Comparison shots between "L" series and stock lens

number41 · 30 Oct 2006 at 16:34

Having an argument at work with a non-photographer with him saying that expensive lenses and the stock lenses make no difference. I'm trying to tell him that expensive lenses are sharper, etc but he doesn't believe me!

Having only the stock lens, I cannot take any comparison shots so is it possible someone could point me to a website with comparison shots or could someone post a few comparisons between the quality please?

Wouldnt mind seeing the difference myself tbh as I'm saving for a new lens at the moment!!

FranchiseJuan · 30 Oct 2006 at 17:05

Actually it would depend on the application of what you are shooting. If you are only printing small (6x4) prints, or web use, and mainly shooting at F8 or around that, then it really does not matter what lens you have. If you like to print for A3 or A3+, need to be able to sell stock, and maybe magazine type stuff, or like shallow depth of field then yeah, a more expensive lens would be a nice consideration.

You also need to define kit lens. The Canon 17-85 IS is a kit lens. The Canon 24-105 IS is a kit lens. The Pentax 16-45 is also a kit lens.

Pho · 30 Oct 2006 at 17:20

You could always look at http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ - their not comparison shots but you can certainly tell the differences.

danza · 30 Oct 2006 at 17:21

Pbase is what you need.

Be aware that there are plenty of rubbish shots from L glass users there, but the good ones far outstrip the stock lenses in terms of outright image quality on all terms.

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon

/edit:

Dang, beaten to it!

SDK^ · 30 Oct 2006 at 18:01

Basically they have no idea what they're talking about.

Here is a test I did when I got my 17-40L F4
All tests were carried out on a Tripod, using the Mirror Lock-up custom function and the Self Timer swtiched on - purely to minimise any chance of blur. If the lens has Image Stabilisation (IS) then this was turned off. The Images were shot as Large Fine JPEGs at ISO 100 on a Canon 20D set to Parameter 2 (No in camera sharpening etc), Auto White Balance and 100% center crops taken straight from the camera.

Canon 28-135mm IS - 28mm at F4

Canon 17-40mm L - 28mm at F4

Beansprout · 30 Oct 2006 at 18:05

^Don't dooo that, you make me miss my 17 - 40L

Swapped it for the also shown 28 - 135 IS due to size/practicality

number41 · 30 Oct 2006 at 18:47

SDK^ said:
Basically they have no idea what they're talking about.

Here is a test I did when I got my 17-40L F4
All tests were carried out on a Tripod, using the Mirror Lock-up custom function and the Self Timer swtiched on - purely to minimise any chance of blur. If the lens has Image Stabilisation (IS) then this was turned off. The Images were shot as Large Fine JPEGs at ISO 100 on a Canon 20D set to Parameter 2 (No in camera sharpening etc), Auto White Balance and 100% center crops taken straight from the camera.

Cheers for that! Quite a difference isnt it

For those asking, I was talking about the 18-55mm stock lens with the 350D kit

brocksta · 30 Oct 2006 at 19:53

Theres also the quality of the bokeh too, which i would assume is much nicer with a 17-40l compared to the kit lens. Theres also the build quality differences such as the smoothness of the focus ring, as well as the speed of focusing too.

dod · 30 Oct 2006 at 20:02

SDK^ said:
Here is a test I did when I got my 17-40L F4

That makes the lens look ridiculously bad. Not doubting technique or anything but was that a dodgy copy you had??

SDK^ · 30 Oct 2006 at 20:13

dod said:
That makes the lens look ridiculously bad. Not doubting technique or anything but was that a dodgy copy you had??

Nope... the 17-40L is fine

The 28-135IS is extremely soft between 28-50mm and below F8.

TomO · 30 Oct 2006 at 20:13

dod said:
That makes the lens look ridiculously bad. Not doubting technique or anything but was that a dodgy copy you had??

i guess it doesnt help the 28-135 that 28mm is right at the end of its range.

dod · 30 Oct 2006 at 20:24

SDK^ said:
Nope... the 17-40L is fine

Guess the 28-135 is one to be avoided then, didn't realise it was quite that bad

nomore · 30 Oct 2006 at 21:03

SDK^ said:
Basically they have no idea what they're talking about.

