This topic is in the 2006 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2006"WOW" Reaction Lenses of Yours
p.3 #1"WOW" Reaction Lenses of Yours
1. 80-200L
2. 85L
3. 24L
4. 10-22-S
5. 135L
6. 50 macro
2. 85L
3. 24L
4. 10-22-S
5. 135L
6. 50 macro
Feb 12, 2006 at 12:35 PM
p.3 #2"WOW" Reaction Lenses of Yours
In order of purchase:
400 f/5.6L - Wow I can see people at the top of the Space Needle!
50 f/1.8 - Wow it's tiny, sharp, and cheap
600 f/4IS - Woah useable pics at 600mm and 1/200th? WOW!
35 f/1.4L - What everyone else said. Things just jump off the page and it needs much less post-processing than anything else in my collection.
400 f/5.6L - Wow I can see people at the top of the Space Needle!
50 f/1.8 - Wow it's tiny, sharp, and cheap
600 f/4IS - Woah useable pics at 600mm and 1/200th? WOW!
35 f/1.4L - What everyone else said. Things just jump off the page and it needs much less post-processing than anything else in my collection.
Feb 12, 2006 at 12:46 PM
p.3 #4"WOW" Reaction Lenses of Yours
The 30/1.4 wide open. I'm "wowed" every time I zoom to 100% in PS to check image detail. Sharpness and contrast in low light is quite amazing IMO.
Feb 12, 2006 at 01:16 PM
p.3 #5"WOW" Reaction Lenses of Yours
200 f/1.8L
300 f/2.8L IS
85 f/1.2L
135 f/2L
Jim
300 f/2.8L IS
85 f/1.2L
135 f/2L
Jim
Feb 12, 2006 at 01:24 PM
p.3 #6"WOW" Reaction Lenses of Yours
seen a picture of 2 guys having 1200's. That was a huge WOOOOOW
Feb 12, 2006 at 02:26 PM
p.3 #7"WOW" Reaction Lenses of Yours
I recently purchased a 70-200mm 2.8L (non IS) and I have to say I wasn't wowed at all.
I am still deliberating what to do with the lens. I just don't think it is as sharp as others have said it is. but it might be my inabililty to produce a good picture, or maybe the camera itself just ins't sharp. I just find myself using Smart Sharpen to get it where I want it and for some nagging reason I don't think I should have to do that.
I am still deliberating what to do with the lens. I just don't think it is as sharp as others have said it is. but it might be my inabililty to produce a good picture, or maybe the camera itself just ins't sharp. I just find myself using Smart Sharpen to get it where I want it and for some nagging reason I don't think I should have to do that.
Feb 12, 2006 at 02:30 PM
p.3 #8"WOW" Reaction Lenses of Yours
Sedalia636 are you using a filter?, neither of my 70-200's liked 'em one bit.
If not I'd think about returning it because it's a sick sharp sucker for most.
If not I'd think about returning it because it's a sick sharp sucker for most.
Feb 12, 2006 at 02:38 PM
p.3 #9"WOW" Reaction Lenses of Yours
The 135/2L has a slightly bigger WOW-factor than the 300/2.8L IS because of its small size. It's very portable and doesn't draw as much attention as the 300/2.8L IS does. They're both WOW optically. 
Feb 12, 2006 at 03:13 PM
p.3 #10"WOW" Reaction Lenses of Yours
My "wow" lens is my 10-22. Not just because of the perspective it affords, but also because of the sharpness, color, and contrast. It is the lens that gives me the most "3-D" look, or one with the most "pop."
Feb 12, 2006 at 03:16 PM
p.3 #11"WOW" Reaction Lenses of Yours
ovredal73 wrote:
1. 80-200L
.
.
.
can't believe we got to page 5 before someone mentioned my number 1 lens (by a mile) - the venerable 80 - 200 2.8L.
number 2 - 100 macro.
my number 3 is the tamron 28-75. My copy is immensly good.
1. 80-200L
.
.
.
can't believe we got to page 5 before someone mentioned my number 1 lens (by a mile) - the venerable 80 - 200 2.8L.
number 2 - 100 macro.
my number 3 is the tamron 28-75. My copy is immensly good.
Feb 12, 2006 at 03:18 PM
p.3 #13"WOW" Reaction Lenses of Yours
Sedalia636 wrote:
I recently purchased a 70-200mm 2.8L (non IS) and I have to say I wasn't wowed at all.
I am still deliberating what to do with the lens. I just don't think it is as sharp as others have said it is. but it might be my inabililty to produce a good picture, or maybe the camera itself just ins't sharp. I just find myself using Smart Sharpen to get it where I want it and for some nagging reason I don't think I should have to do that.
