Bought my first "L"! Compare to Tamron! w/ pics

[Prophet]

The more and more I use it...I'm starting to reconsider my decision on a wide angle. Of course, its winter so landscapes are going to be tough. I was/am (at time of purchase) really considering the 70-200 f/4 L. Not sure how much I would use that either though. I figure I'm really putting it through its paces.... but I used it tonight and it was a real downer, but I think it was the shoot not the lens. Again, still learning....

-JD-

 

[benhasajeep]

The more and more I use it...I'm starting to reconsider my decision on a wide angle. Of course, its winter so landscapes are going to be tough. I was/am (at time of purchase) really considering the 70-200 f/4 L. Not sure how much I would use that either though. I figure I'm really putting it through its paces.... but I used it tonight and it was a real downer, but I think it was the shoot not the lens. Again, still learning....

-JD-

Your not really reconsidering you decision. Your just working up the nerve to explain why your going to buy another lens so soon.

 

[ksmattfish]

I own several L lenses, and they are wonderful lenses. For the price they darn well better be!

My point is that you should not be able to see the difference on your camera LCD between the cheapest, crappiest lens and the fanciest, most expensive lens. It's just too small. If you can then either the lens is broken or malfunctioning, or more likely it's operator error.

It is important that the tool user enjoy using their tools as well as have confidence in them. Enjoy your lenses.

 

[Prophet]

Your not really reconsidering you decision. Your just working up the nerve to explain why your going to buy another lens so soon.

Precisely!

I'm only reconsidering my choice because of the application. But I'm sure after tomorrow (Christmas) the thing is going to stay in my bag.

-JD-

 

[table1349]

Actually, they are both very good lenses and no one is scaring Prophet from purchasing an L lens. But a question comes to mind, aren't some of us Canon users going with the L lens just because it's a famous L lens? That, especially when another maker makes a comparable lens? Just curious about your thoughts.

I have a decent collection of L glass and for me at least, I don't find that I buy it because it is a "famous L. lens." For me buying glass is a very subjective process. I passed up the 50mm f1.2 and the 85 f1.2 as they neither suited my needs and opted instead for the 50 f1.4 and the 85 f1.8.

I have yet to find any other makers lenses in the 35mm range comparable to the 35 f1.4L Sigma's 30mm fell short. Sigma's 70-200 f2.8 is a close second to Canon's version but again not it's equal. I haven't tried the 24-70 f2.8L from Sigma as I already owned the Canon along with the 16-35 f2.8L. At the time I was buying there was nothing that competed with them and nobody has an equal to the 300mm f2.8 or the 400mm f2.8 although the Sigma 300 f2.8 was very impressive.

I don't think that there are too many photographers that by for the red ring alone. But once you get a taste for the quality, it is hard to find other lenses that are equal.

The Tamron 17-50 is from my experience optically equal to the 17-40 f4L and is a step faster. Build wise however it is not even close. At the time I needed the optical quality and speed over optical quality and build, and ended up with the Tamron.

 

[Prophet]

I have a decent collection of L glass and for me at least, I don't find that I buy it because it is a "famous L. lens." For me buying glass is a very subjective process. I passed up the 50mm f1.2 and the 85 f1.2 as they neither suited my needs and opted instead for the 50 f1.4 and the 85 f1.8.

I have yet to find any other makers lenses in the 35mm range comparable to the 35 f1.4L Sigma's 30mm fell short. Sigma's 70-200 f2.8 is a close second to Canon's version but again not it's equal. I haven't tried the 24-70 f2.8L from Sigma as I already owned the Canon along with the 16-35 f2.8L. At the time I was buying there was nothing that competed with them and nobody has an equal to the 300mm f2.8 or the 400mm f2.8 although the Sigma 300 f2.8 was very impressive.

I don't think that there are too many photographers that by for the red ring alone. But once you get a taste for the quality, it is hard to find other lenses that are equal.

The Tamron 17-50 is from my experience optically equal to the 17-40 f4L and is a step faster. Build wise however it is not even close. At the time I needed the optical quality and speed over optical quality and build, and ended up with the Tamron.

Thank you very much for your insight. I truly had no interest in the L till I tried it. I was going to the shop just to purchase the Tamron and like the Canon better. L or no L.

-JD-