mageproductions Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 <p>Here's the link:<br> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=116&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=3&LensComp=355&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLI=3&API=3<br> You can compare any two lenses by setting lens a up on the left and lens b on the right.<br> Look here and see for yourself just how little, if anything you really get for all that money in "L" glass.<br> I am starting a business. I will paint a red pinstripe on Canon lenses that lack one for $50.00 + shipping.<br> I should be able to retire by the end of next week!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beautox Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 <p>Wow you can really see how much better the color rendition is on those teast charts!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradleywalter Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 <p>I always question that site. It seems from the looks of it that the L is actually far INFERIOR to the 28-135, which we all know is bogus. Look at the abberation on the angled lines at the top for the L. It just doesnt make much sense.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samoksner Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 <p>I find it interesting that people put so much faith in one letter L. Even Canon doesn't explicitly say it's about image quaility, but about wheather sealing, build quaility, quality control. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mageproductions Posted February 22, 2009 Author Share Posted February 22, 2009 <p>Why do we know it's bogus, BW?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m._scott_clay1 Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 <p>Looking at a test pattern really doesn't tell you how good a lens is. I've owned 18 Canon lenses in the past 2 years. From the nifty 50 to the 100-400L. There are some EFs lenses that are just as sharp (if not sharper) than their L counterparts. Each lens must be judged on it's own merits, not whether it's an L or not. HOWEVER, the fact is that only the L's are weather proof and are definitely built better than the vast majority of the non-L's. If you're not a professional photographer and don't need the durability of the L class lenses, you probably don't need to spend the money.</p> <p>For a cropped camera, the 17-55 is "The" lens to have. It's not an L, but it's as sharp and has as good contrast as any L. It's also built well, but still, not weather proof.</p> <p>Out of the 18 I've owned I kept the 50 1.4 and 100 2.8 macro (neither being L), 17-40L, 24L TS, 24-104L IS, 70-200L 2.8 IS, 1.4x and 2X telecoverters. Six lenses with 4 being L's. There is a difference.</p> <p>Scott</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mageproductions Posted February 22, 2009 Author Share Posted February 22, 2009 <p>Respectfully, Scott... what good would a weather-proof lens be on a cam, that isn't?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PuppyDigs Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 <p>You only need to cover the body 'n leave the lens nekid...</p> Sometimes the light’s all shining on me. Other times I can barely see. - Robert Hunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mageproductions Posted February 22, 2009 Author Share Posted February 22, 2009 <p>Didja hear what he said, PF? He said Canon put the right lens on it when I bought it and all the money I spent, since then...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_bellenis Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 <p>Do the same test but set the 28-135mm at f5 and the 24-105mm at f4.5</p> <p>The differences there are very marked - I'm not sure why the 24-105mm underperforms in this test so badly - sample variation? Testing techniques? I tested the 24-105mm pretty extensively at all apertures against the 24-70mm and while I preferred the 24-70mm I was still pretty impressed with the 24-105mms performance for what it was. I too have some questions about these results...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mageproductions Posted February 22, 2009 Author Share Posted February 22, 2009 <p>John - yes, I do see a difference. On my screen the 28-135 is a tad sharper and exhibits much more contrast?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael j hoffman Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 <p>Let's not jump to erroneous conclusions.</p> <p>Michael J Hoffman</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pisq Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 <p>comparing the 50f1.2 and the 50f2.5 macro is also interesting. It definatley favors the 1.2 at f2.8, but at f5.6 it favors the 2.5 macro. Of course, they could have made a mistake, at any point, in shooting these charts...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desmond_kidman Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 <p>I saw some quarter mile and skid pad numbers that showed a Mustang is as good as a Porsche. Thank God I saw that before I bought the Porsche. Amazing how many folks have been stupid enough to buy those Porsches when they are no better a performance car than a mustang.