Shoot L glass wide open?

I know that all lenses improve a bit when stopped down from wide open, but is L

glass good enough to shoot wide open?

 

Eventually I would like to have a set of 2.8 L lenses, but if you have to shoot

stopped down to 4 for good images, what's the point?

I'd rather have a slightly soft image taken at f/2.8 than a blurry f/4 or no image at all. Not everything has to be razor sharp to be acceptable.

Two reasons come immediately to mind: (1) the ability to shoot in low light and (2) the ability to get a more shallow DOF.

 

--Lannie

L glass is certainly good enough wide open, prime or zoom. You won't be disappointed. Certain non-L lenses such as the 50/1.4 are equally capable wide open as well.

I have read and been told that the 3-4 and 5 thousand dollar glass is just fine wide open. It is my personal experience that my 100-400L IS is much better at F8, but still usuable at F5.6, but I try not to shoot there. My son's 24-70L is not a good lens at all. It is seriously not any better at F8 than my 28-135 IS. It is severely hampered at F2.8. The images are worse than soft. I know, there are many who claim otherwise. I have seen it and I have used it on my two cameras, an EOS 3 and a 300D and he has on his two cameras, a 300d and a 20d. Poor results from all 4 cameras. His 70-200 L IS is a fine lens at all F stops. Only a smidgen better at F8 than F2.8. So there you have it. Choose your lens carefully.

I've shot I don't know how many thousands of photos in the last ten years plus. Most of them sucked, for fifty different reasons. I can't think of a single one that I tossed out due to lens-related unsharpness, whether at f/1 or f/22 or anything in between, with any lens, L or not, Canon or otherwise.

Ah, the previous poster reminded me of one possible case. Using the 100-400 at the long end with a teleconverter wide open, though focusing error contributed, since I had to focus manually and the viewfinder was pretty dark at f/8.

 

Yes, you can use L lenses wide open.

Yes, my L glass is good enough to shoot wide open. When shooting handheld zooms, I generally use aperture to control DOF and speed, not sharpness. My 24-70L, 70-200L IS and 300L IS provide excellent results wide open, and so does my 17-40L, but it's not quite as wide. In general, my limit for sharpness is how steady I can hold the lens, not its optical resolution. If Tv is too slow for steady results with my 24-70L, I use flash or a monopod. If Tv is too slow for steady results with my 70-200L IS, I go to sleep because it's too dark for photography.

 

BTW, a f/2.8 or faster lens (e.g. f/1.4) allows you to get shots at f/5.6 or f/8 that you couldn't get with slower lenses, as the autofocus is performed "wide open", not stopped down (assuming we're limiting the discussion to AF EF lenses).

..where is that darned edit function ? I know that a 300L IS isn't a zoom, but I didn't notice until too late.

L Glass usually improves a little when stopping down just a little, but is perfectly usable wide-open, in my view.

 

Pierre

All L lenses are not equal. With a 200mm f/2.8 you'll see little difference between f/2.8 and f/4. With a 35mm f/1.4 you'll see a significant difference between f/1.4 and f/2. The 24mm T/S shouldn't be used at f/3.5 at all, except to focus. You'll need to stop it down to f/8 for good results.

 

Canon makes a 300mm f/2.8 and a 300mm f/4. Both show little difference between wide open and stopped down one stop.

 

I suppose if you want to make a generalization, it would be that the longer the focal length, the less the degradation at full aperture. But that's true of most lenses, not just "L" lenses.

I own all three 2.8L zooms (from 16mm to 200mm), shoot them wide open frequently and never been disappointed in the lenses at widest apertures; just my focus technique at times causes me grief.

<i>>>My son's 24-70L is not a good lens at all</i>>

<p>

Must be defective. Have you tried returning it for an exchange?

I shoot with the 50/1.8 (cheap, non-L) wide open at f1.8 all the time.

 

Any shots not worth keeping ate 100% my fault and nothing to do with the lens.

 

The answer to your question is yes.

<i>>>L glass good enough to shoot wide open?</i>>>

<p>

In my experience yes, especially in the 70+ range. The 24-70L is excellent wide open and I use it that way 90% of the time. 11x14 prints are virtually identical to those taken with the 50 f/1.4. I also reuglarly shoot wide open with the 70-200 f/4L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS and 200 f/2.8L prime. Again, excellent results from all.

<p>

I have friends who use the 16-35 f/2.8L and their pictures taken wide open are very good as well.

<p>

Having said all of the above, if you have a choice between taking a picture wide open <b> with any lens </b> or missing a shot, what would you do? Fast glass is there to get you images where you would otherwise need a flash or risk missing a shot. It also, especially in portraits, allows you to isolate the subject form the backgrund taking advantage of a shallower DOF.

<p><i>is L glass good enough to shoot wide open?</i></p>I think a good rule of thumb is that "L" lenses that have a constant maximum aperture are sharp wide-open. I've yet to find any lens with a variable maximum aperture (L or not) that is sharp at it's maximum aperture. I haven't spent any time researching that observation to see if it holds true 100% of the time, nor to determine why it might be so, though.

Most lenses are fine for shooting wide open, it just most L lenses have wide apetures than non-L lenses (Canon brand). I've had many soft lenses, all were fine for normal printing (4x6 and 5x7). Unless you are printing larger prints, cropping a LOT, or need the absolute sharpest detail, I think you can use ALMOST any lens wide open.

 

As for needing the sharpest picture. I did some portraits last weekend with my 24-70L under strobes and stopping down to f/4. With the bright colors, high contrast and lighting, I ended up softening them with a plug-in I bought for PS because they were too sharp and looked funky. ...Yes funky, it a new photo term.

 

m

<p>Thomas wrote:</p>

 

<blockquote>Certain non-L lenses such as the 50/1.4 are equally capable wide open as

well.</blockquote>

 

<p>I have the 50mm f/1.4 EF lens and it is a fine lens. However, it is certainly not "equally

capable" wide open. It is known to produce a significantly soft and low contrast image at f/

1.4. It sharpens up nicely starting by about f/2.

 

<p>I'll use this lens at f/1.4, but only if the alternative is not getting the shot.</p>

 

<p>By the way, no lens will be as sharp at its maximum aperture as at some optimum

smaller aperture - often around f/8.</p>

 

<p>Take care,</p>

 

<p>Dan</p>

I agree with Dan Mitchell....the Canon 50mm F1.4 is NOT so impressive wide open...generally usable at F1.4 but not impressive...and this lens is far from being L quality at any F-stop, as it does not have the color nor contrast of the 24-70L for example.

If you have to ask this question, you are not ready to use L glass. Learn first, spend money later.

The 135/2L is one of, if not the, sharpest lens I've ever used, and its performance wide open is stunning.

 

The 50/2.5 Compact Macro is also quite sharp wide open.

 

--tom

>> Yes, my L glass is good enough to shoot wide open.

 

I concur and add that most of my primes are also good enough to shoot wide open.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

Some EOS Canon fitting third party lenses are sharp wide open too!

>>Eventually I would like to have a set of 2.8 L lenses, but if you have to shoot stopped

down to 4 for good images, what's the point?<<

 

1) Brighter viewfinder

2) Better focusing since you rarely shoot wide open at 2.8

3) The choice of shooting wide open if you need too, even if the image is not "top quality"

4) Finally, if you bought a set of F4 lenses you might want to stop down to 5.6 to get eqaully

"good images".

I'm very happy with the results I've had wide open with the 17-40, 24-105, 70-200/f4 and 300/f4. The 50/1.8 too.

 

My 2p.

 

Pete