Canon 5D Do I need to use L lenses?

[adrian_torres]

Hi,

 

I want to buy full frame sensor DSLR like the 5D. I still use film and I am planning to buy a rebel xti. I

am saving my money to buy a 5D next year. I do landscape work and macro work. I am planning to

only use the 5D with prime lenses like the 20mm, 50 1.4, 75mm 1.8 and 105mm Macro. I understand

that zoom lenses don't work well with full frame sensor DSLR except for the L series. Can I use prime

non L lenses without vineteing and chromatic abboration?

 

Adrian

[marknagel]

Someone is feeding you a lot of BS. L's are typically better than their non-L counter parts, but definately not needed. My 2 non-L primes are sharper than my L zooms, but primes are almost always sharper (L or non L), than zooms.

 

m

[digitmstr]

>>I still use film<<

 

Well, the 5D will be similar to your film camera therefore, if your currrent lenses satisfy your needs you have nothing to worry about.

 

That being said, I have never heard of a 105 MACRO in the CAnon line...or a 75 f/1.8.

[digitmstr]

I should also add there is indeed a reson why "L" lenses are so expensive. Part of it has to do with the built but, a lot of it has to do with the glass and lens design.

 

Images shot with my 24-70L are indistinguishable from those taken with my 50 f/1.4 when printed. In fact, I shot a poster a couple of years back and made two proofs (in the studio) one shot with the 50 and one shot with the 24-70L. Everyone picked the prints made from the 24-70 image. They were both shot at f5.6 and f/8 and the poster was printed 11x14.

 

You get what you pay for. For example: the 85 f/1.2L and 85 f/1.8. Sure, many people say the slower is just fine (and it is, I have it) but, if cost wasn't an issue I can safely bet virtually everyone would get the L version, and with good reason. It provides better contrast and of course bokeh. Clearly, the HUGE difference in cost is NOT something I personally could justify. And that's a personal choice.

 

You will have to make the same choices we all have made: at which (price) point is the difference in image quality worth the (usually) HUGE difference in cost.

 

The new 50 f/1.2L is such a lens. Owners of the 50 f/1.4 will have to weigh in issues of improved image quality (if any), faster aperture and better build against the humogous difference in price between the two.

[kahkityoong]

I shoot landscapes and travel with my 5D. I would not consider doing any of this without an L-lens. The full-frame makes great demands on the lens used. The 5D works great with my 24-105 4L and 17-40 4L. I doubt that using primes would result in significantly better images and they provide me with great flexibility. If you can't afford full-frame and L-lenses bet a 30D or Rebel instead. Zoom lenses work great on full-frame. Just check out the work of the large number of 5D users on the critique forum.

[trothwell]

Another data point: don't worry about it. The L lenses are generally better. But many non-L lenses are good too. On my 5D, I mostly use the 50/1.4 (non-L) and the 135/2 (L). The 135 looks better, but they're both good.

 

I also use the 20/2.8 (non-L). It lacks sharpness at the edges, but hey, it's also a very wide lens. In my opinion, it's no big deal, and I like the 20. In some other folks' opinions, the 20/2.8 is junk. Your call for your photos. :-)

[carlos_miami]

L lenses are great, but what I really love to use are the older manual focus lenses from Nikon, Olympus, Contax and Leica.

 

I picked up a Nikon pre-ai 35mm f1.4 last week for under $200, and I am amazed by the results I am getting with this relatively cheap lens.

 

AF isn't very useful for landscape and macro work, so I'd suggest you look into some of these older manual focus lenses. In many cases, they meet or beat L-glass performance, especially at the wide end where L lenses are comparitavely weaker.

[kenny_c]

landscape and macro?

 

F8 and you're fine... dont worry about the lenses.

[yakim_peled1]

>> I still use film and I am planning to buy a rebel xti. I am saving my money to buy a 5D next year.

 

If you plan to buy a 5D so soon, why get the XTi now?

 

>> I am planning to only use the 5D with prime lenses like the 20mm, 50 1.4, 75mm 1.8 and 105mm Macro.

