User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  8
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: New lens time - L series or regular?

  1. #1
    Ausphotography Regular Fedgrub's Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Dec 2009
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    684
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    New lens time - L series or regular?

    Hi everyone,

    I'm going to move from a Nikon D90 to a Canon 7D in a month or so, so I am pricing up my options. I'd rather get something I can grow into, rather than wishing I got a better lens earlier on. After a good walkaround lens, nothing specialty.

    Here are a couple I am looking at:

    Canon EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens - http://www.dwidigitalcameras.com.au/...p?idProduct=48

    Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Lens - http://www.dwidigitalcameras.com.au/...?idProduct=489

    When a lens says f/4 - can it do anything outside of this, like f/5.6? I am getting confused because some lenses detail the window of f/range.

    I tried Googling to see whether there is a comparison to show the quality difference between L and regular lenses, but couldn't find anything. Did a lot of reading about weather-resistant bodies and the motors, but nothing about the quality of glass. But that's what I've heard L series lenses are known for...

    Anyone had any experience with these lenses? What's your opinion on them?

    Thanks in advance.

  2. #2
    Account Closed
    Join Date
    03 Mar 2010
    Location
    Townsville
    Posts
    889
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The aperture stated in the name like f/4 or f/2.8 etc is the max the lens is capable of. They wil all go to the smaller end (bigger number) from there.

    The other aperture size lenses just mean that the max size changes at different focal lengths, for example the 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 will be f/3.5 at 28mm up to say 70mm , then capable of f/4 at around 70mm to 100mm, then capable of f/5.6 from about 100mm onwards. (Those tripping points for max aperture aren't accurate, just an example of what it probably changes at. Google will probably tell you exactly, but you get the idea).

    Some people like the 24-105 on a crop camera like the 7D etc, personally I don't as it's not wide enough. It's ideal on the full frame camera like the 5d etc. For a crop camera to get a similar field of view to 24mm you need to be around 15 or 17mm. Some sacrifice this and prefer the extra length it gives.

    Really depends on what you prefer and suits what you're shooting.

    A couple of ideal Canon lenses for the crop range are the EF-S 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 and the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 (The EF-S range is specifically for the crop sensor cameras)

    A good site for review of Canon lenses is here

    http://www.the-digital-picture.com/
    Last edited by Art Vandelay; 27-06-2011 at 9:10am.

  3. #3
    Account Closed
    Join Date
    05 Feb 2011
    Location
    CQ
    Posts
    922
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    "When a lens says f/4 - can it do anything outside of this, like f/5.6? I am getting confused because some lenses detail the window of f/range."

    Actually that is the maximum aperture value of the lens through its zoom range not the the aperture range of the lens. The lenses will go to somthing like f22 normally and that is right through the zoom range. Some go to f32, and some only go to f16. I don't think you can go wrong with an L.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    30 May 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,599
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If you can afford it, go the L. You won't regret: quality is remembered long after price is forgotten.

    I have forgotten what I paid for my 24-105L. But I'm glad I have it
    Canon 7D : Canon EF 70-200mm f:2.8 L IS II USM - Canon EF 24-105 f:4 L IS USM - Canon EF 50mm f:1.8 - Canon EF-s 18-55mm f:3.5-5.6
    Sigma APO 150-500mm f:5-6.3 DG OS HSM
    - Sigma 10-20mm f:3.5 EX DC HSM
    Speedlite 580 EX II - Nissin Di866 II - Yongnuo 460-II x2 - Kenko extension tube set - Canon Extender EF 1.4x II
    Manfroto monopod - SILK 700DX Pro tripod - Remote release - Cokin Z-Pro filter box + Various filters

    Current Social Experiment: CAPRIL - Wearing a cape for the month of April to support Beyond Blue
    Visit me on Flickr

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    06 Oct 2009
    Location
    Clayfield QLD
    Posts
    278
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Definately a strong supporter of the 24-105, although not as wide as some other lens's the 105 at the other end, certainly makes up for it.

    Buy a new one if possible, some older one have a problem with the IS, which has happened to mine, now using 17-55 F2.8, and I actually found the 24-105 focussed better in low light, and really missing its reach.

