What makes this lense so good?

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by yahtzee, May 30, 2005.

  1. I shot about 200 shots this weekend with my 2.8 70-200VR and also with my kit lens (albeit very little, in comparison)....what is the huge difference in the way these two lenses are able to process a shot? I know the kit lens isnt as fast and doesnt have VR but holy vibration reduction, batman, what a difference in the two....(and i love the kit lens)....what makes this lense give that much better shot? im asking because i'd like a lower end version of it (if it exists)..thx. (sorry for the duplicate, uncle frank)
     
  2. Like most quality glass you'll find exceptional sharpness stopped down only 1-2 clicks and great wide open, superior contrast and color, and sweet bokeh. In my experience great glass has this "light sucking" capability where it seems like it's pulling light onto the sensor. :)

    Here's an example shot with the finest lens I currently own - Canon 135L f2. Keep in mind this is wide open and hand held with a quick moving toddler. The sharpness still exceeds a lesser lens stopped down. This was also shot midday under dappled light. The lens did an exceptional job of pulling detail out of his eyes - shaded by his cap. The bokeh is also pretty amazing - so creamy it doesn't look real. I can also use this lens for indoor sports at f2 with ISO 1600 allowing action freezing shutter speeds.

    Sensors may come and go but great glass is immortal. :D

    [​IMG]
     
  3. so any recommendations in the Nikon line?
     
  4. Joe

    That's an awesome pic! :D

    The C 135mm F2 would be the very first lens on a Canon in my hands. I've even considered (seriously) getting a Canon body just so I could use that lens. It's frustrating that Canon lenses can't be used on Nikon bodies (like Nikon can on Canon). :cry:

    Regards
    JohnG
     
  5. The 85 1.4 is the finest Nikon lens I ever used. The 50 1.8 is great and at $100 should be in every camera bag. The 135DCf2 is a special lens although the defocus control can be tricky (search for Dirk Vermiere on pbase for some excellent shots with the 135).

    Regards,

    Joe
     
  6. Thanks John. :) My biggest worry switching brands was missing the 85 1.4D, thankfully the 135L is in the same league. :) I was surprised to learn that I can use the 135 with my TC making it a very useful sports lens at 190 2.8 - and a crop factor equivalent of ~300 2.8.

    BTW, have you considered the Nikon 135DCf2? I think it might be on par with the Canon lens.

    Regards,

    Joe
     
  7. Jeff Mims

    Jeff Mims

    May 25, 2005
    Mississippi
    Joe,
    Awsome pic! Really nice.
     
  8. Not really................. I've seen numerous posts indicating that the Nikon 135 DC isn't quite as "sweet" as the 105 DC. I'm not brave enough to buy one and try. :lol:

    One the other hand, I've read good things about the older Nikon 135's so I'm looking for one of those. They are relatively inexpensive and I have had GREAT results from a couple of older Ai/Aia manual Nikon lenses.

    FWIW: Since I have very good discipline I haven't ordered a 1D Mark II and 135L. Not a 'funds' issue............ I just haven't learned the Nikon stuff good enough to justify complicating my learing curve even more. :oops: Don't think it hasn't crossed my mind a few times though. My goal in life.......... hahaha.......... is to get that Canon setup and also keep all of my Nikon gear. :lol:

    Regards
    JohnG
     
  9. Hi Jeff, thanks very much. :D
     
  10. MikeG

    MikeG

    145
    Apr 30, 2005
    SF Bay Area
    Excellent shot Joe!

    I'll not measurebate the C v. N issue since it's always the eye behind the lens that makes the difference, regardless of the equipment used.

    Nice work.
     
  11. Joe,

    Great photo. I really like the toning effect. What process (or tools) do you use to achieve that effect? Thanks.
     
  12. Actually, Dirk uses the 105 DC (not 135 DC) as probably his favorite lens -- and yes, he makes wonderful use of that lens. :D You can see his photos on pbase over here:

    http://www.pbase.com/dievee

    Unfortunately, he doesn't usually keep the EXIF data for web display (nor does he display photos all that large, if you want to check closely for sharpness, etc), but you can probably assume most photos that have a medium telephoto look used the 105 DC, especially the candids and some portraits. Most shots probably used the Fuji S2Pro w/ some newer ones w/ S3Pro (and maybe D2X, if he finally received his), and pretty much all shot in JPEG -- not RAW. :D

    I highly recommend taking a tour of his galleries even if you're not interested in the 105 DC -- he's one big reason why I decided to buy a DSLR over a year ago (and also not worry so much about brand debates as "Equipment is not the issue. Vision is everything."). :D

    _Man_
     
  13. Hehehe. Still looking for a way out, yahtzee :p? I'm going to re-post the reply I made to you on dpr.

    You've just begun a long slide down the slippery slope to financial ruin, Yahtzee. You've
    contracted an incurable illness called Lens Lust Disease. If you had just left well enough alone, and bought
    a 70-300 to complement your 18-70, you'd have had a delightful time taking pictures. But once you
    bought the 70-200, your fate was sealed. It's not the VR that makes the lens magic... it's the optics. So don't
    think the affordable 24-120VR will solve your problems. It's just another of Nikon's excellent consumer lenses.
    No, you've developed a taste for Pro glass, you poor soul.

    The only choices for a normal range zoom that will match up with the 70-200 are the dreadfully expensive
    17-55/2.8 or the even more expensive 28-70/2.8. Each of them has the same touch of magic, and the only
    reason for chosing one over the other is your focal length preference. I went for the 28-70 because of my
    concentration on event photography, but it's good at everything... from landscapes, to florals, and candids,
    to portraits. Here's some examples.

    original.gif
    View attachment 9699
    View attachment 9700
    View attachment 9701

    I hope you're single or have an understanding wife, because your hobby is about to get very expensive :twisted:.
     
  14. About to? Ha...not single but as long as my wife continues to see a few black lenses, all is good......lol
     
  15. Thank you Mike, really appreciate the kind words.:)
     
  16. Thanks Jeff. :) Here's the link to the technique - straight from Greg Gorman.

    http://www.gormanphotography.com/bw_conversion.pdf
     
  17. obelix

    obelix

    714
    Mar 17, 2005
    Fremont, CA, USA
    Oh boy, you are done for :(

    I have a similar setup like yours. I was post processing some photos taken over the weekend, some snapshots and I see this:

    Kit lens:

    [​IMG]

    70-200 VR:

    [​IMG]

    All I know is the VR shot has something *out* of the world going for it. I really like my kit lens, but having a lens like the 70-200 VR sucks :(. You are so used to high quality photos from this lens, you are not going to look back.

    Phil and UF have mentioned some good lenses and reasons, the only lens I can think off is the 17-35 f/2.8 lens which many seem to prefer over the 17-55 f/2.8 lens.

    Oh well, good luck. Pray for a jackpot!

    anand
     
  18. I agree Frank, the 28-70 2.8 is a great lens, very versatile. Some say that the digital 1x factor even makes it better. I find myself keeping it on the camera a lot. Now what do I do with my 17-35? I just bought the 12-24, OH the possibilities! CS Dayan
     
  19. Chris101

    Chris101

    Feb 2, 2005
    Arizona
    Ha! I love it! Cause the 0.67x factor for 35mm film makes all my lenses too short. ;)