szucsbela
Topic Author
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 8:46 pm

Difference In Lenses

Sun Feb 20, 2011 6:04 pm

Hello!
I am fairly new to photography, I would say not a beginner, but still don't know a lot. I am new to aviation photography. I wanted to hear it from the seasoned guys. How much difference is in the lenses, let's say a kit lens that cost 4-500$ and an L series lens for the Canon that costs 1300$. I have the 50D kit that came with the EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS kit lens. I have been photographing airplanes for a while and I can't even come near to what I would like my pics to look like. at 135 mm the pics are still noisy and sometimes blurry. Now I am thinking of buying the EF 70-200 f/4 L IS USM lens. I hear really good things about it on the reviews. I know about photography enough to get good pics with my kit but I wonder if this lens will get me less noisy and sharper images. Is the difference big enough ( I guess is what I want to know ) in these two lenses.
Thanks
 
JakTrax
Posts: 4647
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Difference In Lenses

Sun Feb 20, 2011 7:07 pm

Sounds to me like it's technique as the kit lens you have shouldn't produce noisy or blurry images. Blur (rather than softness) is down to too slow a shutter (causing motion blur) or the AF not quite locking on, and grain is produced by the sensor, not the lens. The 50D is pretty good at controlling grain, even at ISO400, so I suspect it's something you're doing as opposed to a fault (although based on recent experience a lens fault shouldn't be ruled out). Are you using full-auto modes by any chance?

I used kit lenses for a couple of years before upgrading to L glass and had no issues with them. In fact, the first kit lens I had was optically inferior to your 28-135.

From what you are saying, I doubt buying a 70-200 f/4 L will solve your dilemma. The 28-135 has IS, whereas the 70-200 does not, so blurry images should effectively become more commonplace still.

Not trying to sound condescending but I would consider learning a little more about aviation photography before jumping in with both feet and buying an expensive lens. L glass will help with image quality only if the photographer is competent enough - in other words, if you aren't getting good images with cheap gear the expensive stuff won't help.

Karl
 
User avatar
Buyantukhaa
Posts: 2289
Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 5:33 am

RE: Difference In Lenses

Sun Feb 20, 2011 8:10 pm

Quoting szucsbela (Thread starter):
EF 70-200 f/4 L IS
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 1):
The 28-135 has IS, whereas the 70-200 does not

He did mention IS actually. I have the 70-200 L IS and it's fabulous, an investment that you will not regret. But as said before grain isn't a lens issue, it sounds like you're using too high ISO settings.
I scratch my head, therefore I am.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2637
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Difference In Lenses

Sun Feb 20, 2011 8:25 pm

While the 28-135mm can produce good images, any of the Canon L line will be amazing in comparison.

for one I can't stand how slow the kit lens is in AF. It takes a week to get from one end of the range to the other and my 7D atleast loves to hunt in anything but perfect light with it. Also common with non-L glass using it wide open makes for very soft shots.

Going to a more modern IS will also help. The latest IS on the 70-300mm L I've found 1/5 is about as slow as I can go hand held... The older IS on my 70-300mm IS 1/20 is pushing it. Also the older IS is far noiser and more prone to ruining a good shot by running when not needed. The 28-135mm kit lens for me LOVED to do that.
 
ANITIX87
Posts: 2953
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 4:52 am

RE: Difference In Lenses

Mon Feb 21, 2011 2:30 pm

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 3):

for one I can't stand how slow the kit lens is in AF. It takes a week to get from one end of the range to the other and my 7D atleast loves to hunt in anything but perfect light with it. Also common with non-L glass using it wide open makes for very soft shots.

I don't ever have problems with my 18-135, and it isn't even USM. I LOVE that lens for close-up aviation. I used it at JFK a few months ago, and it locked on every time, immediately. In low light it hunts a little bit, but my 50D focuses more quickly with the 18-135 attached than the 1D with a 35L does in low light. The 7D should be considerably better than my 50D.

TIS
www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
 
szucsbela
Topic Author
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 8:46 pm

RE: Difference In Lenses

Mon Feb 21, 2011 2:42 pm

Yes well I was worried I would get answers like that, I probably should have explained myself bette. I did not want to say blur but rather the images were soft. Maybe because at 135 mm the images are not as good quality as shorter focal lengths. I know how to deal with blur and I do not use automatic mode. I am still experimenting with different settings. Of course the problem is also that I can't get close enough to get good pics. Maybe a larger lens would help. In anyway, I hope the sensor is ok, i
 
szucsbela
Topic Author
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 8:46 pm

RE: Difference In Lenses

Mon Feb 21, 2011 2:49 pm

It left out the bottom...... I was going to say I will go out to my camera shop and try out these L lenses and see what the differnece is
 
szucsbela
Topic Author
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 8:46 pm

RE: Difference In Lenses

Mon Feb 21, 2011 2:57 pm

http://www.athrust.com/photo/large/425.html

here is one my pics with the lens kit
 
JakTrax
Posts: 4647
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Difference In Lenses

Mon Feb 21, 2011 5:42 pm

Apologies, I missed the IS bit. Sounds like you are not happy with the long-end performance of what you currently have, so like the others I would say give L glass a go. At your level of experience you will notice a difference.