<br> I saw the ingredients listed for that Italian restaurant chain Olives...similar to ingredients that were used at a great place in italy. I'll never bother getting an expensive meal again in Italy.<br> Like an idiot I've been preferring vintage French Champagne, then I saw a $5.00 bottle of the spanish stuff has the same alcohol content and same ingredients. I'll never dring vintage again....numbers say it's no better than the $5 stuff.<br> <br> Numbers and letters and test charts tell it all. </p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken schwarz Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 <p>The "L" lens is faster and shows somewhat better in this test at most comparable wide-open settings. What you've discovered is that the 28-135 is a good lens, too.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamie_robertson2 Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 <p><em>"comparing the 50f1.2 and the 50f2.5 macro is also interesting. It definatley favors the 1.2 at f2.8, but at f5.6 it favors the 2.5 macro. Of course, they could have made a mistake, at any point, in shooting these charts..."</em><br> <em></em><br> That's not surprising. The 50mm f1.2 is optimised for wide open shooting. Even the 1.4 and 1.8 give it a run for its money beyond f4. It was the same with the older 50mm f1.0. Not bad wide open but fair to poor beyond f4</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m._scott_clay1 Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 <p>Maybe I had a bad copy of the 28-135 (I don't think so), but mine wasn't even close the quality and clarity of my 24-104L. Test charts are great, but reality is better. I've seen a lot of other comparisons on line between the 28-135 and 24-105L. Nearly all of them show the 24-105L superior to the 28-135.</p> <p>All that aside, if you don't want to pay for an "L" lens and you are happy with what you have, who cares? Use what you have. It's just been my experience (having owned both) that most of the time in the field the "L's" work better, last longer and hold their value better.<br> As for the weather proofing, in my case, a weather proof body will probably be my next purchase. For now, I put a sleeve on the 5d, bag over the 580 EX's with Pocket Wizards and keep on working in light rain (depending on what I'm shooting). I don't think I could do that with a non-L lens.</p> <p>Scott</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philip_wilson Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 <p>L lenses have always been good performers but in my opinion the difference between the L and non L lenses depends on several factors. These are:<br> Which non-L lens is being compared (the 35 F2, 50 F1.4 and 85 F1.8 are all very good)<br> Which L lens is being compared (some are better than others)<br> What camera body is being used (an APS-C body does not use the edges of the image circle and thus the L advantage will be lower)<br> What is being shot (a lot of the L advantage is at wider apertures and with low contrast subjects - it is not hard to make a high resolution lens for very high contrast subjects at F8)<br> What the image is on - when I shoot with a Contax G2 or an MF Fuji GX680 and compare the image to a Canon film body or a Mamiya MF I see very little difference when using a 400 ISo print film. However, when I use Velvia 50 you can see why people rave about the much more expensive Fuji and Contax lenses. With digital ( especially JPEG) a lot of the colour and contrast differences between lenses is lost. <br> For many people these factors may not matter but the longevity differences may. I am still using L series (and near L series) lenses I bought over 25 years ago (e.g. FD24 f2, FD85 F1.2, FD135 F2, FD300 F2.8) but the average lenses I bought in those days (e.g. FD 50 F1.8, FD 28 F2.8) still work fine but rarely leave the house.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mageproductions Posted February 23, 2009 Author Share Posted February 23, 2009 <p>Years ago - lol - there was this raging controversy over analog (records) vs. digital (CDs). I actually had to beat a man up after I did an a/b of a record and a CD, letting him choose the best and he chose the CD. He attacked me! The way I see it, he made a fool of HIMSELF...<br> http://www.MageProductions.com/l.jpg<br> http://www.MageProductions.com/not_l.jpg<br> Yes, you can say that the difference was lost somewhere... maybe in downsizing the images. But I had a good, long look at the originals and like, why would I lie? There was very little difference. No kidding. What there was I duplicated in PS, in less than 10 seconds.<br> It may well be that the "L" lenses are dust/moisture sealed, etc. etc. etc. Maybe I won't live long enough to wear one out... and lots of other, rather intangible things... like the quality of chicks you can pick up driving a Mustang, vis a vi a Porsche... But, speaking strictly from the standpoint of the quality of the images, I say PHOOEY! The Emperor, has new clothes!<br> Somebody that's mathematically reclined want to divide the aps-c area by 15.1 Mp then tell us if the 50D is the highest-resolving cam, in the known universe? Meanwhile I'll mosey on over to Indianapolis and make a pest of myself at a camera store, shooting newspapers with my lens, then their "L" and we shall see...