View Full Version : "L" Glass on a budget ?
The Big Kahuna
26-11-2006, 18:09
Ok, we all know there are some lenses out there that, either by happy accident or design, offer excellent sharpness, clarity, colour reproduction etc etc (basically, everything that makes the expensive lenses expensive) but for a "bargain" price. The Canon 50mm f1.8, for example, is one that is often said to offer superb sharpness considering its low cost (which is why I'm buying one from milou).
Unfortunately, my knowledge on this subject runs out right about here.
Would you, more experienced chaps (and ladies), care to give me a rundown (or at least your own wildly inaccurate opinions) on the "bargain lenses" to be had ? I'm going to assume that these, with one or two exceptions, are going to be Sigma, Tamron, Vivitar (although, when I look at the lenses HERE (http://www.rugift.com/) I sometimes want to touch myself...I Love old Russki kit).
As someone who's interests lie more towards wildlife photography, I'd love to find a quality alternative to the 100-400mm L but at a sensible price.
If there was a great budget long lens we would all have one already!
Using old high quality manual lenses (of various non canon makes) on canon cameras is quite common and you will find lenses and adaptors all over ebay. Not tried it myself but have thought about it.
As to normal lenses v 'L' lenses is is all subjective. My Tamron 28-75 2.8 overlaps with my 17-40L f4 and I can't see any quality differences at similar settings. I have always rated the Tamron though so not surprised. Sometimes though with other makes there is an element of luck in getting a good 'copy'. (why is it called a copy anyway?)
Manual prime lenses offer some superb image quality for their price but you trade AF. If you keep your eye out for a few you might grab some dirt cheap bargains.
My advise to you would be build up gradually buying the best glass you can afford - you find that with lenses like the Canon L series hold their value very well. For example...the old 28-70L (which was replaced by the 24-70) still goes for very good money. EVen if you decide photography is for you you can trade in for 80% of the original value of the lens - you can't say that for many things!
You can always pick up the old Canon L glass that was used for the FD mounts on the older manual cameras and use an adapter to use them on your eos, A look through google and ebay will give you some idea of how much stuff is going for.
Sigma EX lenses make good bargain 'L' alternatives, if that helps?
Ha! At least you could argue that L glass is reasonably priced. Take a look at the minolta/sony equivelant and be grateful.
The Big Kahuna
27-11-2006, 16:46
Sigma EX lenses make good bargain 'L' alternatives, if that helps?
That's what I was looking for !!
To say that a whole range of lenses is a bargain is a bit of a stretch. It comes down to individual models and (as has been said above) sometimes it goes beyond even that and comes down to individual copies.
Don't just buy a lens because it's cheap. First work out what length you're in the market for, then work out a budget and then read reviews on the options and ask for opinions from people who use those models.
The Big Kahuna
27-11-2006, 17:17
I just need a cracking good long tele' tbh. A max of 300 at the long end would give me 450mm+ on my 350D anyway, which is more than adequate. Just needs to be as sharp as Marik isn't (have I used that one before ?)
A "good" telephoto that goes up to 300mm won't be cheap.
There are, however, plenty of mediocre ones that will only leave a small hole in your wallet. The choice is yours and starts with the Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG MACRO (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3303&navigator=3) at around £120. I've got one and I hate it. Lots of people will probably tell you they like it but I expect the same could be said of pretty much anything you can buy.
I just need a cracking good long tele' tbh. A max of 300 at the long end would give me 450mm+ on my 350D anyway, which is more than adequate. Just needs to be as sharp as Marik isn't (have I used that one before ?)
Will give you the same crop as at 450mm it does not zoom in to 450mm its still a 300 mm zoom.
You know fine well what he means.
If it's wildlife you're interested in then I'd have to recommend the 100-400L as being a superb starter solution, it gives image quality close to that of prime lenses with the convenience of a very flexible zoom range. You also have the option of adding a 1.4X TC, although you lose AF if not using a 1 Series body.
300mm will fall annoyingly short of what you need for a lot of birds.
knowing niq's chances with the birds he's gonna need considerable more than 300mm.. ;)
The Big Kahuna
27-11-2006, 19:38
knowing niq's chances with the birds
Lost it yet m8 ?
The Big Kahuna
27-11-2006, 19:38
2 - 2
The Big Kahuna
27-11-2006, 19:39
Incidentally Dan, I was installing some 'puters in Far Cotton today...anywhere near you ?
The Big Kahuna
27-11-2006, 19:41
I've got one and I hate it.
Which is why you're going to flog it to me for £ 40 including postage
Wow, this online shopping is p*ss easy !!
Incidentally Dan, I was installing some 'puters in Far Cotton today...anywhere near you ?
Not far from me :p
far cotton, blimey thats not far at all Niq! why didn't you say something? I have a 3 hour break tomorrow if you wanna meet up..
..and no I havn't lost it :(
The Big Kahuna
27-11-2006, 22:27
In Leicester tomorrow
Which is why you're going to flog it to me for £ 40 including postage.
I'm trying to save you from making a mistake, here.
Check out the Canon 70-300mm IS (non-DO).
kissfoto
28-11-2006, 09:11
A "good" telephoto that goes up to 300mm won't be cheap.