As Trenchmonkey suggested to you already, the 70-200 f2.8 has had very few "'soft" copies reported. Typically, no postprocessing should be required to get very fine images regarding clarity, colours, bokeh and all, starting with f/2.8.
Once a good fucus is established and the camera/lens is reasonable steady, the lens should be a ripper. Filters ? I suppose a bad/unclear kind can degrade the lens. I use B&W UV ones....never had a problem.
If you have covered all these bases already, the next step is obviously a trip to Canon service.
I recently purchased a 70-200mm 2.8L (non IS) and I have to say I wasn't wowed at all.
I am still deliberating what to do with the lens. I just don't think it is as sharp as others have said it is. but it might be my inabililty to produce a good picture, or maybe the camera itself just ins't sharp. I just find myself using Smart Sharpen to get it where I want it and for some nagging reason I don't think I should have to do that.
As Trenchmonkey suggested to you already, the 70-200 f2.8 has had very few "'soft" copies reported. Typically, no postprocessing should be required to get very fine images regarding clarity, colours, bokeh and all, starting with f/2.8.
Once a good fucus is established and the camera/lens is reasonable steady, the lens should be a ripper. Filters ? I suppose a bad/unclear kind can degrade the lens. I use B&W UV ones....never had a problem.
If you have covered all these bases already, the next step is obviously a trip to Canon service.
Feb 12, 2006 at 03:31 PM
p.3 #14"WOW" Reaction Lenses of Yours
400/2.8L IS- Wow. Perfect optics, IS, form, weather-sealing, everything. One of the primary reasons I shoot Canon, because someday I will own this monster. Of course, someday is a few years off...
70-200/2.8L IS- With it, basketball is paradise. Nuff said.
300/2.8L IS- Not so much the optics (kind of expected, not as hard to pull off as 400 2.8) as the overall design, fit, and finish. So nice to handhold, so functional, so durable. This is where my 200/1.8 really disappointed me, it just didn't "feel" right. That, and I can get 420/4 really reliably, whereas I don't need the 1.8 as much in college.
70-200/2.8L IS- With it, basketball is paradise. Nuff said.
300/2.8L IS- Not so much the optics (kind of expected, not as hard to pull off as 400 2.8) as the overall design, fit, and finish. So nice to handhold, so functional, so durable. This is where my 200/1.8 really disappointed me, it just didn't "feel" right. That, and I can get 420/4 really reliably, whereas I don't need the 1.8 as much in college.
Feb 12, 2006 at 03:41 PM
p.3 #15"WOW" Reaction Lenses of Yours
shouldn't it be the pictures, that make people say "wow" and not the lens
Feb 12, 2006 at 03:46 PM
p.3 #16"WOW" Reaction Lenses of Yours
For me, it has to be the 200 F/1.8 Lens.
Feb 12, 2006 at 03:48 PM
p.3 #17"WOW" Reaction Lenses of Yours
135L, no question...Opened up the box on Christmas morning, popped it on the camera, and my jaw dropped from the bokeh...I can look at images from this lens for hours, it's just a present to the eyes. Besides that, 2.0 has gotten me out of many fixes. I can't wait to try it out under our school's shady stadium lights...
Feb 12, 2006 at 04:03 PM
p.3 #18"WOW" Reaction Lenses of Yours
Mine are:
200mm 1.8L
300mm f/4L non-IS
200mm 2.8L first one
300mm 2.8L non-IS
80-200mm 2.8L
Lisa
200mm 1.8L
300mm f/4L non-IS
200mm 2.8L first one
300mm 2.8L non-IS
80-200mm 2.8L
Lisa
Feb 12, 2006 at 04:03 PM
p.3 #19"WOW" Reaction Lenses of Yours
85L was my first genuine WOW experience. The first wide open portraits I shot with it just killed me even though I'd seen and read plenty about it before I took the plunge.
45 tilt/shift was my second OMFG lens. I'd been trying to duplicate tilt effects in Photoshop for years when I finally decided to buy a t/s lens back in January. I fell in love with it after the very first frame. I understand some people use it to, like, correct stuff or something? I just make things blurry with mine, but then again I've also read you can do something called "stopping down" with the 85L...
45 tilt/shift was my second OMFG lens. I'd been trying to duplicate tilt effects in Photoshop for years when I finally decided to buy a t/s lens back in January. I fell in love with it after the very first frame. I understand some people use it to, like, correct stuff or something? I just make things blurry with mine, but then again I've also read you can do something called "stopping down" with the 85L...
Feb 12, 2006 at 04:19 PM
p.3 #20"WOW" Reaction Lenses of Yours
Wow for unexpected performance for the price for me goes to the Sigma 15-30. From f/5.6 up at 15mm it is incredible on the 5D.
Mike
Mike
Feb 12, 2006 at 05:30 PM