L lens for 400D

Associate
Joined
19 Jan 2006
Posts
1,243
Location
London, UK
Is it worth having an L lens on a entry level camera like the 400D?
Would you be able to get the most out of it? Or are L lenses made for the more pro DSLRs?
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
4,416
Location
Colne.... Up Norf.
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.
 
Associate
Joined
23 Jun 2005
Posts
1,767
Location
Nottinghamshire
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
8 Nov 2002
Posts
3,417
Location
Near Bristol, Uk
Too slow for my liking. Id prefer a Carl Zeiss 50mm f/0.7 :D

drool.gif


Sam C
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Sep 2005
Posts
9,998
Location
Scottish Highlands
You're neither Stanley Kubrick or NASA, so you're probably out of luck.

Is is Nasa!:mad::p 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.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
11 Mar 2003
Posts
10,706
Location
Greenock, Scotland
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.
 

33L

33L

Associate
Joined
25 Sep 2006
Posts
1,989
Location
Windy Sheffield
I gather it was along those lines rpstewart. Now i will just print that off and give it to the missus so she understands why it costs so much.
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Sep 2003
Posts
3,713
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 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!

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.
 
Associate
Joined
30 Apr 2003
Posts
1,696
Location
Prescot, Liverpool UK :)
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.
 
Top Bottom