In defense of the 17-40 f4L - I don't think it is one of those lenses that people feel strongly enough about. You do not hear people speaking about this lens like they do about the 851.2, or the 135L. There are likely sharper lenses out there - but it is a great workhorse lens at almost half the price of the 16-35 and essentially every bit as sharp. It is a solid lens, on my camera most of the time that I'll actually making money with it and has no pretensions of being so great as to be potentially overrated.
they are... you think they are all working pros and serious artists? No, most are shooting their kids and stuff and get off on equipment which is way more than they need... just like a lot of Leica users...
gdanmitchell wrote:
Speaking of weird... "most people buying Canon L -lenses are just techno geeks?" Say what?
Or maybe your ironic sense of humor is just too subtle for me... ;-)
But, even assuming that your claim is true, does your belief that "most" photographers with L glass are under-utilizing these lenses somehow make L glass intrinsically overrated?
Why should those of us who do use L lenses with purpose and to maximal effect suddenly be told that these lenses are overrated because other people who have nothing to do with us are buying them to take amateur baby snapshots?
Does someone have to be a "pro" or a "serious artist" in order to justify the L? Does the lens even know or care about the abilities of who is using it at any given moment?
wickerprints wrote:
But, even assuming that your claim is true, does your belief that "most" photographers with L glass are under-utilizing these lenses somehow make L glass intrinsically overrated?
Why should those of us who do use L lenses with purpose and to maximal effect suddenly be told that these lenses are overrated because other people who have nothing to do with us are buying them to take amateur baby snapshots?
Does someone have to be a "pro" or a "serious artist" in order to justify the L? Does the lens even know or care about the abilities of who is using it at any given moment?...Show more →
Leica isn't overrated, it's simply overpriced making it more of a luxury item than a photographic tool. Of course you'll still get improvement in your image quality but for the majority of people, the price to performance ratio is just not very good.
Now no one challenged that leica owners did nothing but fondle their lenses and put their cameras on the shelf but canon l users are somehow all miraculously wonderful photographers gimme a break
I think leica provides luxury photographic tools. All their products function wonderfully when used for photography... They're just too expensive for most canon users... So they often seem to need to slam what they are basically too cheap to buy...
n0b0 wrote:
Leica isn't overrated, it's simply overpriced making it more of a luxury item than a photographic tool. Of course you'll still get improvement in your image quality but for the majority of people, the price to performance ratio is just not very good.
mh2000 wrote:
Now no one challenged that leica owners did nothing but fondle their lenses and put their cameras on the shelf but canon l users are somehow all miraculously wonderful photographers gimme a break
I never said L glass was over rated... Or that leica was under rated... I only took issue with the claim that leica owners don't use their gear to take photos with... Even if it was true it wouldn't effect how good there stuff is... Just like people taking baby pictures with their L lens doesn't effect how good they are.
mh2000 wrote:
Now no one challenged that leica owners did nothing but fondle their lenses and put their cameras on the shelf but canon l users are somehow all miraculously wonderful photographers gimme a break
mh2000 wrote:
I think leica provides luxury photographic tools. All their products function wonderfully when used for photography... They're just too expensive for most canon users... So they often seem to need to slam what they are basically too cheap to buy...
And I suppose if one doesn't own a Mercedes, it's simply because one is too cheap to buy it? Now you're basically being callous about people's financial situation and I find that quite insulting. I don't own a Leica but it's not because I'm too cheap but because I simply can't justify spending that much money for a camera system.
So what if they're slamming Leica? It's not like you own the company or anything.
wickerprints wrote:
But, even assuming that your claim is true, does your belief that "most" photographers with L glass are under-utilizing these lenses somehow make L glass intrinsically overrated?
Why should those of us who do use L lenses with purpose and to maximal effect suddenly be told that these lenses are overrated because other people who have nothing to do with us are buying them to take amateur baby snapshots?
Does someone have to be a "pro" or a "serious artist" in order to justify the L? Does the lens even know or care about the abilities of who is using it at any given moment?...Show more →
Don't feed a troll...
If it isn't an EF 50/1.8 mk I or II, EF 35/2, EF 100/2 or TS-E 90 it doesn't get the MH seal of approval. Next to these merry few Canon lenses it is (mainly) Leica glass that has any credence, like the 50/1.4 Summilux.
In a tit for tat manner I'll be rude as well, I don't give a Flying F about what this conceited guy thinks, as long as he doesn't press on his (narrow) views in every damn post he participates in. Of course he is free to do so as it isn't my forum, but after a couple of years reading the same old stuff it really begins to annoy.
