Once you go "L" you'll never go back....

[brought1]

sorry,  i am not and will not believe it though i do own some L lenses, plus 50 f/1.4, one of them is the one that you were using to take that pic which is 70-200mm is ii.  why do i not believe it? very simple to me since i am having been studying about digital zone and lighting (still continue to learn with flash).  i do not have that much experience but i might be able to tell what exposure should be used by taking a look at current lighting condition (will force myself more into this area when having more time.)

i am not talking about white balance, i am talking about skin tone of your subject (unless there is a problem with his skin), his outfit and black color on chair makes me hard to believe it.

Lol...I don't know what to say..lol  other than hopefully you find a combo-match the wields the results you're after.  As for me, I get this kind of result with my 40D/70-200 2.8 II just about every time.  Because of the crop factor, I don't generally use it often as it's too long of a focal range for some of the work I do.  Plus, with my 5D, there's no need for me to use it...as my images with the 5D and 70-200 are just brilliant. 

I like Charlie B's comments about L Glass....especially the last part of "Get the lens that does the job"  I completely agree...100%

I love using my 70-200 for portraits, however, to be honest, unless i'm trying to impress my clientele or something...I generally stick with my 85 1.8 - and shoot between F2.0 and F4.  It's a magnificent lens!  It's quality rivals and surpasses just about any "L" lens.  Plus, unless I feel the need to constantly use it at F1.2, then there's no need to get the 1.2 and spend an extra 5x's the amount. 


I've been fortunate enough to work as a Studio Photographer and work beside the manager who studied at the Art Institute of Seattle and learn how to approach people and get the facial expressions....the posing...the lighting...everything. However, it was not easy!!!  Let me be very clear - here was a lesson on lighting I received:

"Luis - How do I get the lighting to look like this magazine?"

"J, take this light and put it here....take that light...put a grid on it and place it here...your fill light, flip it around so it bounces off the wall at 1/2 power, place your hair light off to the side...Oh...I'm getting a phone call, Um...J, let's continue this lesson in a few days from now...?


These were my lessons. lol ....So after he left, I would practice that light set-up for about an hour until I achieved the look I was after.  And so on and so on...until I realized I didn't need him or anyone else to show me how to light a subject.  I could just look at a magazine and instantly know how and what was used to achieve the lighting. 

Now, to get back to the topic....When I would use a non fixed zoom lens, for indoor studio work, the fluctuating FStop between different focal lengths drove me CRAZY!!  I wouldn't use a 50mm on a FF Camera, because I would be right up in their face a few feet away to get the same perspective/ on a step ladder shooting down....the 70-200 would've been great except I wasn't just shooting headshots all day long...It was a full Studio...They didn't have an 85....instead they figured EF-S 18-135 lenses would suffice....Don't get me wrong...that's a wonderful lens, however, the fluctuating F stop on that drove me crazy.  So until I started bringing my lenses because I couldn't stand theirs....image quality was decent....Once they saw the brilliance in quality with the 85 or heck..even my 24-70 ( I don't care what people say about this lens...my copy is TACK-SHARP) they went bananas. 

Some people take wonderful images with mediocre equipment...and that's OK.  But one lesson I learned early on....is that if someone is paying you $2,000 + for a photo-shoot, you ought to have better equipment than the they do.  Otherwise...unfortunately, they start telling everyone that they have the same equipment as you and that they should've taken the photos themselves...and saved a few thousand dollars.  This happened to one of my friends and they got some bad rap for it.    If you're a professional and use mediocre equipment, then make sure your  ( you know what) doesn't stink, because I guarantee they will look and hire someone soley based on their equipment.  And if you think i'm wrong...than prove it!  Take a $400-500 camera to your next $3,000 wedding and see what kind of looks you get. 

Anyways, great posts everyone!  I appreciate all the wonderful feedback!

J     ( And i'm based out of Washington State.)

[trygved]

While I love my 24-105, I don't feel it, or any other L lens is required in order to get great results.
It's just required to get the best results.
I recently went to a wedding as a guest equipped with a T2i and a Rokinon 85mm.
While it may not be a low light king, paired with a fast prime it holds its weight just fine.
Sitting around $800 for the entire setup, being less than a single L lens, I consider the results peachy.
Of course it's all subjective; I've attached some downres samples.

While I understand the rant, I feel too much emphasis is being put on the equipment and not enough on the skillset of the photographer. I'm not familiar with the Pentax system, but it seems a flat profile could have made a world of difference. But then again, what do I know.

[brought1]

I won't post anymore on this topic....people either understand or they don't.  And those that don't, chances are haven't had the opportunity to work with great equipment....So be it...