<br> After all, inquiring minds, want to know!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steven_f1 Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 <p>The chart doesn't have any colors in it so how can you determine if one has Cromatic Abrasion or some other color related issue? It is also difficult to see if any barral distortion is present. A image of a grid would make it easy to see the difference. Vignetting is also difficult to see in the test chart. If you compare the 100-400mm (at 400mm) against the 400mm prime (both Canon) you will also see the image for the two lenses is not the same size. This could be a indication that the tests arn't always done consistantly. </p> <p>The best lens reviews use a chart that is optimized to show a specific issue. So naturally more than one test chart is needed. Additionally a good review would also have pictures taken of people and places because that sometimes shows issues that the test charts don't clearly show. Additionally it is also critical that the tests are done exactly the same every time. The page you linked to is of limited value. </p> <p>I prefer to look at multiple reviews when I am comparing lenses. And sometimes I perfer to test a lens myself since the reviews may not test for an issue I am concerned with. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarah_fox Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 <p>De Lenzer, I own both lenses. The 28-135 is indeed a very sharp lens overall, although it has a bit of CA at some focal lengths. It is an enormously underappreciated lens, and I recommend it highly to any photographer on a budget.</p> <p>However, my 24-105 is nothing short of awsome. It leaves the 28-135 in the dust optically, with much better controlled CA, better edge sharpness, and better consistency throughout focal lengths and apertures. It does vignette on the wide end, but that's no biggie. This is not to mention that its IS is far smoother, the zoom and focus work far smoother, and it's genuine pleasure to use. In the end, you do get what you pay for.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercedes1 Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 <p>I have both lenses and use them on a 5D. although the 28-135 is a good lens, expecially for it's price, it doesn't really come close to the 105. I'm selling the 28-135 since there is no sense in keeping both. I'm keeping the better lens regardless of it's actually cost.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdigi Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 <p>I had the 28-135 and I did not like it. However a friend of mine just got one and I am impressed with the photos he has taken with it. Maybe my copy was a bit soft or whatever but I felt it was just lacking something, not a terrible lens just not great. <br> I think my 24-105 is much better. For 1 its a constant F4, its wider, built better etc. The 28-135 is a good value but its like comparing the 85 1.8 to the 85 1.2.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charles_wood Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 <p>One must really test each lens individually. I've found substantial sample to sample variations of the same model. As an example, my 17-40mmL was pretty mediocre and extremely soft with high CA on the left side of frame, even on my 40D. I sent it to Canon and it came back corrected but slightly soft on the right side. So it still isn't perfect whereas the 18-55mmIS that came as the kit lens with my backup XSi, outperforms the 17-40 in all aspects except perhaps geometry, contrast and a slight difference in color balance, and those issues are pretty much resolved in Photoshop. The real key is to purchase a lens from a reputable dealer that will let you exchange it if it doesn't live up to general expectations and reputation.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mageproductions Posted February 23, 2009 Author Share Posted February 23, 2009 <p>In my experience (which is quite limited when compared to some other people's) every Canon product with which I have interacted varied, and varied greatly, in just about every way. <br> I don't think Canon's quality control is worth a hoot. I think that when you buy something from Canon you roll the dice. I do not choose to think those that disagree with me (and others) are liars or overtly biased, as owners of the equipment. I believe they have copies of the item in question that are at different points, on the scale of quality - that's all.<br> I often choose ways of thinking because they explain things which make little or no sense, otherwise. This would explain Dpreview's tawdry review of a cam that screams, here, and so very much more...<br> I've been seeing this for the last... 6-8 years, and in many places, certainly not just Canon! Nobody gives a damn, anymore. It's as if there is no tomorrow; no reason to try to build, or maintain a reputation. Maybe the world really is going to end in 2012 and some people near the "top" know it, for sure...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now