JLMILLS
TPF Noob!
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2012
- Messages
- 27
- Reaction score
- 4
- Location
- Texas
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
This is my first post. I recently sold all of my Non-L glass and purchased L-series Canon Lenses. There is a huge difference in build quality, AF speed, controls, etc. However, I cannot tell any difference in picture quality. Actually, my 28-70 2.8L is so soft at 2.8, I prefer to carry the smaller 28-135 IS Kit. The IS allows me to shoot at F4 in similar light and produces sharper images vs. the L lens.
Yes, the aforementioned L-lens is 10yr old to the month. I purchased it second hand and it's in pristine shape.
MY QUESTION:
Is the technological gap over the last 10yrs so large that a cheap kit lens, made today, produces similar photographic results as the L's did a decade ago? Are my expectations unrealistic? I am satisfied with the photographic results, mind you, but I just expected a difference between the two, other than build quality and speed. Otherwise, I'll save the couple G's spent upgrading. I don't drop my lenses or bang them around so build quality hasn't been an issue. FYI I've been shooting for about 5 years as a hobby.
Honestly, I have never shot with a brand new L lens (or any other L) so I don't know what to expect. I have a 70-200 2.8L IS arriving in the mail Monday. I don't know what the date code on this one is and I hope it's newer. I don't anticipate it being more than 3-4yrs old.
I knew the age of the 10yr old lens when I purchased it.
All things equal, I am well aware of minimum shutter speeds vs. focal length vs. handheld vs. tripod vs. IS vs. Light vs. subject movement... as they pertain to sharpness (did I get all the variables there minus global ones like ISO and Aperture?)
My observations about the sharpness of the lens are not based on actually using the camera to take subject photos or on a job. They are based on controlled tests I've conducted indoors with props/charts/lighting/ etc.
When I joined, I filled out the part about my gear so I am assuming it will post at the bottom here like I've seen on your posts..is that considered a tag? (i'll see when I click submit
Yes, the aforementioned L-lens is 10yr old to the month. I purchased it second hand and it's in pristine shape.
MY QUESTION:
Is the technological gap over the last 10yrs so large that a cheap kit lens, made today, produces similar photographic results as the L's did a decade ago? Are my expectations unrealistic? I am satisfied with the photographic results, mind you, but I just expected a difference between the two, other than build quality and speed. Otherwise, I'll save the couple G's spent upgrading. I don't drop my lenses or bang them around so build quality hasn't been an issue. FYI I've been shooting for about 5 years as a hobby.
Honestly, I have never shot with a brand new L lens (or any other L) so I don't know what to expect. I have a 70-200 2.8L IS arriving in the mail Monday. I don't know what the date code on this one is and I hope it's newer. I don't anticipate it being more than 3-4yrs old.
I knew the age of the 10yr old lens when I purchased it.
All things equal, I am well aware of minimum shutter speeds vs. focal length vs. handheld vs. tripod vs. IS vs. Light vs. subject movement... as they pertain to sharpness (did I get all the variables there minus global ones like ISO and Aperture?)
My observations about the sharpness of the lens are not based on actually using the camera to take subject photos or on a job. They are based on controlled tests I've conducted indoors with props/charts/lighting/ etc.
When I joined, I filled out the part about my gear so I am assuming it will post at the bottom here like I've seen on your posts..is that considered a tag? (i'll see when I click submit