 

There are no 75/1.8 and 105 macro primes from Canon. Sigma has a 105/2.8 macro, if that is what you mean.

 

 

 

>> I understand that zoom lenses don't work well with full frame sensor DSLR except for the L series.

 

It is true that the sensor of the 5D is very demanding but there is also the question whether you want to pixel peep or not. For most prints most zooms (especially when stopped down a bit) will do.

 

>> Can I use prime non L lenses without vineteing and chromatic abboration?

 

Yes, but zoom will do as well. See PZ tests.

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[squareframe]

please ... all those espousing the virtues of 'L' designated lenses, please post an image or two of compositions that if taken with a 'non-L' lens would devolve to meer mediocrity. Canon marketeers have most of you brain-washed into thinking that any 'non-L' print is simply not worthy of your creative talents.

 

balderdash, I say!

[joe_fikes]

Non-L lenses work fine. The L-lenses are representative of the best job Canon can do. But the "ordinary" lenses are (with a few exceptions) very fine too. My brother and I just shot some aerial photos from a helicopter, both using 20D cameras. He used the 28-135 (IS) non-L and I used the legendary 70-200 F/2.8 IS L lens. The photos were indistinguishable. Stunningly sharp! But indistinguishable.

[aaron meyer]

<<The full-frame makes great demands on the lens used.>>

 

It makes no more demands than film did. The reason that people are suddenly saying that the 5D "needs" L-series glass is because you can use a piece of crap full-frame lens on an APS-C sensor and still get good image quality because the areas with the fall-off (edges of the image circle) are effectively cropped out with the smaller sensor. People have been buying lenses that are optically nothing special and getting good results because of the sensor crop, so now that those lenses are revealed to be what they really are, people are assuming that they need L glass when the reality is that there are boatloads of used film (35mm) lenses out there that will do amazing jobs.

 

If your lenses produce quality images on 35mm film, they will produce quality images on the 5D.

[aaron meyer]

<<My brother and I just shot some aerial photos from a helicopter, both using 20D cameras. He used the 28-135 (IS) non-L and I used the legendary 70-200 F/2.8 IS L lens. The photos were indistinguishable. Stunningly sharp! But indistinguishable.>>

 

Where good glass shines is wide open, and at the edges of the image circle. The 20D will never capture the edges of the image circle, so half of a great lens' advantage is already made moot because of the APS-C size sensor. Given that you were shooting from a helicopter in daylight, I doubt also that you used the lenses wide open, which again negates what should be the other advantage of the L-series.

 

I'm not saying that non-L glass is junk, I have a little 24mm f/2.5 Tamron that I love, just pointing out that your comparison doesn't really play to any of the advantages that L-series glass should have. (I haven't used L-glass myself, but I'm generalizing from my experiences with Zeiss glass since L-series lenses are on-par with that.)

[celtic_pagan]

I always thought the equivelent to a 35mm film was around 9 megapixals ( read that somewhere on here way back ) Therefore the 20d would do especially with computor processing, unless all this is now rubbish.

 

If "L" glass wont make any difference then why is it so much more expensive ? or has someone made a price error throughout the whole planet ?

 

I also thought and read it here that it was the " Lens " which gave you good pictures and not the box which collects the info which as someone pointed out " a pin hole camera would be just as good " which is actually a proven fact as those " pin hole cameras " were used a hundred years ago and it was the " Lens " which gave the photos which are hard beaten today with all our gismo's

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste1664880652]

If you are using zooms then L glass is superior and few would argue. If you are using primes then although L glass is often better, I've owned two 85mm 1.8 and both are better than either of the two 24-70L's I've owned but the new 85mm 1.2L which I tried at a canon CPS convention is in a different league altogether even at f5.6!

