Is L glass that good?

Another post made me think of this question...
Would an "L" zoom, or it's other brand equivalent, be good enough to
make prime lenses obsolete?
Just curious what other's opinions would be.

=?iso-8859-1?Q?TheDave=A9?=

Re: Is L glass that good?

How good is "that" good? Canon's "L" lenses usually outperform their
standard lenses and have better construction. Whether they are worth the
substantial increase in cost is a judgement call. Often small increases in
quality are obscured by other factors, such as the technique and skill of
the photographer.
Doug


Doug Robbins

Re: Is L glass that good?

Don't you know Nixon cameras have the best lenses? They're always
recording something...
"Rosemary, stop that!!!"


Thebokehking

Re: Is L glass that good?

LOL. I had just been hitting the "Next" button through the thread
"You know the best thing about George Bush",
which had diverged to several previous presidents,
when this message came up. I read it as:


Scenic_man

Re: Is L glass that good?

For inside shooting with avaliable light a tripod is not much use.
There will be cases where I simply don't have enough light to shoot at
1/60 and mgiht have to drop down to say 1/15, in which case I will want
to use a triopod if posible. But in these cases I am really fighting
motion blur from people moving and so I want the fastest lens I have.
If I am shooting people it would be very rare for me to choose shooting
at f/3.5 and a 1/15 of a second over f/1.8 and 1/60 second. So even
when I use a tripod I want to have a prime lens.
Scott


Scott W

Re: Is L glass that good?

In article <vmn6h.17799$T%3.5302@blueberry.telenet-ops.be>,
According Nikon, the 200/2 VR weighs more than my 300/2.8. In my experience,
using the 300/2.8 handheld is an option, but it is not very pleasant.
True.
of equipment,
No, it is just that I almost never used my 50/1.4 at f/1.4 in low light
because in just about all cases I wanted more DoF.
--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency


Philip@ue.aioy.eu (Philip Homburg)

Re: Is L glass that good?

Nikon does have a 200mm f/2.0. Actually, a 200mm f/2.0 AF-S VR that you'd
happily use without a tripod.
Moreover you forget that tripod's only make up for camera shake, not for subject
movement. Different styles of photography require different types of equipment,
it's not because in your type of photography a tripod largely or entirely
removes the need for very large apertures that it does for everyone else.
--
Jan Keirse - +32 (0)485/089.786
http://jankeirse.free.fr


Jan Keirse

Re: Is L glass that good?

In article <tua6h2509f0aal08qkhecr4keqt723lulb@4ax.com>,
What you really need in low light is a tripod. Why compromise DoF by
leaving a simple piece of equipment at home? (of course there are some
low light situations where a tripod is not practical. For me, that is the
exception rather than the rule).
I don't know about other brands, but Nikon doesn't have anything faster that
f/2.8 at 20, and faster than f/2.8 at 200 is a serious piece of glass,
probably not something you'd want to use in low light without a tripod.
--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency


Philip@ue.aioy.eu (Philip Homburg)

Re: Is L glass that good?

PDN Online, also called Photo District News. However, I rarely ever see
Pentax mentioned.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>


Gordon Moat

Re: Is L glass that good?

As you point out later, the choice of only three discrete focal lengths
is all about the viewfinder. From a pure lens design point of view, it
is virtually certain that you could convert the tri-elmar to a
continuous zooming mode without any loss of performance between the
three "allowed" focal lengths. This is after all a slow zoom with a
very limited range and modest field of view requirements.
Brian


BC

Re: Is L glass that good?

Not a newsgroup, but FredMiranda.com is an excellent source of
information, and one that anyone can join. There are also several
other forums that are more pro-oriented.


Tony Polson

Content - Is L glass that good?
Found 56 post(s). Page 1 of 6
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |










 
Juegos De Bob Esponja - Sheet Music - Resume Builder - Led - Phone Cards
Photoshop questions