It's like a race-car driver.  The driver wants the best equipped vehicle to win the race.  He doesn't want a jalopy and with his magnificent driving technique....and hope that he will win.  He wants to win.   

Someone that is not a race-car driver, not driving in the race doesn't care about what type of car he has...because he will drive whatever and be happy. 

More than likely, the non race-car driver will not aspire to be a race-car driver and therefore does not see the merit of having a race-car. 

Look around at your favorite photographers.....which of them use sub-par equipment? If you're unsure about yourself as a photographer, then take a class...hire a mentor....read more books...practice your technique...learn to be a better photographer. 

You'll quickly learn the limitations of your equipment.  And if you're happy with them....then so be it....But on the other hand, there are a lot of photographers that require the best for their clients and Sub-par equipment just won't cut it. 

So...Buy "L" lenses... don't buy them...I don't care!  I really don't.  If you loose customers because you continue to "Get-buy" on your equipment and don't continue to learn your craft as a photographer...then I have no pity for you. 

I'm sorry for being so condescending...and a little snipe...Although everyone is entitled to their opinion....I realize I don't care anymore....I continue to achieve beautiful and beautiful results time and time again....And although my technique continues to get better, I have found that my results are skyrocketing...because of my equipment's ability to physically produce a quality digital image....I have people all over that request one on one's with me and continue to ask about my "Secrets" to achieving a stunning result...and my answer doesn't waiver...

Learn your craft.....use the equipment that will not hinder your ability to achieve the very best results.  If you're not sure about how your results stack-up... choose a few of your favorite photographers and compare your results to them.  If you're happy...then great...If you feel you have some work....then get to work to be a better photographer....whatever that means to you.!

[funkboy]

Get the lens that does the job.

You nailed it.

That's true, of course, up point.  But some gear has a lot of limitations to work around.  You can take good photos with a Pentax K-x (I briefly owned one as a back-up for a K-5 before switching to a 5DII), but it isn't very impressive in low light and won't win any prizes for focus accuracy

The point I was making earlier is that my brother has a bunch of cheap gear, but when he does a gig he brings the *right* gear.  He knows that he needs to shoot low light with lenses like the nifty 50 and has a lot of experience with it, and gets good (often great) results with the 400D.  The kit zoom comes out when there's enough light to stop it down to at least f/8.  Would his shots be a little better and would he get more keepers if he had an 85L and a mkIII?  Of course.  But he brings the *right* cheap gear for the job and really knows how to use it, so his clients are happy.

If the O.P. didn't verify that his buddy Mr. Pentax had some kind of fast prime & figure out his max acceptable ISO before asking him to shoot low light then I can't show too much sympathy...

[wickidwombat]

the statement is true to an extent however there are only a handfull of L lenses better than the sigma 85 f1.4
regardless of cost and focal length and they are all the seriously expensive massive and heavy ones.

also IMO the new sigma 50mm f1.4 is better than all the canon 50mm lenses

the 40mm pancake is sharper and better accross the frame than the 24-70 f2.8L mk1 at 40mm the center is similar but edges and corners the 40mm dominates heavily.

[trygved]

the 40mm pancake is sharper and better accross the frame than the 24-70 f2.8L mk1 at 40mm the center is similar but edges and corners the 40mm dominates heavily.

The pancake is the cat's pajamas!
And the IQ on some of the Siggy primes are so good! though I prefer the build quality of their L counterparts.

[gmrza]

the statement is true to an extent however there are only a handfull of L lenses better than the sigma 85 f1.4
regardless of cost and focal length and they are all the seriously expensive massive and heavy ones.

also IMO the new sigma 50mm f1.4 is better than all the canon 50mm lenses

the 40mm pancake is sharper and better accross the frame than the 24-70 f2.8L mk1 at 40mm the center is similar but edges and corners the 40mm dominates heavily.

Another lens which I enjoy, which is not an L series, it does not have the best build quality in the world, but in its time it was the only one which Canon produced is the 15mm f/2.8 fisheye.  - As I said, not L series, not the best build quality, but a fun lens.

[Act444]

I look at it this way: Every camera has its limits. Lower-cost cameras (and phone cams) tend to have much tighter limits than professional-level models, for example. But- if you learn those limits and work within them, you can get great shots with anything.

[picturesbyme]

the statement is true to an extent however there are only a handfull of L lenses better than the sigma 85 f1.4
regardless of cost and focal length and they are all the seriously expensive massive and heavy ones.

also IMO the new sigma 50mm f1.4 is better than all the canon 50mm lenses

the 40mm pancake is sharper and better accross the frame than the 24-70 f2.8L mk1 at 40mm the center is similar but edges and corners the 40mm dominates heavily.

+1