 

One thing is certain, digital will show up a lenses faults and your techniques faults mercilessly. I gave up on Sigma EX lenses due to the Canon 10D, I needed the 24-70L with my 1Ds and for large prints of landscape shots even my 70-200 f4L is being squeezed for everything it has on my 5D. The ability to view at 100% and unencumbered by the forgivingness of grain which film has, can really show you exactly what your lens is achieving. If you print even close to the resolution of the camera then those differences will show up, no question about it.

 

There is a large movement of people using Zeiss and Leica lenses on their 5D/1Ds mkII's due to this, expecially on the wide end where the canon lenses, especially the zooms, are rather lacking for critical sharpness. For example my 17-40L lens is a great wedding/event lens but shows its weaknesses when shooting landscape.

 

Of course and this is far more important, if the choice is between great glass or stellar glass, get the good lens and spend the rest on the very best tripod setup you can possibly afford. Even the tiniest of vibrations during the shot will negate any possible advantage that even the sharpest glass can give you.

[adrian_torres]

I response, I mistyped 75 instead of 85mm and I was planning to use the Sigma 105mm

macro lens since it is cheaper than the canon 100m version. I used a AE-1 program for

years with FD lenses such as the 20mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4 and 100mm macro w/ extention

tube for 15 years. I got out of photography around the mid to late 90's and now to catch

up to the digital world is difficult. I really wish I can use the FD lenses with digital canon

SLRs like how nikon's old AI, and AIS lenses works on their cameras, with some limitations.

I did not ever buy a EOS system because of the cost of rebuying lenses which I never

needed the AF function in the first place, or complex metering. A cheap used light meter

and grey card worked great for me. Now, I wish I had bought a Nikon F system or Canon

made a way for FD lenses to work on their newer cameras how Nikon did. I agree that the

New rebel is a great camera, but pick one up and hold it in your hand. You need to buy the

grip for it in order for it to feel right. �My primary question is are Canon prime lenses equal

in quality in middle F stop ranges to L-zooms?

[anson_ko]

One important question everyone is missing: How much better on L series lens? If someone can put up a chat or in % to show a non prime lens for example: 50mm 1.4 vs 50mm 1.2L that will show the % difference, that would be a good reference. % difference in bokeh, color, sharpness...etc

[aaron meyer]

<<I always thought the equivelent to a 35mm film was around 9 megapixals ( read that somewhere on here way back )>>

 

Scanned chromes are usually around 24 megapixels aren't surpassing the resolving power of film. Saying that 9mp is equivalent to 35mm is rather optimistic. To maintain 300 DPI (generally accepted as "photo quality") in the print, you need just under 8mp to make an 8x10. I can blow a slide up past 16x20 and still have it look good up close. The 5D is an exceptional camera, but even it doesn't have more resolving power than film. (Note: For most purposes the additional resolving power of film is irrelevant as most people wanting to enlarge past 8x10 will be shooting medium format.)

 

<<If "L" glass wont make any difference then why is it so much more expensive ? or has someone made a price error throughout the whole planet ? >>

 

It's not that it won't make a difference, I never said anything remotely like that. What I said was that the areas where great lenses shine the most are at full aparture and at the edges of the image circle. Because of the conditions, it is unlikely that the L zoom was being used at wide open aperture, and because of the smaller APS-C sized sensor on the D20, it is absolutely certain that the edges of the image circle were not approached in either lens.

 

The L glass, like the Zeiss glass I use, is almost always better than "normal" lenses. However, anyone saying that the 5D will only work well with L-series glass is a fool. There are plenty of good, non-L, lenses available that will produce great photographs on a full frame sensor without vignetting or chromatic abberation.

 

Again, I mean nothing against L glass, it's absolutely worth the price if one has the ability to afford it. I do, however, marvel that so many people seem to think that the 5D will not produce good images without L-Series glass when plenty of 35mm cameras took excellent shots without L-Series glass for decades. All I mean to say is that crop-sensor cameras will never put enough stress on a lens to really separate the "great" from the merely "good". They can separate the "good" from the "mediocre" (or worse), but the FOV crop limits their ability to test a great lens.