And in another bit of tit for that, the amount of graphical material provided has been limited to the same old 2-3 B&W children's images* for years now. But as these were not taken with L-glass it is probably allowed for...
Personal rant off, period.
My sincerest apologies to the rest of the community, especially the moderators.
Ruy
*disclaimer: these are nice images, no negative comments on that
mh2000 wrote:
Now no one challenged that leica owners did nothing but fondle their lenses and put their cameras on the shelf but canon l users are somehow all miraculously wonderful photographers gimme a break
I can't believe that dozens of posts later, you *still* don't realize the sarcasm of that particular post. I mean, I start off saying "all Canon lenses suck" in a Canon forum, *and* I own four L lenses. But then you went ahead and treated my post as if it were serious, made some patently ridiculous defense of Leica in the process, and ultimately and ironically proved the very thing I was attempting to parody, which is the sensitivity of Leica users to the slightest criticism of their fanatic behavior.
if you are keeping track of canon lenses that I think are good, you should add the 17-40L, 24L, 28/2.8, all the TS-E's, 50CM, 85L, 135SF and 135L, 200L's, 24-70L, any of the 70-200L's... just to name a few.
And about posting images, true, I don't post many... I don't really feel my work fits in around here, I'm just here to talk about gear... if you are interested, you can view some of my work here:
Just for the record, I'm too cheap to buy new Leica gear (that's part of why I went Canon in the first place)...
At the moment I only own two Lieca lenses that cost a total of $500 (used) and about $2500 worth of Canon lenses, so I've nothing to brag about...
New Leica stuff has always been too expensive for me, so how am I being callous or insulting? For most people around here, not being able to afford Leica is a *choice*, if it was important you would make the sacrifices needed to get the stuff... but does anyone need it? NO! do you need canon L glass to take superb photos? NO! Can you appreciate highest quality gear (Canon or Leica), why not?
further, with being callous about people's spending, how many thousands of posts around here go to noobs asking for advice how to get started and get 35L recommendations?
People slam Leica *users* around here all the time. It's stupid. If I mistook something meant as sarcasm which is said seriously all the time, my appologies.
n0b0 wrote:
And I suppose if one doesn't own a Mercedes, it's simply because one is too cheap to buy it? Now you're basically being callous about people's financial situation and I find that quite insulting. I don't own a Leica but it's not because I'm too cheap but because I simply can't justify spending that much money for a camera system.
So what if they're slamming Leica? It's not like you own the company or anything.
What was the "patently ridiculous defense of Leica" you think I made? I'm just curious? You think their lenses are rubbish? You don't think people actually take photos with them? You don't think they make expensive photographic tools? I can't find anything patently ridiculous in what I said, but I would appreciate being told what you found as ridiculous.
thanks.
wickerprints wrote:
I can't believe that dozens of posts later, you *still* don't realize the sarcasm of that particular post. I mean, I start off saying "all Canon lenses suck" in a Canon forum, *and* I own four L lenses. But then you went ahead and treated my post as if it were serious, made some patently ridiculous defense of Leica in the process, and ultimately and ironically proved the very thing I was attempting to parody, which is the sensitivity of Leica users to the slightest criticism of their fanatic behavior.
Incidentally, why are we discussing Leica lenses and getting our panties in a knot over it in a thread clearly dedicated to Canon lenses ?
Stick to the topic, do not needle your fellow members and all will be peachy.
mh2000 wrote:
People slam Leica *users* around here all the time. It's stupid. If I mistook something meant as sarcasm which is said seriously all the time, my appologies.
Do you really want to know why so many people criticize Leica users? Because so many of them are so freaking arrogant and into themselves just because they can afford to buy their gear. It's the same reason why I can't stand, say, BMW drivers in general. You know the type--the ones who like to show off in their car, drive aggressively, and where I live, they are a dime a dozen.
These people like to talk up their own brand choices because it is the only way they can rationalize having spent so much more money.
This is why we have Leica users bragging about the "Leica look" and Zeiss users saying how their lenses make their images "3D" but they can't quantify it. They won't subject themselves to a blind controlled experiment to see if they can discern if an image was taken with a Zeiss lens or not. That's what's really stupid.
I'm not saying that Leica or Zeiss lenses are no better than any other lens, or that their supporters have no legitimate basis for their claims. What I am saying is that the way they go about insisting to everyone how much better their images are just because they were taken with $20k of camera gear is tiresome. It's the same way with cars. It's a pissing contest.
wickerprints wrote:
These people like to talk up their own brand choices because it is the only way they can rationalize having spent so much more money.
This is brand loyalty in general, be it Canon, Nikon, Leica, Zeiss, etc.
People talk up L lenses in a very similar fashion.
