August 01, 2014, 11:17:45 PM

Author Topic: Do other lenses compete with the "look" of L primes?  (Read 5966 times)

picturesbyme

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 255
    • View Profile
    • AtlanticPicture.com
Re: Do other lenses compete with the "look" of L primes?
« Reply #15 on: December 27, 2012, 11:30:48 AM »
Love my 200mm 2.8L II
Sharp, the contrast and colors are a-w-e-s-o-m-e.  :)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Do other lenses compete with the "look" of L primes?
« Reply #15 on: December 27, 2012, 11:30:48 AM »

Drizzt321

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1668
    • View Profile
    • Aaron Baff Photography
Re: Do other lenses compete with the "look" of L primes?
« Reply #16 on: December 27, 2012, 11:38:37 AM »
Problem is that you are lumping all Canon L lenses into a certain class.  Like everything, some are better than others.  Some non-L's are better than older L's, etc.  The comparison you showed does not suprise me with the 35L.  The 35L I think is one of Canon's "weaker" L primes, whereas the 24L, 85L, 135L, and 200L are very strong.  (35L and 50L I don't particularly care for).  To answer your question regarding the 85L vs. 85 f/1.8 at let's say, f/2:  Yes, I think the 85L II does look better overall.  With the 50L and 50 f/1.4, I could never tell the difference in anything between these two lenses at f/2.

Thanks, your post really helped solidify what I should be thinking in terms of this order we're going to place.
I think the 85L is a must, the Sigma 35 is a no brainer (at least until reviews of Canon's replacement for the 35L), and the 50mm length can be covered by the 1.4 for awhile.

Would you guys suggest anything else to think about adding to the bill? I know there is an army of people supporting the 70-200 mkII, but I already love the look and personality of primes, and I just don't think I'd get as much enjoyment out of a zoom lens.

I think where you get an army of people supporting one of the 70-200L f/2.8 IS v2 is that it's quite sharp, fast, great IS, and very versatile and covers a fantastic short to mid telephoto for wedding/event type photography. Sure, you can have an 85mm, 100mm, 135mm, 200mm prime lenses, but when there is something happening right now, right this second, being able to go from 200mm down to 70mm quickly to get in on the action can literally let you get a shot you wouldn't otherwise.

That said, primes are awesome, and I'm going to (eventually) be getting some more of them. The one I'm lusting over is the 200L f/2, but that'll happen when I win the lotto. But if your style is completely primes, and you have a 2nd body so you can have a wider lens on one, and a longer lens on the other, with today's high megapixel cameras you can generally crop a decent amount and still get a fabulous print if you need to.
5D mark 2, 5D mark 3, EF 17-40mm f/4L,  EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, EF 135mm f/2L, EF 85mm f/1.8
Film Cameras: Mamiya RB67, RB-50, RB-180-C, RB-90-C, RB-50, Perkeo I folder, Mamiya Six Folder (Pre-WWII model)
http://www.aaronbaff.com

westr70

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 177
    • View Profile
Re: Do other lenses compete with the "look" of L primes?
« Reply #17 on: December 27, 2012, 01:53:49 PM »
I love the 135mm.  It's a magical lens. 
5DIII; 600D; 7D; 100-400mm, f4.5-5.6; EFS-18-135, f3.5-5.6; 100mm, f2.8 IS; 70-200mm, F4 L IS; 17-40mm, f4 L USM; Sigma 50 mm, f2.8.
http://500px.com/Westr70
http://www.facebook.com/JohnFosterPhotography

Hobby Shooter

  • Guest
Re: Do other lenses compete with the "look" of L primes?
« Reply #18 on: December 27, 2012, 06:22:12 PM »
Problem is that you are lumping all Canon L lenses into a certain class.  Like everything, some are better than others.  Some non-L's are better than older L's, etc.  The comparison you showed does not suprise me with the 35L.  The 35L I think is one of Canon's "weaker" L primes, whereas the 24L, 85L, 135L, and 200L are very strong.  (35L and 50L I don't particularly care for).  To answer your question regarding the 85L vs. 85 f/1.8 at let's say, f/2:  Yes, I think the 85L II does look better overall.  With the 50L and 50 f/1.4, I could never tell the difference in anything between these two lenses at f/2.
Hmm, coming from one of the guys I really respects on this forum I will now look at my 35L im a different way from now on.  :D Seriously, about the 35L, if you disregard the last few weeks with people suddenly considering the new Sigma 35 as a gift from god the only real criticism Ive read about that lens is the lack of weather sealing. I love that lens, it's my only prime and Ive taken some magic pictures with it. On the other hand, photography is not what puts food on the table in my house.