There are, however, plenty of mediocre ones that will only leave a small hole in your wallet. The choice is yours and starts with the Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG MACRO (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3303&navigator=3) at around £120. I've got one and I hate it. Lots of people will probably tell you they like it but I expect the same could be said of pretty much anything you can buy.
Strange isn't it what one person find good and another doesn't. I have one of these lenses (DL version) and I am very happy with it, yes its not 'L'quality but gives me some damned sharp pictures if I take a little care, maybe I just got a sharp one, QC in 'L' lenses is obviously mush better, but at this time its what I can afford and works for me.... Ian :thumbs:
http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h150/Fusion_2006/Spike%20Island/688K6744.jpg
Firstly, you cannot tell how sharp a lens is from a resized Jpeg and anyone who says otherwise is lying. You can tell the colour and contrast (provided you haven't done any processing at all) but not the sharpness.
Secondly, having one shot on its own is pretty pointless unless you've got similar shots from other lenses to compare against.
Thirdly, any lens will enable you to take good photos if you're careful and play to its strengths. What matters (to me) is the percentage of good photos (the hit rate) you can get out of it.
Fourthly, my main gripe isn't sharpness anyway, it's the terrible max aperture coupled with poor AF performance.
Fifthly, the sharpest focus in your shot above is behind the ducks.
The Big Kahuna
28-11-2006, 13:54
He was taking a picture of the water
Nice shot m8, now bugger off and clone the GEESE out
For its money, the Sigma 70-300f4-5.6 Apo DG macro isn't, in my opinion, a bad lens at all. I've been using one since May for (mainly) motorsport photography and have been pleased with it. I'd have to echo Fingerz comments about it being a little slow to AF once the light drops but if the bulk of what you're using it for is going to be in good light you'd probably not have a problem. Having said that, if your main interst is wildlife then hold out, save up, and buy the 100-400L as recommended by CT. The aperture is no better (I think) than the Sigma though unfortunately, which is the main reason I'm choosing the 70-200 and TC's over it!
kissfoto
28-11-2006, 18:53
Firstly, you cannot tell how sharp a lens is from a resized Jpeg and anyone who says otherwise is lying. You can tell the colour and contrast (provided you haven't done any processing at all) but not the sharpness.
Secondly, having one shot on its own is pretty pointless unless you've got similar shots from other lenses to compare against.
Thirdly, any lens will enable you to take good photos if you're careful and play to its strengths. What matters (to me) is the percentage of good photos (the hit rate) you can get out of it.
Fourthly, my main gripe isn't sharpness anyway, it's the terrible max aperture coupled with poor AF performance.
Fifthly, the sharpest focus in your shot above is behind the ducks.
Points are taken. As for the focus in the picture it just shows how fast these birds take off, this is the second frame from a motor run of 3, first in focus, bird sat on the water, second was this. Thanks for taking the time to explain where you were coming from. :wave:
kissfoto
28-11-2006, 18:57
[/URL]For its money, the Sigma 70-300f4-5.6 Apo DG macro isn't, in my opinion, a bad lens at all. I've been using one since May for (mainly) motorsport photography and have been pleased with it. I'd have to echo Fingerz comments about it being a little slow to AF once the light drops but if the bulk of what you're using it for is going to be in good light you'd probably not have a problem. Having said that, if your main interst is wildlife then hold out, save up, and buy the 100-400L as recommended by CT. The aperture is no better (I think) than the Sigma though unfortunately, which is the main reason I'm choosing the 70-200 and TC's over it!
In this life you have to stick with what you can afford. This lens willdo me fine for what I will use it for, within its accepted limitations. :thumbs:
http://travelasia.smfforfree.com
kissfoto
29-11-2006, 06:50
He was taking a picture of the water
Nice shot m8, now bugger off and clone the GEESE out
Not very nice !! :nono:
[/URL]
In this life you have to stick with what you can afford. This lens willdo me fine for what I will use it for, within its accepted limitations. :thumbs:
Yeah, pretty sensible viewpoint. I honestly don't think people will be disappointed so long as they buy with their eyes open and are aware of those limitations. Like I say, the only time I've been even slighty unhappy - no,. wrong choice of words really - frustrated would be more accurate - is on the couple of times I've had problems with the AF hunting in low light.
That's the key thing, IMO... There's nothing wrong with buying budget lenses as long as you realise that they're "good for the money" as opposed to "good full stop."
Personally, whenever I've tried to cut corners, I've ended up selling the item (usually for a lot less than I paid) and buying the thing I should've bought in the first place, thereby spending more in the long run than if I'd simply bitten the bullet first time round.
HIMUPNORTH
01-12-2006, 08:39
I have bought second hand lenses from this company (http://www.ffordes.co.uk)and all have been good. One I did not like but it was taken back immediately.
I notice the have a few L lenses on their list although it is worth phoning as their stock changes faster than their website. The have 4 300mm lenses listed at present.
Some other nice stuff on the list too but would agree with Jamie. Define your need before you shop.
Nice shot m8, now bugger off and clone the GEESE out
:clap: :clap:
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.