    The 7D is a great camera too, I upgraded from a 450D, and even though I am not using all the features of the 7D yet, at least they are there to learn .

    Cheers Dave
    I have this silly idea, that I should actually go and take photos with all this photography gear I have already accumulated, before I collect any more!

    See some of my photos here.
    https://www.facebook.com/pages/David...5888662?ref=hl
    And my very randomly updated blog.
    http://davidarnold.wordpress.com/

  6. #6
    Loves The Wildlife. Mary Anne's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 Dec 2009
    Location
    Brisbane Southside.
    Posts
    32,844
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have the 24-105mm L which I use on my 5D Mk 11 ..... I don't use the 24-105mm L lens on my 40D

    For my 40D and its cropped sensor I prefer the f/2.8 17-55mm non L lens even though it has a L price tag, its a fantastic fast lens and goes to f/22
    My 52/2011 Challenge

    I shoot with Canon And Olympus Cameras



  7. #7
    can't remember
    Join Date
    16 Apr 2007
    Location
    Ballarat
    Posts
    2,010
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It is a mistake to think that there is an optical difference between the L Series lenses and other Canon lenses of any organised or set, standard kind.

    In general, lenses which have "L" badging are truly excellent optically, have especially good build quality, and are designed with aperture and focal length relationships that tend to be uncommon and expensive. But there is no law that says "every L Series lens has to be a good one" - nearly all are, but certainly not every one.

    It is even more important to note that the non-L lenses vary a great deal. They range from the cheap and cheerful (18-55, 50/1.8, 28-135, 55-250) through the reasonably priced and half-decent (50/1.4, 18-135, 18-200) to the pretty woeful (75-300, 17-85) to the very, very good (15-85, 70-300/4-5.6) and the simply superb (17-55, 60 macro, 10-22, 100 macro).
    Tony

    Edit and critique at will. Tokina 10-17 fish, Canon 10-22, 24-105, 100-400, TS-E 24, 35/1.4, 60 macro, 100L macro, 500/4, Wimberley, MT-24EX, 580EX-II, 1D IV, 7D, 5D II, 50D.

  8. #8
    Ausphotography Regular
    Threadstarter
    Fedgrub's Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Dec 2009
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    684
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tannin View Post
    It is a mistake to think that there is an optical difference between the L Series lenses and other Canon lenses of any organised or set, standard kind.

    In general, lenses which have "L" badging are truly excellent optically, have especially good build quality, and are designed with aperture and focal length relationships that tend to be uncommon and expensive. But there is no law that says "every L Series lens has to be a good one" - nearly all are, but certainly not every one.

    It is even more important to note that the non-L lenses vary a great deal. They range from the cheap and cheerful (18-55, 50/1.8, 28-135, 55-250) through the reasonably priced and half-decent (50/1.4, 18-135, 18-200) to the pretty woeful (75-300, 17-85) to the very, very good (15-85, 70-300/4-5.6) and the simply superb (17-55, 60 macro, 10-22, 100 macro).
    Thanks! Those lens summaries are really helpful to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by davearnold View Post
    Definately a strong supporter of the 24-105, although not as wide as some other lens's the 105 at the other end, certainly makes up for it.

    Buy a new one if possible, some older one have a problem with the IS, which has happened to mine, now using 17-55 F2.8, and I actually found the 24-105 focussed better in low light, and really missing its reach.

    The 7D is a great camera too, I upgraded from a 450D, and even though I am not using all the features of the 7D yet, at least they are there to learn .

    Cheers Dave
    Thanks, Dave. Is there anyway to check if it's the newer model? Don't want to order online and get one of the older ones with the problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scotty72 View Post
    If you can afford it, go the L. You won't regret: quality is remembered long after price is forgotten.

    I have forgotten what I paid for my 24-105L. But I'm glad I have it
    Ha! That's a good way of thinking. You sir, are going to make me a very poor man, but a happy man.

    Quote Originally Posted by camerasnoop View Post
    "When a lens says f/4 - can it do anything outside of this, like f/5.6? I am getting confused because some lenses detail the window of f/range."

