L Lens Pushers...

P

pingu

Messages
122
Edit My Images
Yes
ok.. after promisiong myself that I wouldnt be tempted and wouldnt seek out a lens pusher.

so how come I now have a 24-105 L sitting in my cupbaord?

I only went in to buy a UV filter...

the words "reduced" (box was damaged but lens is fine - brand new and woth full warrenty) and there I was like a firefly to to a flame.

just looking wont hurt

oh go on then let me see what its like...

ooh it focuses quickly.. nice motion...

I really could do with something lower down the range.. it was awkward getting those shots the other day...

how much?

£480 inc VAT?




damn my lack of self discipline.


now if I can find something to cover 200-400...


*sells kidney*
 
slippery slope innit!

bet you'll enjoy it though

remember - you need one of the kidneys yourself!
 
Oooh!! id like one of those!!! :naughty: ;)
 
Is it me or does everyone else feel that no matter how many lenses they buy - they still WANT MORE!
 
dcash29 said:
Mike, where did ya get you 17-40 f2.8 L from??
Click to expand...

got it from warehouse express when I bought the camera
give Kerso a shout - bet he can do a better price
I'm very pleased with it
it sounds a bit "short" but works well with the cropped sensor
it almost never leaves the body
 
I think you got a good buy, Mike, it's a great lens.
 
Sorry, should have been addressed to pingu..
 
Mike
I was meaning either you have a 17-40 f4 L or a 17-55 F2.8 L but not a Canon 17-40 f2.8 L
 
well slap me down with a wet kipper
someone's hacked me signature :nuts:
cough - f4 you're quite right
oh well I can but dream.....

thanks for pointing it out - it's been like that for months!
 
Mike

It did make me think for a little while.

Having bought a 17-40L i doubt i'd really bother buying another 'L' as its my opinion there are alternatives out there just as good and cheaper

'Trip' better luck next time, and sticking ya tongue out is rude
 
mmcp42 said:
slippery slope innit!
bet you'll enjoy it though
remember - you need one of the kidneys yourself!
Click to expand...
Very slippery....and it gets steeper all the time.

dcash29 said:
Mike
Having bought a 17-40L i doubt i'd really bother buying another 'L' as its my opinion there are alternatives out there just as good and cheaper
Click to expand...
I keep reading comments like this and request an explanation each time.....rarely get one though.
How do you quantify "just as good"?

Bob
 
I will never buy a Sigma again after getting my 17-40L. Every time i pick up a Sigma it just feels like it will fall to bits in my hands :LOL:
 
To me, the build quality alone is good enough.. then there is the IQ..
 
Is it me or does everyone else feel that no matter how many lenses they buy - they still WANT MORE!
Click to expand...
mmmmm yep

its when you take one out in the rain - on the beach - in the mud - or drop one (yes done that) you know why

try any of that with the "kit" lenses...

24-105 is such a nice lens, for so may things
 
Sure you won't , L glass is like a disease
Click to expand...
Not for me.

I keep reading comments like this and request an explanation each time.....rarely get one though.
How do you quantify "just as good"?
Click to expand...
A sigma 10-20 has the same image quality as the 17-40 at 17mm

I will never buy a Sigma again after getting my 17-40L. Every time i pick up a Sigma it just feels like it will fall to bits in my hands
Click to expand...
In my opinion thats a rather big eggageration.

To me, the build quality alone is good enough.. then there is the IQ..
Click to expand...
For me image quality is at the top of the list.
 
L glass is all about the 70-200L 2.8IS and 24-70 2.8. I love the 10mm on my sigma 10-20 but it just isn't as sharp as L glass.
 
For those of you looking at the 17-40 F4, you do realise that there is a 17-35 F2.8 (older version of 16-35) which can be had on the used market for about the same price as a new 17-40 right? Image quality at F4 is supposed to be similar to the 17-40.

Only thing is that it does not have weather sealing and is a little more flare prone.
 
My sigma 10-20 isnt anywhere near as sharp as my 17-40 was, i've never seen any non-canon lenses as sharp as the few L glass I have.
 
Thats not to say my 10-20 isnt sharp, its a good lens on its own merits but it doesnt live up to a 17-40 imo.
 
mole2k said:
My sigma 10-20 isnt anywhere near as sharp as my 17-40 was, i've never seen any non-canon lenses as sharp as the few L glass I have.
Click to expand...
I would say that all the Sigma prime macro's are as sharp as their Canon counterparts...I have the Canons

dcash29 said:
.....
A sigma 10-20 has the same image quality as the 17-40 at 17mm
... For me image quality is at the top of the list.
Click to expand...
Comparing a zoom at one end of its range to another in the middle of its range doesn't really work. A 1.6 Ford Focus probably has as much torque at 3000rpm as a Ferrari 358 at 100rpm !

