"L" Glass

[Shannon]

I just got my hands on a Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L lens. After reading over 970 reviews, I was a bit skeptical because so many people were soooo enthusiastic. How much better than what I had could a lens possibly get? I thought they were being a bit ridiculous.

After my first test shoot with this lens, though... I now understand what they're all talking about. I do, I do.

This thing is so sharp that I can make out the license plate on a car a block away in the image. I could barely even see the license plate with my bare eyes! This is hand held, at dusk, by the way.

I shot some kids playing in the street about a mile away, and about another quarter mile further, there's a house. Which shows up as a brown dot to my eyes... but when I look closely at this image, I see that these kids are black, they are under some power lines I didn't see, and I can see and differentiate the bricks in the house down the street. Over a mile away.

And when I tried a longer range test, about 2 miles away, I can see more power lines I couldn't see before, and the car that is about 2 miles away shows reflection of its headlights off the hot pavement. I couldn't see that with my eyes, but there it is in the image! And the entire scene, as far as the eye can see, is clearer than I have ever seen from a camera before.

The detail this lens is resolving is absolutely mind boggling. And this is in-camera, with no post processing.

I shot a picture of my mother earlier today with my flash, and I can see the individual pores on her face. I was about four feet away!

Now I understand. Now I see. Now I have to believe, because it's sitting right here in front of me.

Holy cow. Now I have to get more of these lenses!

[ronatello]

I have a 70-200 F4 L lens, non IS. It cost me just under $600 and boy does it take GOOD pics! I love a lens with a CONSTANT Aperture and not one that changes aperture as you up the mm. A constant aperture lens will cost more but if I'm wanting to snap pics of swans taking off at a far distance, I want a fast lens.

L glass will cost you but if you are serious about photography and taking GOOD pics, then L is the way to go!
With a prime lens though, you can get by w/o L... like the 50mm F1.4. I've heard GREAT reviews on that lens.

I have a Canon Digital Rebel Xsi and it's awesome! No longer state of the art but nonetheless, I dig it!

What camera body do you have? The 28-70 F2.8L is a great lens (F2.8 is fast too... good for indoors or dark outdoor scenes or anything that requires a very fast lens).

[Shannon]

My camera body is a Canon 5D Mark II. My kit is being designed for wedding photography. I love love LOVE the 5D Mark II.

I really wanted to get the 70-200 2.8 L II, but this lens that I have now is a more practical choice for first lens for shooting weddings. I'll get the 70-200 next. Probably as a Christmas gift for me or something.

I know me... if I get the f/4, I'll resist selling it when it comes time to get the 2.8. And I'll have to get the 2.8 because I need the light, and the II is reportedly the best in the series for those lenses. Being a bit of a perfectionist, I have to have the best thing for my goals, or I'm not happy. So I'll just "suffer" with what I have (lol!) until I get the other one.

Have had next to no chance to explore this new lens though... between all the other stuff I have to do. Perhaps tomorrow.

[ronatello]

I took some nice pics at Balboa Park (San Diego, CA). They had some nice daisies and I got a few honeybees working the flowers. Enjoy!

Bad thing about this photograph is that the camera focused on the front of the flower so the bee and the back end of the flower are out of focus. I think I had the F stop around 4 or 5.6 and it was zoomed in to 150-ish mm. I really didn't have a chance to move the F stop up towards 8 since the bees were moving around quickly and plus, it would induce a speed penalty (I had a polarizer on).

[Shannon]

Nice and sharp where it's sharp, but that would have required at least 8.0 for acceptable dof based on where you focused, possibly 11. What ISO were you using?

[ronatello]

ISO 200 Shutter: 1/320; F4. Yep, should have bumped the F up to 10 or 11. I had a polarizer lens on as well. Actually I uploaded the wrong one. I have another one shot at F 6.3 that looks a lot better!

---

This one used F 6.3; same ISO as before (200)

[Shannon]

ISO 200 Shutter: 1/320; F4. Yep, should have bumped the F up to 10 or 11. I had a polarizer lens on as well. Actually I uploaded the wrong one. I have another one shot at F 6.3 that looks a lot better!

---

This one used F 6.3; same ISO as before (200)

If that's how it looks at 6.3, then I'd say my initial assessment of 8 for the foreground being perfectly in focus is about ideal. But if you want a softer background, probably where you have it is best. I can't wait to get my 70-200, but wait I must.

By the way, I have been experimenting with 2.8-3.2 and having a wonderful time doing available light shots with it. Don't have anything I can readily show you, because I shoot mainly people and that requires permission, but it's been a lot of fun exploring this new frontier.

[Shannon]

So I now have both the 24-70 2.8 L and the 70-200 2.8 L II. I have to say that they're right, the L glass is addictive. I can't go back now. The 70-200 2.8 L II lens I haven't had much chance to use yet... been busy playing catch-up... but what I have seen tells me this lens is a monster, and insanely sharp and capable. Image stabilized, I can get good sharpness hand held at 200 mm with a shutter speed of 1/10th of a second. That's 5 stops improvement, better than they even advertise!

Ironically, what I bought the lens for may now no longer be worth my time to be doing (wedding photography) since this business is doing so well... but wow, what fun I am having with this lens when I have time to use it. Just wish it wasn't so damned conspicuous!