is worth doing at all. So it's not so much 'prime' versus 'zoom', but value for money for what you do.

[I Simonius]

I would agree that some lenses are optically as good as 'L' lenses, except wide open, (which is where the extra money tends to go).
e.g. the 50mm 1.4 and the 85 1.8

[altosax]

I second what rpcrowe says about the canon 17-55mm. I use it as a main lens on both my Canon 30D and 50D. It is an incredible, incredible lens.

regards


altosax

[altosax]

Here are some pics with a Canon 30D using 17-55mm IS, the Canon 135mm, and the Canon 70-200mm, non IS.
http://www.pbase.com/aldodefilippi/people_of_cuba
altosax

[Karlos Markus]

Great pictures altosax.