normal vs EF L glass difference

[vd853]

I shot this a couple of months ago in case anybody is considering buying their first EF-L lens.

 

[KmH]

Your example is essentially useless. We should all expect a pro lens to out perform a consumer lens. Even if they aren't the same brand.

If your comparison showed, as the first image, a picture made with a canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 (not a pro lens) your example would still be pretty much useless.

The hot setup would have been to compare an image made with the canon EF 70-200 m f/2.8L 9A pro lens) with an image made with the EF 70-200 mm F/4L (a pro lens). That would have some real value.

 

[Derrel]

Why is your moon shot done with the D60 so noisy? The moon is a sunlighted object....the exposure for the moon is the same as a full sunlight shot. What ISO did you have the Nikon cranked up to?

Did you think the moon was a nightitime exposure and have the ISO set to 1600 or something?

I would also love to see a comparison done of an interior living room shot done with the Nikon lens at 18mm, and the same framing of the scene but shot with the Canon from across the street, shooting through the sliding glass door with the lens set at 200mm, to give an equal field of view to the Nikon 18mm shot.

18-200mm VR versus 70-200 IS comparison? Why?

Moon shots....so 2001....

 

[usayit]

Vignette.... on the first one...

 

[KmH]

Nikon's super zoom 18-200 is not a stellar performer, even by consumer glass standards. It has a lot of barrel distortion and quite soft focus at 200mm.