Here is a test I did when I got my 17-40L F4
All tests were carried out on a Tripod, using the Mirror Lock-up custom function and the Self Timer swtiched on - purely to minimise any chance of blur. If the lens has Image Stabilisation (IS) then this was turned off. The Images were shot as Large Fine JPEGs at ISO 100 on a Canon 20D set to Parameter 2 (No in camera sharpening etc), Auto White Balance and 100% center crops taken straight from the camera.

Canon 28-135mm IS - 28mm at F4

Canon 17-40mm L - 28mm at F4

No wonder you always say the 28-135IS is soft. That example is terrible. My 28-135 IS is MUCH sharper than that, even at f/3.5.

I also have a 17-40 L which is sharper, but not THAT much sharper.

SDK^ · 30 Oct 2006 at 21:12

nomore said:
No wonder you always say the 28-135IS is soft. That example is terrible. My 28-135 IS is MUCH sharper than that, even at f/3.5.

I also have a 17-40 L which is sharper, but not THAT much sharper.

Do a test yourself and you'll be very surprised

It’s only when you compare images from both side-by-side that you realise how soft it is
There was nothing wrong with my 28-135 - it took quite sharp photos at F8.

Check the full test here

:: EDIT ::
I'll see if I can find a full image taken at 28mm F3.5.

Psilonaught · 30 Oct 2006 at 21:33

doesn't suprise me that the it's so soft. I remember the truly terrible 17-85mm IS USM I used to own.

That's no where near a stock lens price wise but below 30mm it was so soft I almost cried.

The very first shot i took with my 24-105 immediately showed it up

SDK^ · 30 Oct 2006 at 21:39

Some images taken with the 28-135mm wide open to show how at first glance they look sharp.
Click images for the full size version

28mm @ F3.5

28mm @ F4
This image had earned me about £100 on a stock photo site.

nomore · 30 Oct 2006 at 21:53

SDK^ said:
Do a test yourself and you'll be very surprised It’s only when you compare images from both side-by-side that you realise how soft it is
There was nothing wrong with my 28-135 - it took quite sharp photos at F8.

Check the full test here

:: EDIT ::
I'll see if I can find a full image taken at 28mm F3.5.

I'll see if I can dig out some images taken with my 28-135IS a bit later and post full-size crops.

Maybe I just have a 'special' version...

number41 · 30 Oct 2006 at 22:23

From looking at that comparison site seems if you "step down" the F value then they look quite similar. I'm still trying to figure out what step down means however!! Whatever it means I like it lol

D.P. · 31 Oct 2006 at 08:55

number41 said:
From looking at that comparison site seems if you "step down" the F value then they look quite similar. I'm still trying to figure out what step down means however!! Whatever it means I like it lol

I dont know how much you know but here it is in laymans terms (I may be wrong but this is my understanding, and it works for me):

The F number reffers to the aperture of the lens.
The aperture is how large the whole that lets light into the camera is....
With A small hole the camera acts likea pin-hole camera and helps to keep everything sharp (larger depth of field).
A large whole limits the depth of field (there is a smaller depth at which things are in focus).

You can adjust the aperture (F number...) to gain different effects. A landscape wants everything to be in focus, so you need the max aperture (F) possible. When photographing a portrait of an object or personn you may want to hide the details of the background, softening it. A lower F number achieves this.

But the size of the hole effects how much light gets in. The difference between F4 and F8 is that the F8 allows half the amount of light to get in.... you will need twice the exposure or twice the sensitivity.

But you have a min exposure to take into account if hand held, or if you are photographing a moving object.

Cheap lenses often perrorm poorly below abut F8, and are optimal at around F12-14.

nomore · 31 Oct 2006 at 09:13

The "F number" should be written like f/4 or f/11 etc. The 'f/' referres to the fraction of the lens focal length. E.g., f/8 means that the aperture is 1/8th the size of the focal length... f/16 means that the aperture is 1/16th of the lens focal length.