Wondering...but maybe I just missed that kind of comparison...
I know a let's say 50mm L will beat the 24-80mm L in different/known categories. Easy to explain because a zoom is a compromise but what about a 50mm 1.4 against the 24-80 L @ 50mm lets say @ 4.0? I have a feeling that can get pretty close and a 50mm 1.4 is dirt cheap compared to a L zoom. Anybody?
Apples and oranges are both fruit but, they are different.
You have non- L lenses and L lenses. You have consumer kit lenses, L prime lenses, you have L telephoto, and L Zoom lenses as well as non - L zoom lenses. THey are all lenses but, they provide different results.
You have to mess with them before you start to realize the difference between an ordinary lens and an L lens.
Experience and practice in trying to achieve a great result after many, many practice shots.
There are a few, very few, third party lenses which are quite good however, experience will out. L prime lenses will give you the best results, for the most part.
martines34 wrote:
Apples and oranges are both fruit but, they are different.
You have non- L lenses and L lenses. You have consumer kit lenses, L prime lenses, you have L telephoto, and L Zoom lenses as well as non - L zoom lenses. THey are all lenses but, they provide different results.
You have to mess with them before you start to realize the difference between an ordinary lens and an L lens.
Experience and practice in trying to achieve a great result after many, many practice shots.
There are a few, very few, third party lenses which are quite good however, experience will out. L prime lenses will give you the best results, for the most part....Show more →
I agree agree with everything you say...but what has that to do with my question?
Shall I clarify
77lemon77 wrote:
what about a 50mm 1.4 against the 24-80 L @ 50mm lets say @ 4.0? I have a feeling that can get pretty close and a 50mm 1.4 is dirt cheap compared to a L zoom. Anybody?
Nevermind the 50mm f/1.4. The 50mm f/1.8 at f/4 is sharper than any L zoom I have. It happens to be a fairly easy focal length to make sharp lenses.
A better question would be, say, the non-L wide angle primes against the L zooms. I know my 20mm f/2.8 (not exactly famous for its quality) was better at f/4 than my 17-40L at f/4. I would venture to say that the same would hold true for the even cheaper 24mm f/2.8. This is probably due mostly to the advantage of being stopped down a full stop versus being wide open.
77lemon77 wrote:
Wondering...but maybe I just missed that kind of comparison...
I know a let's say 50mm L will beat the 24-80mm L in different/known categories. Easy to explain because a zoom is a compromise but what about a 50mm 1.4 against the 24-80 L @ 50mm lets say @ 4.0? I have a feeling that can get pretty close and a 50mm 1.4 is dirt cheap compared to a L zoom. Anybody?
sure, a zoom is a compromise, but so to is a prime: the compromise being that you have a fixed focal length.
at 50mm @ f/4, they will obviously both have different characteristics, but you can't make a blanket statement like 'all L zooms are better than non L primes' or visa versa based on a single comparison.
in your example, the 24-70 would likely offer more pleasing colour rendition and bokeh, and will likely have lower aberrations due to the use of corrective elements, unlike the cheaper 50 f/1.4.
that's about the only response i can muster because the only question you asked was 'anybody?'
Some non L primes are sharper than L primes. Some L primes are sharper than non L primes.
Some non L zooms are sharper than L zooms. Some L zooms are sharper than non L zooms.
Some non L primes are sharper than L zooms. Some L zooms are sharper than non L primes
Some L primes are sharper than non L zooms. Some non L zooms are sharper than L primes
Some L zooms are sharper than L primes. You get the message...
What's important to note that all lenses have different characteristics and whilst L lenses are generally top notch when it comes to their optics, their flagship performance is only applicable to lenses with similar focal lengths and aperture ranges.
Here's a useful tool to compare specific lenses, be wary though, these crops samples represent the site owner's specific lenses. There is often wild sample variation for certain lenses, for instance my 50 f/1.8II is much sharper than the one on his site wide open, but it's a good tool.
I have to say that 'L' is not the end all be all of canon lenses. For instance the 100mm F2.8 macro provides incredible images. The 'nifty fifty' my wife got for christmas has been excellent so far, and the images certainly don't look like they came from an $80 lens.
The place where I think the L's excel are in the color and contrast, as someone mentioned above. We've chosen to buy L lenses in a few cases. I tested a 70-300IS lens borrowed from my wife co-worker. Great images, good color, very nice considering the price. But the 70-200F4 IMO provides better color an contrast. i feel the 17-40F4L provided more pleasing images than the 17-85mm EFs. The 28-70F2.8L was my first 'fast' lens and does very well. But it can't get the same images the 50 1.8 gets.
So to answer the question I think you were asking - yes you can get a wide variety of very excellent images that are sharp and with pleasing color by buying good non-L primes and saving money compared to L zooms. Photography can become a gear-centric hobby, especially for gear heads like me, but just like any other hobby a lot of great stuff can be done without spending tons of money.
Also L lenses are not always made to be the sharpest. Sounds stupid bu it's true. For example, the sharpest 50mm is the 1.8. The 1.4 and 1.2 are similar. But the 1.8 also has the poorest AF and a pretty rough bokeh. (actually very rough) It's also built like a disposable camera (which is why I use it when the chance of damage is high).
Buying an L lens is a mix of resolution, bokeh, speed, build quality, contrast, colour and handling. It's also easier technically to build a cheaper, sharper prime than a faster zoom lens.
You can compare a particular prime to a particular zoom easily enough but there are no generalisations for the whole range except fo build quality and handling.
OP said: Wondering...but maybe I just missed that kind of comparison...
I know a let's say 50mm L will beat the 24-80mm L in different/known categories. Easy to explain because a zoom is a compromise but what about a 50mm 1.4 against the 24-80 L @ 50mm lets say @ 4.0? I have a feeling that can get pretty close and a 50mm 1.4 is dirt cheap compared to a L zoom. Anybody?
Canon doesn't make a 24-80L. They used to make a EF 24-80 consumer lens. Any 50mm lens stopped down enough can usually compete with a short L zoom wide-open if sharpness is the only guage. The point of a 50 f1.4 is speed. Nobody would buy it if it were a 50 f4.
I would argue that the point of primes is not just speed, but high IQ, small package, light weight and low cost... all of which make them desirable... not everyone wants to carry around a $1000+ 2 lb.+ giant zoom which is only f2.8...
I guess the 100 Macro fell into my "cheap prime" category, but yeah, it's impressive.