    Actually that is the maximum aperture value of the lens through its zoom range not the the aperture range of the lens. The lenses will go to somthing like f22 normally and that is right through the zoom range. Some go to f32, and some only go to f16. I don't think you can go wrong with an L.
    Probably worded that wrong, didn't expect it to go to f/1.8 or anything, just anything smaller than 4. Thanks for confirming

    Good to hear that there are supporters of the 24-105 f/4L here. Anyone had any experience with the 18-135mm?

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    30 Dec 2009
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    266
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    There is a lot of good advce here which will give you a good idea what to buy..

    I for one would buy the following lenses if I started from scratch again....
    Canon 15-85, 100 mm macro f2.8 (old one) 70-200 F4 L (also the orginal) they are all great lenses and reasonably priced

    You will love the 7D

    Regards
    Last edited by Pine; 27-06-2011 at 3:08pm.
    Bodies : Canon 450D, Canon 7D
    Lenses : Canon 15-85 f3.5-5.6 IS USM, Canon 100mm F2.8 Makro USM, Canon 24-70 L F2.8 USM, Canon 70-200 L F4, Canon 100-400 L F4.5-5.6L IS USM
    Editing : Photoshop CS5

  10. #10
    Ausphotography Regular
    Join Date
    16 Jul 2010
    Location
    Brisbane (Southside)
    Posts
    547
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The 18-135 is nice for the extra width on a crop camera, but is not as sharp as the 24-105 (specially in low light which is one of my favorite times). The 24-105 is a very popular lens which will not disappoint you and if you need wider, then you could always consider adding a wide zoom to your collection which can give you distortion in many situations
    Steve


    Equipment: A couple of Canons with some lenses and a heap of enthusiasm



  11. #11
    Ausphotography Regular
    Threadstarter
    Fedgrub's Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Dec 2009
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    684
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Pine View Post
    There is a lot of good advce here which will give you a good idea what to buy..

    I for one would buy the following lenses if I started from scratch again....
    Canon 15-85, 100 mm macro f2.8 (old one) 70-200 F4 L (also the orginal) they are all great lenses and reasonably priced

    You will love the 7D

    Regards
    Thanks, Pine. I will check those out.

    Quote Originally Posted by in2fx View Post
    The 18-135 is nice for the extra width on a crop camera, but is not as sharp as the 24-105 (specially in low light which is one of my favorite times). The 24-105 is a very popular lens which will not disappoint you and if you need wider, then you could always consider adding a wide zoom to your collection which can give you distortion in many situations
    Ok cool, I will keep hunting for a good price, thanks.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Feb 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,837
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    why are you moving from a D90 ? That's the strange part
    Darren
    Gear : Nikon Goodness
    Website : http://www.peakactionimages.com
    Please support Precious Hearts
    Constructive Critique of my images always appreciated

  13. #13
    Ausphotography Regular
    Threadstarter
    Fedgrub's Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Dec 2009
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    684
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by kiwi View Post
    why are you moving from a D90 ? That's the strange part
    I love my D90, and it was my first SLR. I don't buy into the whole Nikon vs Canon argument, but the majority of my friends are in the Canon cycle. They always offer to loan me lenses, but obviously I can't take them up on the offer. Because I only have two lenses with the D90, figure it's better to switch now before I buy more accessories. Was thinking of buying a speedlite, which made me think about what would be best.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Jun 2011
    Location
    Innaloo
    Posts
    278
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    When I was looking at 50mm primes the extra price for the L series just wasn't worth it. I picked up a regular 50mm f1.4 for$ 379, whereas the L series was over $1300 and reviews showed that it was only slightly better in a few areas. It seems that the benefits vary between lenses, but you definitely need to consider whether it is worth the extra $$$, or if it's better to learn how to take better photographs with "regular" lenses. Take a look at some of the competition winners' photos, many of them are taken on "regular" or even cheap lenses.
    Last edited by I @ M; 27-06-2011 at 4:31pm.
    Ryan

    D800 | Nikkor 24-70mm ƒ/2.8 | Cullmann Tripod |Manfrotto 680B Monopod | Lowepro Flipside 400 AW | 2x Yungnuo 560 flash & wireless trigger| FleaBay Lightstand, umbrella and collapsible softbox
    My Flickr site
    RSK Photography - Perth based Motorsport Photography