[celtic_pagan]

And my mistake was " Pin hole " camera's never had Lens's, i meant the old type camera's of 100 years or so ago. That will teach me to read what i write before i post again.

 

On the quality issue of photo's.......i have enlarged a 20d print to 12" x 18" and the quality has no drop off at all on a 8" x 12" print, infact i think it could go even higher. The lens is a 24-70L.

 

That is not to say i am right as i know this lens has its limitations and i think is much more suited to portrait work than Landscape as the sharpness of distant objects in Landscape photographs cant be improved by any Lens because of obvious reasons.

 

But before i purchased my Lens i was told and it makes sense that a standard high quality 50mm will give just as good if not better pics at that range, but of course the limitations of a fixed Lens are also obvious, so its all basically swings and roundabouts

[yakim_peled1]

If you like your FD gear so much and do not want to buy new EOS gear, why not stick with it and simply scan your best slides/negatives?

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste1664880652]

Aaron, that is an old argument that is seldom heard anymore for a good reason! I used to shoot 645 and my 1Ds resolved the same nevermind the 5D. You can scan as much grain (why do you think the file sizes are so much bigger?) as you like but for real information in the real world (i.e. not just B&W speciality film) that argument is pretty stale.

[digitmstr]

>>please post an image or two of compositions that if taken with a 'non-L' lens would devolve to meer mediocrity<<

 

How could you tell from a small rez, small size web post?

 

The very ASSumption that purchasing an "L" lens is a result of brainwashing is arrogant and shortsighted (and adds nothing of value to the original question).

 

Clearly, good images can be taken with *any* lens (or camera for that matter) but, there IS indeed a reason why, for example, the EF 300mm f/2.8L costs as much as it does. To refute that much is reminiscent of someone we all know who refuses to aknowledge the existance of global warming...just because he "believes it ain't so".

 

I'll tell you what: YOU post an image shot wide open with a Canon EF non "L" 300mm f/2.8 prime...oh, wait a minute, there isn't one! In fact, there isn't even a non-L EF 200mm prime, of any aperture.

 

Why do YOU think Canon doesn't bother making long teles in non-L versions?

 

There are differences. Whether those differences are vital or worth the price increase to somone it's purely a subjective matter.

 

But, to deny the differences exist is absurd and to classify all of those who make a choice *different* than your as "brainwashed" is rather obtuse.

[mvw photo]

I like my "L" lenses not just because of image quality but also because of sealing. In my non-L lenses I would get a lot of dust. My "L" glass stays dust-free.

 

I know, this does not matter. But after paying $1000+ for a lens I don't like to see it full of dust...

[anthony_thornborough1]

There is a noticeable difference at wider apertures inasmuch as my standard EF lenses are disappointing wide open whereas my L-series lenses are satisfactory at maximum aperture.

 

I think flash makes a big difference with Macro so a 100 f/2.8 U-Mac will be as good as a 180 f/3.5 L Mac, but as far as landscapes go, unless you're going to use a tripod and stop-down to f/16, L-series cut a swathe through non-Ls for creative control and near wide-open quality.

 

The final decision is cost & weight vs portability & quality. If in your shoes with a delightful little camera I would probably opt for the EF 85 f/1.8 with an EF 12 extension tube (rather than 100 f/2.8 U Macro), as without the 12ET the 85 is a better 'light shining through gate in wooded arbour' type shot, and for portraits, and get a 24-70 f/2.8 L that you'll use mostly in the 24-60ish range as a bit of a heavyweight but which will work with filters for landscapes on a later D5.

Those two lenses will offer a minimum of vignetting and chromatic aberration compared to the alternatives.

[celtic_pagan]

Anthony, on Landscapes i have to disagree with you.

 

I have a 24-70L on my 20d and also used it on my eos300 35mm and i can tell you because of enviromental conditions and distance an " L " Lens would be a waste of money as for sharpness, it is impossible to get sharper pics than cheaper Lens's, infact as was pointed out you may as well use a pinhole camera which is correct, or a cheaper Canon or other make Lens.