ranarama said:
L glass is all about the 70-200L 2.8IS and 24-70 2.8. I love the 10mm on my sigma 10-20 but it just isn't as sharp as L glass.
Click to expand...
Again, an unfair comparison

FranchiseJuan said:
For those of you looking at the 17-40 F4, you do realise that there is a 17-35 F2.8 (older version of 16-35) which can be had on the used market for about the same price as a new 17-40 right? Image quality at F4 is supposed to be similar to the 17-40.
Click to expand...
I have the 17-35 and would agree with your comments. It was replaced by the 16-35 of which the MkI which had a few problems before the MkII was born...generally a better lens.

mole2k said:
Thats not to say my 10-20 isnt sharp, its a good lens on its own merits but it doesnt live up to a 17-40 imo.
Click to expand...
As above....compare it to the 10-22 and there's little to choose between them.

I'm not knocking the L myth ( I have 14 of them + 2 pseudo L's) but it's not all about sharpness. Build quality is a big factor and they are certainly more robust than the average lens. IQ is a bigger issue than sharpness alone. The use of 8 bladed apertures gives a generally more pleasing bokeh. The lens construction lends itsself to better contrast (generally speaking) than non-L's.
There's mention of the 70-200's IQ above...excellent lens and I'm on my third copy at the moment. At 85mm, it probably would come second to the non-L prime 85mm, at 135mm it would certainly come second to the non-L prime 135mm. This is simply because the construction employed for a zoom has to overcome all sorts of issues.
10 of my L's are primes and I don't think there's a zoom in the repetoire than can compete with the worst of them for overall IQ (not just sharpness)...but, as I point out, that's an unfair comparision.
The red ring isn't the be all and end all of a lens and objective appraisal may well find a suitable alternative at a much lower price....but use more than "sharp" to define their merits.

Bob
 
dcash29 said:
Well my advice is get your sigmas calibrated
Click to expand...

Calibration cannot really make a lens sharper, it is usually employed to correct for AF errors. Sharpness is generally down to the resolving power of the lens and is independant of AF although a mis-calibrated AF can give sometimes give the same impression.

Bob
 
Good thread!

I am also an L glass buyer in preference to other lenses. The reasons are similar to what Canon Bob states; the image quality produced is invariably higher, image contrast is generally more pleasing and at wide angles although the zooms don't go as wide as available from other manufacturers have different distortion qualities which can make for more pleasing results when photographing human subjects.

I started off by buying second hand L lenses. They hold their value well and if you are unhappy or wish to upgrade you can usually move them on with little or no loss.

I have a couple of Sigma lens in my bag and they are both good for what they do but my old and probably third hand 28-70mm f2.8L lens is what is on my camera most of the time. I have tried to upgrade it at Ffordes but Steve won't let me as he reckons it is as good as any I could buy even though it must be a decade old!
 
I've had a fair amount of garbage through my grubby mits and prefer L's for a number of reasons.
1. Build quality
2. Image Quality
3. Colour rendition
4. Uniformity of filter size. Either 72 or 77 for the vast majority.

I have had a couple of Sigmas 10-20 and 12-24 (still own) and used a 70-200 2.8. The 10-20 is great, the 12-24 is mind boggling and the 70-200 decent. Sigma build quality is nowhere near L - their EX range is just above Canon mid range but not all that durable from personal experience. The lens also introduces a yellow / green rendition - i prefer the "canon blue". This is subjective, the rest is not.

For years Sigma has been dogged by inconsistent factory QC so buying a Sigma lens (for me) has always felt like a lottery with a huge sigh of relief when i get home with a good copy.

Pingu - congratulations! Like Gary says, the second hand market is a great place to look, but also remember that L's dont lose valuevery quickly so talk to kerso who may be able to provide new and UK 2nd hand prices. (y)
 
For those of you looking at the 17-40 F4, you do realise that there is a 17-35 F2.8 (older version of 16-35) which can be had on the used market for about the same price as a new 17-40 right? Image quality at F4 is supposed to be similar to the 17-40.
Click to expand...
I had a secondhand 17-35 - I found the image quaility was poor (maybe it was duff?)so i resold it on flea bay (where i brought it) and made a profit!!
L glass does hold its value well, but some 3rd party lenses will loose money fast
 
sportysnaps said:
I had a secondhand 17-35 - I found the image quaility was poor (maybe it was duff?)so i resold it on flea bay (where i brought it) and made a profit!!
L glass does hold its value well, but some 3rd party lenses will loose money fast
Click to expand...
Whats your ebay username ill avoid you like the plague:LOL:;)
 
mole2k said:
i've never seen any non-canon lenses as sharp as the few L glass I have.
Click to expand...
I should have given you a loan of my sigma 70-200 F2.8, definitely sharper than my Canon F2.8IS.

I've gradually migrated to L for one reason only, the weather proofing. If sigma/tamron/tokina had it I do think they can offer just as good a product optically.
 
dod said:
I should have given you a loan of my sigma 70-200 F2.8, definitely sharper than my Canon F2.8IS.