  15. #15
    Sunrise Chaser
    Join Date
    10 Jul 2010
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    6,346
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by 98kellrs View Post
    When I was looking at 50mm primes the extra price for the L series just wasn't worth it. I picked up a regular 50mm f1.4 for$ 379, whereas the L series was over $1300 and reviews showed that it was only slightly better in a few areas. It seems that the benefits vary between lenses, but you definitely need to consider whether it is worth the extra $$$, or if it's better to learn how to take better photographs with "regular" lenses. Take a look at some of the competition winners' photos, many of them are taken on "regular" or even cheap lenses.
    Fairly true, If you look at my Signature all images except Week 247 were taken with Non "L" Lens , But believe me , The 24-105 f4 L Images blew me away with the clarity , The landscapes were taken with the 10-20 Sigma, The rest with Canon Kit lens EFS 18-55 , The next buy will be the 17-40 L for the Full Frame I'll get next , IMO , Go for better glass - Cheers Bill
    Canon : 30D, and sometimes the 5D mkIII , Sigma 10-20, 50mm 1.8, Canon 24-105 f4 L , On loan Sigma 120-400 DG and Canon 17 - 40 f4 L , Cokin Filters




  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    31 Oct 2009
    Location
    Vic in Oz
    Posts
    46
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have both the 28-135mm and the 24-105mm f4 IS L. The 28-135 was my first non kit lens and is an OK lens. However the 24-105mm L IS is simply a great lens - sharp as, quick to focus and the IS is fabulous. It's pretty neat shooting at 1/15 sec with IS on and getting sharp pics with some selected motion blur (eg flag waving at the footy). Do not use my 28-135 any more - probably should sell it.

    If you are getting a 7D - I envy you - great camera!

    If the 24mm is not wide enough on the 7D, you might consider a Tammy 17-50mm F2.8. I mostly use the 24-105, but in a tight room, I pop the Tammy on my 40D.

  17. #17
    Ausphotography Regular
    Threadstarter
    Fedgrub's Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Dec 2009
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    684
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    Fairly true, If you look at my Signature all images except Week 247 were taken with Non "L" Lens , But believe me , The 24-105 f4 L Images blew me away with the clarity , The landscapes were taken with the 10-20 Sigma, The rest with Canon Kit lens EFS 18-55 , The next buy will be the 17-40 L for the Full Frame I'll get next , IMO , Go for better glass - Cheers Bill
    Quote Originally Posted by screamer View Post
    I have both the 28-135mm and the 24-105mm f4 IS L. The 28-135 was my first non kit lens and is an OK lens. However the 24-105mm L IS is simply a great lens - sharp as, quick to focus and the IS is fabulous. It's pretty neat shooting at 1/15 sec with IS on and getting sharp pics with some selected motion blur (eg flag waving at the footy). Do not use my 28-135 any more - probably should sell it.

    If you are getting a 7D - I envy you - great camera!

    If the 24mm is not wide enough on the 7D, you might consider a Tammy 17-50mm F2.8. I mostly use the 24-105, but in a tight room, I pop the Tammy on my 40D.
    You guys are selling me too quickly! Thanks

  18. #18
    can't remember
    Join Date
    16 Apr 2007
    Location
    Ballarat
    Posts
    2,010
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I posted an older and shorter version of this list in another thread recently - the discussion there may be relevant to you: http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...All-round-lens


