File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Hey /p/!

Im about to buy two new lenses for my canon 400D. I need:
- one for consert photography. I was thinking about the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM.

- another one for landscape. Im a lightseeker, and I want a lens that justifies my getting up 03:30 in the morning to get perfect light. For this, I though the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM would be nice.

- I also want som cokin filters, but that might have to wait.

I have no experience with L-lenses, so I need some help. What do you think, /p/?
>> Anonymous
>Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM
Are you sure you din't need something slightly longer? 35mm (56mm equivalent on 35mm film camera) works for concerts only when you're really close to the stage.

>Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM
Good, if you don't need wider angles for your landscapes.

>I have no experience with L-lenses, so I need some help. What do you think, /p/?
L lenses are top quality and intended for full-frame cameras, thus expensive. If you like your lenses rock solid and/or want to upgrade to 5D/1D later, they're good choice, otherwise you might want to look at something else (especially for wide-angle lenses, as no L lens is going to be very wide on an APS-C camera)
>> Anonymous
>>137471
Hey, thanks.

>Good, if you don't need wider angles for your landscapes.

Yes, I am abit worried about that. I do need wide angles, I was just hoping that 17mm is wide enough? The sigma 10-20 and Tokina 12-24mm are both abit soft and loose in the build quality from what I have read. The price gap from the canon 10-22mm to the 17-40 L is so low that the solid one with the red ring is more tempting.

I ordered a 50mm 1.4 for a consert lens, btw.
>> Anonymous
I think youd be suprised how good the Tokina 12-24mm is. Its the best wide angle lens, if you ask me. Better than both the canon and the sigma.
>> Anonymous
>>137485
>17mm is wide enough?
Depends. It's just a wee bit wider than 400D's kit lens. 10/12mm, on the other hand, is like a whole world apart (even to the point it becomes TOO wide).
>> Anonymous
>>137495
According to tests on Photozone, the differences are subtle (if you have a properly centered Sigma, lol) except bigger CAs on Tokina. Lateral CAs are easily correctable, though.
>> Anonymous
guises

can we get comparison shots betwen a shit lense and a good lense plaese
>> Karus !1ArVdsoeAw
Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM is an amazing lens. If you have money to spent, go for it. You won't regret it.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM is also great lens, you may also check out 16-35mm f/2.8 L II. There are other good lenses for landscape photography such as Canon EF-S 10-20mm, Sigma 10-20mm, Tokina 12-24mm. Since they are APS-C mount lenses, you won't be able to use them in full frame bodies, keep that in mind.

As for filters, always go for B&W, the best filters ever made imo.
>> Anonymous !SDPEsPMnww
>>137534Canon EF-S 10-22mm

fix'd
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>137519
Lol, if you're not printing them at 20x30, in most cases you won't notice. Unless, of course, you've been shooting against the sun and got zomfg flare/fringing or the geometric distortion made some of your skyscrapers wavy, but that happens even with some highly regarded lenses.

Case in point: one of these pictures was shot with a $400 lens, the second with a $4 one. Can you tell which is which?
>> Anonymous
>>137537

hahahahaha


haaaaaaaaaaaaahahahaha lol no i can't

why should i bother with getting a better lens? guises explain plox.

Is it for the amout of light a lense can catch or some shit
>> Anonymous
>>137548
>Is it for the amout of light a lense can catch or some shit
Indeed. Also: faster AF speed, better build quality/QC, for some people and some lenses - the shape of the out-of-focus blur.
>> Anonymous
>>137485The price gap from the canon 10-22mm to the 17-40 L is so low that the solid one with the red ring is more tempting.

Great. Judge the lens by its build quality before its application

They are 2 different fucking lenses. The 17-40 will have almost the same field of view as the 18-55 kit lens on your camera whereas the 10-22 will be truly ultra wide.

THINK about what you want to shoot before you fall into the LOL I WANT TO BUY L LENSES mentality.

This is someone who has 2 L lenses so it's not just L-envy.
>> Anonymous !KRuMRaNDOM
>>137537
The right one is much better. Please tell me it's the cheap lense so I can save money.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>137584
On the other hand, if he picks up a full frame dSLR or a film SLR at some point, the 17-40 *will* be ultrawide.
>> Anonymous
OP here.

>THINK about what you want to shoot before you fall into the LOL I WANT TO BUY L LENSES mentality.

Yea, I know.

I ended up with the 50mm 1.4 and a sigma 10-20mm.