I've gradually migrated to L for one reason only, the weather proofing. If sigma/tamron/tokina had it I do think they can offer just as good a product optically.
Click to expand...

Nice to hear Dod.....

One problem that will always crop up is brand loyalty getting in the way of objective analysis. This is far worse on US based forums....the lens is the bees knees when they have one and the pits just after they've sold it. I have one L that just doesn't cut the mustard but if I named it here then I'd get a tirade of posts attacking my opinion.

Bob
 
dod said:
I should have given you a loan of my sigma 70-200 F2.8, definitely sharper than my Canon F2.8IS.
Click to expand...

I can't compare the Sigma 70-200 to a Canon L because I've never tried one but i can vouch for the sharpness of dod's old Sigma 70-200 because I now own it.

So impressed was I with the 70-200 I decided to give a couple more of the Sigma EX series offerings a try out. I now have a 17-35 and a 24-70 and they are both as good as the 70-200:woot: Yes I may well have been lucky because I know that Sigma do have some quality control issues......but if you get a good one they are very good(y)
 
I'm very pleased with the sharpness of my Sigma 10-20.
I was told to test it out on a brick wall to test for sharpness, so I smashed it against it, and the remain shards were so sharp they drew blood! :woot:

I kid, I kid.
The bricks were satisfactorily sharp at all focal lengths/f.stops and shutter speeds, and since I don't intend on doing 100% crops on brick walls, the image quality it produced was second to none, compared to the other lenses I have. I'm extremely excited about going to the alps with it, because I know that even if my photographic skills aren't on par with my kit, the dazzling views and quality of the lens will make up for it.

It seems the bug to buy thousands of lenses isn't one that solely I own.
I've got the fisheye covered, the extreme wide angle covered, but now I want standard zoom, and I'm toying between the idea of overlapping between the 10-20 and getting a 17-40L, or not worrying and getting a 24-70L.
After that, the 70-200 f/4 L will do me just fine. Until longer focal length urges strike.
Its painful, and I haven't even bought my first L lens yet!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sportysnaps
I had a secondhand 17-35 - I found the image quaility was poor (maybe it was duff?)so i resold it on flea bay (where i brought it) and made a profit!!
L glass does hold its value well, but some 3rd party lenses will loose money fast

Whats your ebay username ill avoid you like the plague
Click to expand...

ouch!!
the lens did not do what i wanted it to do (sharp shots at f2.8 of fast moving objects)- the person i sold it to was happy and gave me good feedback (maybe they used it at f8 on landscapes), after testing it for 5 days. I have good feedback - feel free to check

mennis2004

the transation was made on 28/10/2006 and the feedback was given at 5 november as "I'm Happy"

rant over - continue with thread...
 
Oooh.. Interesting!
I'm off to New York in October, and I would really like a decent walkabout lens. The feel of the kit lens just doesn't cut it, and I often find I don't have enough reach.

Pretty much got my mind set on focal length 20(ish)-70(ish)
so really, its pretty much between the Sigma 24-70 EX or the Canon 24-70L.
Now, my instinct was to naturally go for the L, simply because of that red ring that denotes image quality like no other, but after reading several reviews, it seems that the image quality of the Sigma is just as good as the Canon, and while the Canon exceeds it in some areas, the Sigma exceeds the Canon in others!
Looking into it a bit more, it seems that the reason for the Canon being so expensive is due to build quality, strength, weatherproofing, the red ring, the bragging rights, futureproofing.
Apparently, the Sigma doesn't have any of those things.
Image quality and poor quality control. (y)
 
foodpoison said:
.......
Pretty much got my mind set on focal length 20(ish)-70(ish)
so really, its pretty much between the Sigma 24-70 EX or the Canon 24-70L......
Click to expand...
FP....I think you should have a look at the option of a 2nd hand 28-70L. There are a few reviews comapring it to the 24-70L and it fares pretty well....some benefits and some places it loses out. Pricewise it would fall between the Canon and Sigma 24-70's.
I lent mine to RickJ for appraisal and he ended up buying one.

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
FP....I think you should have a look at the option of a 2nd hand 28-70L. There are a few reviews comapring it to the 24-70L and it fares pretty well....some benefits and some places it loses out. Pricewise it would fall between the Canon and Sigma 24-70's.
I lent mine to RickJ for appraisal and he ended up buying one.

Bob
Click to expand...

Only issue with the 28-70L is that I'm losing 4mm off the wide end. I wouldn't mind so much if it ended 4mm short on the long end, but I can always go closer.
Might seem petty and pedantic, but considering I won't have anything between 20 and 28, that missing 8mm could end up being quite irritating.

But its something I'll definitely end up looking into!
I'm not an impulse buyer, I have to research for months before I make a big purchase!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top