No, haha, I don't mean the 35L is a bad lens at all.  It is a great lens.  Look at it compared to Canon's 35 f/2 lens.  It is much better.  So with regards to the 35L, it certainly fits the question of whether the L lens has a different look.  It certainly does!  I was just comparing to the other L primes, which is stiff competition I agree.

Phew, thanks man. Now I can put it back on and start using it again  :P

bdunbar79

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2558
    • View Profile
Re: Do other lenses compete with the "look" of L primes?
« Reply #19 on: December 27, 2012, 07:42:09 PM »
Problem is that you are lumping all Canon L lenses into a certain class.  Like everything, some are better than others.  Some non-L's are better than older L's, etc.  The comparison you showed does not suprise me with the 35L.  The 35L I think is one of Canon's "weaker" L primes, whereas the 24L, 85L, 135L, and 200L are very strong.  (35L and 50L I don't particularly care for).  To answer your question regarding the 85L vs. 85 f/1.8 at let's say, f/2:  Yes, I think the 85L II does look better overall.  With the 50L and 50 f/1.4, I could never tell the difference in anything between these two lenses at f/2.
Hmm, coming from one of the guys I really respects on this forum I will now look at my 35L im a different way from now on.  :D Seriously, about the 35L, if you disregard the last few weeks with people suddenly considering the new Sigma 35 as a gift from god the only real criticism Ive read about that lens is the lack of weather sealing. I love that lens, it's my only prime and Ive taken some magic pictures with it. On the other hand, photography is not what puts food on the table in my house.

No, haha, I don't mean the 35L is a bad lens at all.  It is a great lens.  Look at it compared to Canon's 35 f/2 lens.  It is much better.  So with regards to the 35L, it certainly fits the question of whether the L lens has a different look.  It certainly does!  I was just comparing to the other L primes, which is stiff competition I agree.

Phew, thanks man. Now I can put it back on and start using it again  :P

Your first problem here is that you're listening to what I say :).
2 x 1DX
Big Ten, GLIAC, NCAC

Hobby Shooter

  • Guest
Re: Do other lenses compete with the "look" of L primes?
« Reply #20 on: December 28, 2012, 01:13:28 AM »
Problem is that you are lumping all Canon L lenses into a certain class.  Like everything, some are better than others.  Some non-L's are better than older L's, etc.  The comparison you showed does not suprise me with the 35L.  The 35L I think is one of Canon's "weaker" L primes, whereas the 24L, 85L, 135L, and 200L are very strong.  (35L and 50L I don't particularly care for).  To answer your question regarding the 85L vs. 85 f/1.8 at let's say, f/2:  Yes, I think the 85L II does look better overall.  With the 50L and 50 f/1.4, I could never tell the difference in anything between these two lenses at f/2.
Hmm, coming from one of the guys I really respects on this forum I will now look at my 35L im a different way from now on.  :D Seriously, about the 35L, if you disregard the last few weeks with people suddenly considering the new Sigma 35 as a gift from god the only real criticism Ive read about that lens is the lack of weather sealing. I love that lens, it's my only prime and Ive taken some magic pictures with it. On the other hand, photography is not what puts food on the table in my house.

No, haha, I don't mean the 35L is a bad lens at all.  It is a great lens.  Look at it compared to Canon's 35 f/2 lens.  It is much better.  So with regards to the 35L, it certainly fits the question of whether the L lens has a different look.  It certainly does!  I was just comparing to the other L primes, which is stiff competition I agree.

Phew, thanks man. Now I can put it back on and start using it again  :P

Your first problem here is that you're listening to what I say :).

Well I'll actually continue with that I'm afraid. Without a guiding light I would simply be lost.  ;D

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Do other lenses compete with the "look" of L primes?
« Reply #20 on: December 28, 2012, 01:13:28 AM »