As for the filters, I kind of like the cokin consept, where I can mount them on different lenses without the consern of filter ring size.

How is this kit? http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/387468-REG/Cokin_CU960_Z_Pro_W960_Pro_Graduated.html

Amazingly cheap compared to prices here in scandinavia.
>> Anonymous
>>137589

Assume for the worst. When someone asks questions like these without researching themselves, chances are they don't even know about crop factor.

Read his posts, it reeks of newfag compensating skill for L factor.

But sure, buy the Ls.
>> Anonymous
>>137537
Good lenses don't have to cost alot. Used M42 Pentax primes are some of the best lenses ever made, the Soviet Union churned out thousands of <$50 Zeiss copies, etc. etc. Good glass is important, not because of resolution or whatever, but just to give images a stand-out look. The old Canon kit lens, for intstance- it resolved more than enough detail for what anyone would really need to do with it. The problem was it added nothing to the image. It wasn't bad, it was just so middling and utilitarian an imager no-one liked it. The new IS kit lens, OTOH, has some pretty awesome bokeh and a little pop in the foreground. That's probably more responsible for people liking it than a bunch of MTF charts showing how it's so much better than the old one.

>>137485
Try it out and see. Canon does have a return policy, doesn't it?

And as far as the 35/1.4, everyone pretty much needs a normal prime, but Canon screwed this up for crop-sensor users with its larger crop. The 35/1.4 would work great, but it's a very long normal. Still usable, though, and I think you should probably get it or the 28/1.8, depending. The 28/1.8 would work and is good, but it's not as good of a lens.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>137596
True enough. My thought was that if he's seriously contemplating an L, he might be enough of a richfag to go out and buy a 5D too. ;)
>> Anonymous
>>137595I ended up with the 50mm 1.4 and a sigma 10-20mm.

Oh, fair enough.

I didn't read that part because my /p/ rage was over 9000.

Moving along.
>> Anonymous
>>137537

I would like to know more about a $4 lens.

If not for the quality or lack thereof but for the lulz. And because it's $4.
>> Anonymous
I do plan on buying a 5D at some time, but right now im happy with my rebel. Im not a richfag, its just that I live in Norway, and by ordering from the states, I basicly pay half of what you would pay. Right now the dollar is low as shit too, so I though it would be a good time to buy.

Also, im not that much of a newfag. I do make some money from my shots. Been doing some calendars, sold some shots to tourist brosures etc.
>> Anonymous
>>137587
>>137605
Left one is $4 Industar-50-2 (50mm f/3.5 Tessar copy, single coated), wide open.
Right one is $400 Voigtlaender Ultron SL II (40mm f/2, multicoated, aspherics, etc.), stopped down to f/4 where it's sharpest.
>> Anonymous
lol, the difference is huge.
>> Anonymous
>>137608I basicly pay half of what you would pay

??
>> Anonymous !KRuMRaNDOM
>>137613
Crap.
>> Anonymous
>>137761
I have a $80 manual Chinon 50/1.4 which is equal or better than the Voigtlaender at all apertures, if that makes you feel better. (It does neither look nor rotate as classy, though)
>> Anonymous
>>137595

Those are great filters, but that kit might be abit big. You will probably use like two or three of those filters.
>> Anonymous
i think L lens is a pretty cool guy. eh costs a lot of money and doesnt afraid of anything.
>> Anonymous
>>137792

Hey, do you have the screenshot-pic of the original doesnt afaid of anything-guy?
>> Anonymous
>>137801

bump
>> Anonymous
>>137900

Let the meme die.
>> Anonymous
>>137469
I have the 17-40mm lens. I primarily shoot landscape and architectural photography. I love the lens, its absolutely great. highly recommend!
>> Anonymous
the 17-40 on crop is fucking retarded
>> Anonymous
>>138377
Why?! Its almoast a complete midle range zoom, dumbass. The last 10mm uo to 50 are stupid on crop sensors anyway.
>> Anonymous
>>137537
Though you already posted the answer, yes, it's obvious.
>> Anonymous
>>139001
As with any full-frame wide-angle zoom on crop, it's expensive for what it can do. Especially now, when Canon has 18-55 IS for 200 bucks, which is a bit slower, but comparable optically (no, I'm not joking) and has IS and a bigger zoom range.
>> Anonymous
>>139001

because for $700 there are better alternatives

tamron's 17-50 2.8 for one, 4.0 is fail

you're using an ultra wide angle as a standard zoom

if you're taking landscapes stopped down, you might as well take then with a 18-55 is
>> Anonymous
>>139008