Another piece of advice - if you don't really need the IS save yourself some dosh and go for the 70-200 f/4 non-IS.

By the way, you have answered a query of mine from another thread regarding the 28-135 - cheers!

Karl
 
szucsbela
Topic Author
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 8:46 pm

RE: Difference In Lenses

Mon Feb 21, 2011 9:53 pm

I know the non IS is much much cheaper, so that's probably what I will get, Every one just praises the IS glass.
 
JakTrax
Posts: 4647
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Difference In Lenses

Mon Feb 21, 2011 10:16 pm

Quoting szucsbela (Reply 9):
Every one just praises the IS glass



Both the 70-200 f/4s (IS and non-IS) share identical fluorite optics so image quality is pretty much identical. The IS obviously has its uses in lower light or if you wish to try panning. IS is of course useful but you are paying a premium for it.

The 70-200 non-IS receives an equal amount of praise for its image quality.

By the way, your image isn't bad at all. It appears a little soft around the tail but it's about what I'd expect from the 28-135.

Karl
 
ckw
Posts: 4586
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 12:26 am

RE: Difference In Lenses

Tue Feb 22, 2011 1:02 am

Both the 70-200 f/4s (IS and non-IS) share identical fluorite optics so image quality is pretty much identical. The IS obviously has its uses in lower light or if you wish to try panning. IS is of course useful but you are paying a premium for it.

While it is entirely possible that particular lens elements are the same (can't find the exact specs just now), there are significant differences in the lens construction - 20(!) elements in 15 groups vs 16 elements in 13 groups. I've had both, as well as the 70-200 2.8 IS, and there is no doubt in my mind that the f4 IS is the sharpest of the lot. So you are getting improved quality plus IS for your money. The new version also has the rear elements coated to deal with sensor reflection which is lacking in the older pre-digital design.

Having said that, used versions of the non IS f4 may be one of the best value for money purchases you can make- it is by any standards an excellent lens.

Cheers,

Colin
Colin K. Work, Pixstel
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2637
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Difference In Lenses

Tue Feb 22, 2011 2:03 am

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 4):
I don't ever have problems with my 18-135

18-135mm is a newer and better lens than the 28-135mm. I haven't used the 18-135mm, but from all the reviews it sounds like its in the "$500" lens class vs the 28-135mm where the $200 it costs over a bare kit is pushing it value wise. To be fair, the 28-135mm is saddled with having the build costs of being an EF lens while now being a cheap lens for "cheap" EF-S cameras.
 
szucsbela
Topic Author
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 8:46 pm

RE: Difference In Lenses

Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:19 pm

By the way, you have answered a query of mine from another thread regarding the 28-135 - cheers!

Karl!
I don't think I answered your thread, because I don't remember, I think this is my first thread ever in this site. Anyways, I think you probably went through the same changes I will. I personally I don't dislike the 28-135, I think it's a decent lens for an advanced amateur, but for me it's time to move on. . I just got my hand on some $, so I want to upgrade a bit. Air Force One is coming to CLE this morning so I will buy the L lens this morning and head out there for a day of shooting, very excited. Hope the weather is good         
 
JakTrax
Posts: 4647
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Difference In Lenses

Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:51 pm

Colin,

Yes, the 70-200s all have different construction but what I was trying to get at is the fact that the elements inside each are the best money can buy. I too heard that the f/4 IS is the sharpest, but I've also heard that the new f/2.8 II now steals that crown.

The f/4 non-IS still sells by the bucketload becasue it is without doubt the best value pro-grade lens on the market. I've no doubt the IS version has the edge but you are paying close on double for it.

I hope the OP enjoys shooting today with his new piece of kit.

Karl
 
szucsbela
Topic Author
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 8:46 pm

RE: Difference In Lenses

Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:00 am

Yeah man, they could not get the non-IS for me, it was out all over northeast and west ohio, so I went with the IS. Just had to not think about the money LOL. Must tell you though, it was worth the dollar for me, finally seeing some results on my photography, I have been practicing for a long time and now it's starting to look like something. Very excited about the new lens. Oh and Air Force One was beautiful. The snow cover threw the light back from under when it was landing, took my breath away. Truly a great day out there shooting.
 
JakTrax
Posts: 4647
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Difference In Lenses

Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:21 pm

Glad you like it! The fact that no-one could get you a non-IS version goes to show just how popular it is!

Karl

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests