Rebel T1i

[Kavvz]

heh heh...the odd thing is... larger aperture means smaller the f stop value...

i'm guessing you are not too familiar with DSLR's yet...

so f2.8 or 1.4 etc is much larger aperture than say F4 or F8

No sadly am yet to join the ranks. At this point I am merely a wistful observer...

[Kavvz]

The words you are looking for is "Focal Range" not range of focus.

Ah, yes, there we go. Thank you for that and the background info on some of the lenses mentioned- Its much appreciated.

Edited March 27, 2009 by Kavvz

[Pericles]

No sadly am yet to join the ranks. At this point I am merely a wistful observer...

You actually don't need an SLR to understand that. You can play with it with any camera that has a manual mode. Aperture, shutter speed and ISO are the holy trinity of Exposure, from smallest compact to SLR.

Actually, the Largest f stop was a f0.95. Canon

[Pericles]

Yes indeed, that 70-200mm is a sweet lens...

http://yeeeah.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/...pl89720_006.jpg

http://yeeeah.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/...pl89720_008.jpg

[Kavvz]

Yes indeed, that 70-200mm is a sweet lens...

http://yeeeah.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/...pl89720_006.jpg

http://yeeeah.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/...pl89720_008.jpg

lol. Now THAT is a lens I can relate to

[Pericles]

I love this game

http://www.nba.com/multimedia/photo_galler.../content.3.html

And when you stop drooling over the Laker Girls, note the Canon L series primes those photog have on the 4. I think the one on the left is an EF 400mm f2.8L IS USM, and next to it is possibly a EF 400mm f4L DO IS USM.

[Kavvz]

I love this game

http://www.nba.com/multimedia/photo_galler.../content.3.html

And when you stop drooling over the Laker Girls, note the Canon L series primes those photog have on the 4. I think the one on the left is an EF 400mm f2.8L IS USM, and next to it is possibly a EF 400mm f4L DO IS USM.

Never really been a fan of cheerleaders, probably 'cos I know I have absolutely no chance with them but holy cow! Who the hell buys a $7k lens and then sticks it nonchalantly face down on the floor!??

Edited March 28, 2009 by Kavvz

[Saturn]

that would be the ef-s 55-250mm IS... Not a bad lens for the price but its no where in quality when compared to L glass of the similar zoom range...

I also have the same lens and last weekend had the chance to play with a EF 70-200mm F2.8L... And man the quality difference is instant...

i would love to own that lens if it wasn't so pricey

Hmm.. tell me more about the difference you spotted? As strange as it sounds I didn't find much difference between my consumer and L zooms (90-300/70-200f2.8), especially when it comes to close ups. True, at distance, the resolving power of the L lens shows immediately (and the extra stop makes a difference in bokeh/low light). In it's defense, the 90-300 is an exceptionally good quality lens.

I guess there are many differences in contrast/color reproduction, also the L is full frame OK vs the 90-300 being crop sensor only.

To give an example, in a photograph in my room, I could spot no difference in resolving ability between the L and the 90-300, whereas in a photo of the moon, there was a clear difference (the L was much sharper). This is something that has puzzled me quite a bit and I'm putting it down to my sensor which is a 6mp older generation. I will be upgrading to a 10.1mp sensor and then I'll try some tests and see if I can find much difference.

update: here's a link to an image test I did with 4 lenses. This isn't very scientific but it gives a rough idea how those lenses may compare in real world usage. Each image is a 100% crop of a photo taken at about 10 feet with mostly default camera settings (except the 50mm which is much closer as I tried to get the same level of zoom - so I guess the 50mm may be 1/4 the distance away from the target, as the other photos are at approx 200mm each

http://i42.tinypic.com/18ocpd.jpg

On an unrelated note, of the few lenses I own, the one I use the most is the 50mm prime. Ironically this is the cheapest, and it is very practical for normal usage. Quality wise it is on par or better than the f.2.8 - it does have a weakness of poor focus in low light..

Edited March 29, 2009 by Saturn

[Saturn]

Never really been a fan of cheerleaders, probably 'cos I know I have absolutely no chance with them but holy cow! Who the hell buys a $7k lens and then sticks it nonchalantly face down on the floor!??

Actually those lenses are meant to be rested face down like that. L superzooms are built like tanks. Those things are heavy as hell and solid. If you check kenrockwell.com theres a guy who dropped a 70-200 off an elephant onto a concrete floor, and it still works.

Edited March 29, 2009 by Saturn

[Kavvz]

Actually those lenses are meant to be rested face down like that. L superzooms are built like tanks. Those things are heavy as hell and solid. If you check kenrockwell.com theres a guy who dropped a 70-200 off an elephant onto a concrete floor, and it still works.

Really? my first thought at seeing the picture was: It aint going to be pretty if one of those lenses gets knocked over. They are all going down like dominos. The second was: Geez, those cheerleaders look old.

(Oh and kenrockwell.com was a pretty cool site to browse through. Thank you for the reference.)

Edited March 29, 2009 by Kavvz

[Saturn]

Yeap, true:

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM Telephoto Zoom Lens = CAN$ 1380

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Telephoto Zoom Lens = CAN$ 2099

And this price difference is because of the different maximum aperture size I suppose? But then doesn't that mean that the one with the larger aperture size (the 1st lens) should be the one to cost more and not vice-versa?

The f4 lens is the smaller aperture - the f2.8 lets in 2X the light as the f4.

[Pericles]

You actually don't need an SLR to understand that. You can play with it with any camera that has a manual mode. Aperture, shutter speed and ISO are the holy trinity of Exposure, from smallest compact to SLR.

In ref to that holy trinity-

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=249006

Covers the basic "must know" parts if you ever feel like doing some manual mode photography.

[Kavvz]

In ref to that holy trinity-

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=249006

Covers the basic "must know" parts if you ever feel like doing some manual mode photography.

Excellent! Thanks a ton

[Ripper]

saturn

the L series i tried was a lot sharper and more crisper in details as opposed to my ef-s 55-250is...

with my 50D...we shot a few folks that were barely 10ft away with both lenses and with the L lens...even individual eye lash hair was pretty detailed...

I mostly noticed the sharpness but according to Luxman and also Devaka, the colors too are far better with the L...

These two gentleman are pro snappers and the former is one of the best in SL imho... The man has a Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS USM among his lens collection...

i suppose you need the higher MP count also to notice the greatness of the L...maybe a reason why you don't notice that much with your 6MP...just a thought

Edited March 31, 2009 by Ripper

[Pericles]

Bit of a toss up.

XSi with EF-S 55-250mm IS

XTi with EF 70-200mm f4L

Minutes apart, but very late in the evening with light fading fast, not sure what the chronological order is. Images should link to pages allowing viewing in larger size and viewing the exif. Mine has about 0 post processing. Dunno how much his has. Which do you prefer?

[Ripper]

Bit of a toss up.

XSi with EF-S 55-250mm IS

XTi with EF 70-200mm f4L

Minutes apart, but very late in the evening with light fading fast, not sure what the chronological order is. Images should link to pages allowing viewing in larger size and viewing the exif. Mine has about 0 post processing. Dunno how much his has. Which do you prefer?

imho... the ef-s 55-250 is s super lens for the price... but when compared to L's it really falls short...

But to notice and take advantage of the L's you gotta be using a decent camera and good skills behind the lens...

After using that L...i thought i'll never buy the ef-s or the non-l ef series lenses... even if i have to wait another 5 years or so the next lens would be an L

most probably the 70-200...

[Pericles]

imho... the ef-s 55-250 is s super lens for the price... but when compared to L's it really falls short...

But to notice and take advantage of the L's you gotta be using a decent camera and good skills behind the lens...

After using that L...i thought i'll never buy the ef-s or the non-l ef series lenses... even if i have to wait another 5 years or so the next lens would be an L

most probably the 70-200...

I can see where your coming from, but really, it is a question of good enough. First question, what are you taking pictures for? Are you planning to print out poster sized pics?

Personally, my thought process went like this. Majority of my shooting is destined for web use, not print. Typically resized fairly small to make for easier uploading. If all your going to do is upload to Face book, then the resolving power of an L lens is pretty much wasted even when cropping a fairly small area. With this in mind, reach was more important to take dramatic shots than just IQ. Therefore, 55-250mm wins out over the somewhat shorter length 70-200mm. No use paying twice the price for a lens with about 80mm shorter (35mm equiv) and lacking IS, which is useful at the longer lengths planned for use. Offers less than a one stop advantage at 200mm, and the IS will counter that advantage quite nicely.

