Why you should spend money on a better lens, not a better body...

[Overread22]

wow, I am actually surprised at how much better those are than I thought they would be at f/5.6!

make sure you click on view all sizes!! some of them look a lot sharper at their flickr resizings than they are fullsize. However on a 50D camera body I would expect you to get a bit better out of the combo than my 400D.

also Derral - I think you're lost

 

[robertwsimpson]

Yes, I viewed them at full size... They're not bad. The goal is to not crop. If I can make use of all 15 MP on my camera, I'm happy! I'm not expecting to 100% crop my 400mm photos... I'm never that far away from what I'm shooting anyway.

 

[robertwsimpson]

Also, in the lens' defense, you were shooting ISO 400 and it looks like you've got some noise reduction going on... That definitely removes detail. I'd be interested to see your RAW files if you shot in RAW...

 

[Overread22]

You know that's the first time I noticed that they were all at ISO 400
I should really do some more tests oneday!

 

[robertwsimpson]

send me your TC. I'll do some tests and let you know the results.

 

[Overread22]

I can't fit the TC into an email

 

[Dao]

I can't fit the TC into an email

Use your hammer.

 

[robertwsimpson]

I have gmail, so big attachments aren't a problem.

 

[DerekSalem]

I think he's saying you have a real keeper lens that will be passed down for generations of camera bodies. In 10 years, that'll still be one of the best 70-200mm lenses ever made, the XTi will be ancient history though..

Congrats on that lens, gives me terrible gear envy..
I see you've also got the (Tamron?) 17-50 f/2.8 - that's another amazing piece of glass if I can say so myself..

Actually buying one of those very lightly used from a friend today for $360 lol with that my set will be complete! Loving my 70-200 f/4L IS and my nifty fifty. Probably upgrade to the 70-200 f/2.8 IS MkII some day but the extra $1200+ is a bit daunting. Already spent that much on this lens

 

[robertwsimpson]

I got the tamron from not a friend on craigslist for 350 bucks... i win!

 

[burstintoflame81]

Is that an L lens? To be honest, I wasn't that impressed with the second two shots. The first shot looks good in terms of sharpness, but the second two don't look any better than I could get on my $160 tamron. I don't mean this as an insult, just an observation. I would advise against a 2x TC. Look up all of the reviews. Usually the 2x TCs degrade image quality to an unsatisfactory level. I had a Kenko 2x and it was garbage, manual focus and very flat soft pics. I actually just bought the Kenko 1.4 pro300 DGX model and with the few test shots I took on my Canon 70-300 IS, I am very happy. It even autofocuses in daylight which is good. Only issue is that it makes my IS constantly jump to try and stabalize. Once I focus, it stops, but after the shot is taken, it resumes, so I have to turn IS off when just walking around.

 

[Overread22]

Burstintoflames (BIF) you have to remember you are looking at shots that are at least 1/3rd if not smaller than their original size on the net. At that size one can get a very sharp looking shot with even minor sharpening - sharping in stages and refinfed sharpening methods can get even more apparent quality out of the image.
Thus when it comes to comparing lenses its very hard to do so from web images because the lens has to be truly horrific to appear soft (of course that assumse that the photographer is making no mistakes and that the lighting is good). Of course comparing top brand L primes to an entry level zoom even at websize there will be differences in sharpness, but not as hugly noticable.


The difference is however when you view larger versions of the photo or if you crop a lot - a higher grade lens will give you a higher grade larger image to work with and that means you can use it larger and/or crop it more heavily without as much degradation of the final works.

 

[burstintoflame81]

Burstintoflames (BIF) you have to remember you are looking at shots that are at least 1/3rd if not smaller than their original size on the net. At that size one can get a very sharp looking shot with even minor sharpening - sharping in stages and refinfed sharpening methods can get even more apparent quality out of the image.
Thus when it comes to comparing lenses its very hard to do so from web images because the lens has to be truly horrific to appear soft (of course that assumse that the photographer is making no mistakes and that the lighting is good). Of course comparing top brand L primes to an entry level zoom even at websize there will be differences in sharpness, but not as hugly noticable.


The difference is however when you view larger versions of the photo or if you crop a lot - a higher grade lens will give you a higher grade larger image to work with and that means you can use it larger and/or crop it more heavily without as much degradation of the final works.

Agreed, but the purpose of this thread was to show the superiority of higher quality glass as opposed to higher quality camera bodies. So if you can't see a good enough difference in web sized images, then it makes this whole thread rather pointless Besides, I have seen plenty of shots on Flickr using Canon "L" glass that blow me away and I could DEFINATELY not get with my 70-300. So I am not arguing the OPs point, just merely pointing out the lack of impressiveness if you are trying to drive a point home. I also did not mean it in a malicious way, just an honest assessment.

 

[robertwsimpson]

Thanks burstintoflames I'll definitely lock this information away for later!

 

[GeneralBenson]

Burstintoflames (BIF) you have to remember you are looking at shots that are at least 1/3rd if not smaller than their original size on the net. At that size one can get a very sharp looking shot with even minor sharpening - sharping in stages and refinfed sharpening methods can get even more apparent quality out of the image.
Thus when it comes to comparing lenses its very hard to do so from web images because the lens has to be truly horrific to appear soft (of course that assumse that the photographer is making no mistakes and that the lighting is good). Of course comparing top brand L primes to an entry level zoom even at websize there will be differences in sharpness, but not as hugly noticable.


The difference is however when you view larger versions of the photo or if you crop a lot - a higher grade lens will give you a higher grade larger image to work with and that means you can use it larger and/or crop it more heavily without as much degradation of the final works.

I think that was BIF's point. They don't look sharp at all. The first one is decently sharp, but I would expect to see that kind of sharpness from a 100% crop. The other do wouldn't even be considered sharp if they were 100%. Just like BIF, I'm not trying to be inflammatory or insulting, I'm just agreeing with him that if they were supposed to illustrate the a $1800 lens on a entry level camera yields sharp photos, they didn't do that.

I'm not saying that 70-200L can't take sharp shots. It's the most popular professional lens. But If I were the OP, I would be concerned if that's the best that copy can put out. Hopefully he's getting much better results with his 50D.