L lens for 400D
- Thread starter MichaelHo
- Start date
You will definately see an improvement in Image Quality by using an L Lens on a 400D, when compared to the kit and most non-L lenses, you wont get the absolute best out of the lens, but you will get the best out of the camera.
Totally agree with that, when i began upgrading to L series lenses when i had my 350d i definately noticed a difference in image quality!
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 2,503
- Location
- Oop North
Dear santa, I would like a 50mm 1.2L. Failing that, the £850 it costs
hey, there's £50 cashback on that lens
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 10,001
- Location
- Scottish Highlands
Dear santa, I would like a 50mm 1.2L. Failing that, the £850 it costs
Too slow for my liking. Id prefer a Carl Zeiss 50mm f/0.7
Deleted member 11679
Deleted member 11679
Invest in better glass not cameras wherever possible.
Too slow for my liking. Id prefer a Carl Zeiss 50mm f/0.7
You're neither Stanley Kubrick or NASA, so you're probably out of luck.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 10,001
- Location
- Scottish Highlands
Is is Nasa!
Does anyone know why making suach a lens would be very expensive? Ie why doesn't Nikon make a 50mm f0.7 AF-S VR? I realise its needs more glass, and that the aperture needs to be designed to 'fold away' smaller when wide open, but I can't see why it costs SOO much to make fast lenses.
This is a very simplified explaination but it goes something like this:-
50mm f/0.7 means having a maximum aperture opening of 71.5mm so the glass has to be at least that diameter. Manufacturing and polishing lenses of this size isn't cheap.
At 50mm the lenses have to be thick to generate sufficient refraction to form the appropriately sized circle of confusion at the focal plane. Different wavelengths of light refract by different amounts. This is exacerbated by the thickness of the lenses required. It's therefore necessary to use a mix of low dispersion glass and complex optical designs to reduce the possibility of chromic aberations (coloured fringing due to uneven refraction). This increases the cost in terms of raw materials and design time.
The lens is now starting to get pricey so it's into the territory where it has to be near perfect for anyone to justify buying it. Therefore the rest of the lens has to be very well put together - the glass has to be mounted very accurately, the focus mechanism has to be accurate, the overall build quality has to be commensurate with the price. All this costs more money.
Finally the lens is now at a price point where it isn't going to be a huge seller so the end retail price (or at least the wholesale price) has to be at a level that can recoup the investment so it probably gets a wee hike again.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 10,001
- Location
- Scottish Highlands
Cheers for that good explanation rpstewart. Didn't reconginse you there btw, with your new Avatar and no Sig image.
Didn't reconginse you there btw, with your new Avatar and no Sig image.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 10,001
- Location
- Scottish Highlands
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2003
- Posts
- 3,750
- Location
- Manchester
I got L glass with my 350D, it made a huge difference. Then when I moved to a 5D body, it was nice and everything but the IQ didn't really change, I just got more options. I fully recommend better glass over bodies!
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 2,503
- Location
- Oop North
I would, Kind of.
Personally I wouln't go for the consumer body, and then spend glass. I would however spend the money on glass if I had a prosumer level camera instead of spending on the next revision to the model.
i.e. I would upgrade to a 40D from a 350D or even 400D, but I'm not sure I would from a 40 to a 5D or 1D.
My reasoning is that the consumer models are too small, and the thing does not balance well with larger galss. The functions I want are not easy to hand (changing focus points on a 40D is simple and done in about half a second with the camera up to my face, the same operation on a 400D i need to look at the back of the camera). Some of the functions I want are not on the lowest models (spot metering), and I'm not convinced of the drurability of the consumer models.
I have no gripes about the image quality, they seem pretty good from both the 40D and 400D we have (though the 40D probably has the edge).
Mind you, if you are happy with the handling of the camera you have, than by all means spend the cash on quality glass.
Even though I get frustrated with some of the 300D's limitations (buffer, AI servo) I am intending to get a 70-200mm F4L if the funds allow because I believe for what I shoot, I will be happier with..
300D + 70-200
over,
400D + Sig 70-300 APO
for example, perhaps a better one would be a 17-40L over a new camera with kit lens.
300D + 70-200
over,
400D + Sig 70-300 APO
for example, perhaps a better one would be a 17-40L over a new camera with kit lens.