Besides getting this of a dude near the base of the scoreboard while sitting in the upper grand stand is pretty good.

The top of the scoreboard is resolved like this

Heck you can almost make out the stitching on the ball in this one!

And this is after severe cropping, saving with high compression to make uploading easier, and that crappy resize job the FB uploader does. (I just downloaded the images I have up on FB)

[Ripper]

Peri

good points all round... the thing is...My needs are more towards printing in offset at large output levels though at present i'm just clicking for fun... already i've used some of the shots i've taken for some commercial purposes.. going up to billboards

So sharpness, higher rez, ability to blow up into large sizes are all pretty important...

I have no doubts that our present lenses are pretty darn good for the money and gives you good results...but if the same shot was taken with an L with same hardware and talent behind the pic...going upto larger sizes/croppings are far superior on L lenses...

It all comes down to what you want out of ya pics i suppose...

and maybe that's also why most commercial canon snappers are swearing on L's

[Pericles]

It all comes down to what you want out of ya pics i suppose...

and maybe that's also why most commercial canon snappers are swearing on L's

Yes indeed. Thats why I also want one for my wildlife stuff. I'd like to frame some if I am lucky enough to capture something real nice

[Saturn]

saturn

the L series i tried was a lot sharper and more crisper in details as opposed to my ef-s 55-250is...

with my 50D...we shot a few folks that were barely 10ft away with both lenses and with the L lens...even individual eye lash hair was pretty detailed...

I mostly noticed the sharpness but according to Luxman and also Devaka, the colors too are far better with the L...

These two gentleman are pro snappers and the former is one of the best in SL imho... The man has a Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS USM among his lens collection...

i suppose you need the higher MP count also to notice the greatness of the L...maybe a reason why you don't notice that much with your 6MP...just a thought

The 70-200L is extraordinary. I still am learning how to use it.

I don't think MP's make the difference. Anyway, here's a photo I just took

(70-200@f8, 10.1mpix/fine, sharpening +1)

View it full size and take a look at the detail in the bark, far right bottom, its pretty good

Another image, 90-300 @f9, 6mpix I think, sharpening 0

Similar coconut tree, 70-200@f8 10.1 mpix, sharpening +1

Note, the jpeg artifacts are due to cropping it and re-saving it, and are not present in the original

Note: looks like my white balance is all wrong . All images are 100% crops

Edited March 31, 2009 by Saturn

[Ripper]

maybe it's the jpeg compression but i think my cheapo ef-s too can get this level of detail...

btw.... any new updates on ya flickr page...

also on MP count and sharpness... i think cameras with a certain MP levels only shoots at say 350dpi... so that actually has a lot to do with sharpness IMHO but maybe i'm wrong

and here's an interesting debate on MP count and certain CCD's vs' cheap and high-end lenses

it's a long but quite informative review and counter comments

http://www.amazon.com/review/R1R183ILECWRG...#R1R183ILECWRGY

Edited March 31, 2009 by Ripper

[Overdrive]

look at what I caught with the 70-200 yesterday. (not enough reach). "Marine one", Obama's Heli flying over my house. I didn't know what it was as the time untill i zoomed in on my PC. He's here now for the G20 summit.

[Saturn]

wow

[Ripper]

look at what I caught with the 70-200 yesterday. (not enough reach). "Marine one", Obama's Heli flying over my house. I didn't know what it was as the time untill i zoomed in on my PC. He's here now for the G20 summit.

wow...that's so cool mate!

[Saturn]

Here's another attempt to compare the two (100% center crop) - max telephoto, distance 100 - 200 feet (see full size)

no post processing except crop and re-save

settings 10.1mpix, digic 3, sharp +1, daylight ISO, ISO 400 (I think) and JPG quality L2 (in original)

@ f8, with a lot of care, the 90300 can match the 70-200.

1. Focus is obviously more vague on the 90-300 and the 70-200 delivers consitent results much more often

2. 70-200 is full frame capable, 90-300 is 1.6focv

3. 90-300 max aperture at telephoto is 5 70-200 is 2,8, which is more than a full stop more.

This particular example of a 90-300 is very very good quality, and seems to beat most other consumer zooms - as seen here it can even take on the L

Edited April 2, 2009 by Saturn