Okey fair enough. Gah, I hate the fact that L-lenses have this grip on consumers. Canon shot the fucking gold eagle in making senselessly expencive lenses with a red ring for distinction.
>> Anonymous
sigma does it, tamron does it, nikon does it

>>139089Canon shot the fucking gold eagle in making senselessly expencive lenses with a red ring for distinction.

that's stupid, they're not senselessly expensive for nothing

but they're not always the answer to everything
>> Anonymous
>>139089
>senselessly expencive lenses with a red ring for distinction

L lenses are quite reasonably priced if you understand what they're intended for. In fact, many Nikon lenses are more expensive than their Canon L counterparts.
If you want some senselessly expensive glass, look at Leica. A 50/1.4 for ten times the price of its Canikon cousins? Fuck yeah!
>> Anonymous
>>139093
>>139099

No, they are in fact not reasonably priced. Not at all. You just think so because youre used to these insane prices. Glas (even the most pure), cheap metal, some plastic and two yellow hands does not give high production costs. Its just like buying a 500 dollar pair of pants from acne or whatever.
>> Anonymous
flawed logic is flawed
>> Anonymous
>>139120
If those lenses could be produced for cheap without sacrificing quality, the smaller Japanese manufacturers and the Chinese would be all over it. But they aren't.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
white lense > red ring

you know it to be true.
>> Anonymous
>>139127

white lenses also have the red ring

DIVIDE BY NIL
>> Anonymous
>>139128

actually, canon's white lenses aren't even white, it's beige-ish

nikon and minolta's white lenses are white
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>139129
STEALTH TROLLING
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
hmm, looks beige too

their product group shots make them look super white

or maybe i'm thinking of minolta

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon IXY DIGITAL 700PhotographerJeffrey Eric Francis FriedlMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution400 dpiVertical Resolution400 dpiImage Created2006:11:05 23:31:50Exposure Time1/8 secF-Numberf/2.8Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length7.70 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardTime (UTC)13:42:37Date (UTC)2006:11:05
>> Anonymous
it's like somebody stuck an xbox on a camera
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>139120
Yeah, and why the hell do cars cost so much? It's basically just a chunk of metal with some cloth and class and plastic and rubber thrown in.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
hah

there's a choice of color for the nikon 70-200 2.8 vr

wonder if there's a premium for white
>> Anonymous
ac, think fast, you've got $1,700

70-200 2.8 IS or 85 1.2

no other choices
>> Anonymous
>>139142
same cost, same funtctionality, same box ...
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>139143
70-200 2.8 IS. STALKER LENS FUCK YEAH.
>> Anonymous
>>139148

fuck yeah is right

bitches don't know about internal focus so i can be like

hey babe, let me take a headshot but i'm zoomed in at 200mm and pointing at the cleavage
>> Anonymous
>>139144

yeah but one is white dude, it's white
>> Anonymous
>>139141

Wow, yea.. thats the same thing!! Idiot.

>>139126

The reason theyre not is because of compatibility issues and nothing else. (except maybe a see of patented technics and products.)
>> Anonymous
>>139120
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkWsk9rXpcU&feature=related
>> Anonymous
>>139155
Compatibility issues aren't a concern, there are lots of third party lens makers whose lenses work on canon and nikon bodies. It's the precision at which these lenses are made. It takes hundreds of millions of dollars of equipment to get the precise manufacturing that these lenses demand. It's not just a tube with circular glass. Plus, first party lenses are really expensive mainly because of r&d costs.
>> Anonymous
>>139163

am i the only one who cracked up when he said EF FIVE HUNDRED MILLIMETERS F/4 L IS USM
>> Anonymous
>>139168
Hahahaha dude, watch all 3 parts, he says it so many times, so funny.
>> Anonymous
>>139172

I suppose it's better than saying Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP XR Di II LD Aspherical IF. I can just imagine someone saying this during their press release.
>> Sicko !L3HRY/miC.
Also look out for the classy lens flare on the finished shot of the lens.
>> Anonymous
EF FIVE HUNDRED MILLIMETERS F/4 L IS USM EF FIVE HUNDRED MILLIMETERS F/4 L IS USM EF FIVE HUNDRED MILLIMETERS F/4 L IS USM EF FIVE HUNDRED MILLIMETERS F/4 L IS USM