    • (i) superzooms .....
    • ....... All lens designs are compromises. Superzooms achieve a huge focal length range by compromising speed and image quality. An SLR with a superzoom produces better pictures than a point & shoot ... but what doesn't? Bottom line: superzooms are designed to do everything, and they do. They just don't do it very well.
    • Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. $790 For: incredibly wide zoom range; said to be quite sharp for a super-zoom. Against: the non-USM focus motor is not really acceptable on an $800 product. Sum-up: better than most superzooms but flawed; pity you can't buy the Nikon one in a Canon mount.
    • Sigma 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM About $550.00. Cheaper than the Canon one; even slower; apparently has a proper focus motor. Don't know anything else about it - or care, to be honest. The image quality price you pay to gain the extra range over a standard general-purpose zoom design (beyond about 100mm) is always too high. The only reason I can think of to buy any of these superzooms is that you need a cheap(ish) do-everything lens to travel with.
    • Canon 28-300/3.5-5.6L IS USM. Not really relevant here but included for interest, as this is a superzoom for full frame, and it actually works very well .... but it costs $3000, weighs 1.7kg, and still can't match the image quality delivered by a decent 70-200 or 24-105.
    • Various other 18-200ish and 18-270ish models. Who cares?
    • (ii) full-frame general-purpose lenses .....
    • ....... Generally excellent lenses, though rather expensive, but these suffer from one major problem: they are far too long at the short end for general-purpose use on a standard APS-C camera. Some people don't seem to mind not having any wide-angle; many are driven nuts by all that tedious lens swapping; others again carry two cameras so that they have an ultra-wide option ready for use. Obviously, you also need something wide, the Canon 10-22 is one of several good choices.
    • Sigma 24-70mm F/2.8 EX DG, About $750. Cheap; fast. Not very sharp. You get what you pay for.
    • Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM. About $1700. Fast; very sharp; quite expensive; quite heavy; old model; no IS.
    • * Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM. Around $1370. 24mm is not nearly wide enough; the barrel distortion below 28mm may or may not bother you, but otherwise vice-free and an excellent choice.
    • Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. About $550. Way too wide for general-purpose use on APS-C, but quite cheap, quite sharp, and excellent build.
    • Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM. About $1100. Actually designed as a wide-angle zoom for full-frame, but acts as a wide-normal zoom on 1.6 crop. Cheap for an L Series lens, viceless and well-regarded, but very short at 40mm, only f/4, and lacks IS.
    • (iii) short, fast zooms .....
    • ....... If you can live with a shortish long end and speed is important to you, one of these would make an excellent choice. If you like working with a shallow depth of field or in low light, f/2.8 is a big bonus. You will probably also want something longer: sensible choices might be a 70-200, pretty much any macro lens (all macros are quite fast, and can happily be used for all sorts of things besides macro), or a portrait-length prime such as an 85/1.8.
    • Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical. Around $630. Fast but a bit short at 50mm; no IS.
    • Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC. About $550. Very similar to the Tamron 17-50. I don't know which is better. Same strengths and weaknesses.
    • Tokina AT-X 165 Pro DX AF 16-50mm f/2.8. Around $1230. No IS; a bit short at 50mm; 16mm is a lot wider than 18mm; but very expensive! Actually a Pentax design. I assume that it offers better build and image quality than the Tamron or the Sigma, but it would need to at that price!
    • * Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS. $1400. The best lens in class, but a bit short and quite expensive. If you can live with 55mm at the long end and spending $1400-odd, and if f/2.8 is important to you, easily the best all-rounder on the market. Nothing else offers the tempting combination of f/2.8 speed, outstanding optical quality, and IS.
    • (iv) genuine all-rounders .....
    • ....... Where the short, fast lenses sacrifice the long end of the focal length range to achieve speed, and the full-frame lenses sacrifice the short end, this class of lens sacrifices speed to achieve a wide focal length range. Useful for many purposes, they are particularly suited to landscape work where a fast aperture is hardly ever needed. No lens can do everything, but these come pretty close. Nevertheless, be prepared to buy something fast to compliment your choice - a 50mm prime, for example, or any macro lens.
    • Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. About $200, often less when bundled with a camera. Remarkably good optics for the money, and the IS is very useful. But very flimsy; horrible concrete-mixer focus motor; can't really use filters because of rotating front element. Just the same, a decent starting point because it is so cheap you can simply throw it away later when you decide what lens is right for you and upgrade.
    • Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. About $580. Better than any superzooom, but still a cheap lens which lacks a proper USM focus motor but is otherwise said to be very good, particularly considering the huge focal length range.
    • * Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4 DC OS HSM. About $600. A very usable focal length range and excellent value for money. This new image stabilised version is the one to have. Generally quite well regarded, but some negative reports.
    • Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4.0-5.6 USM IS $800. Canon's ugly duckling, now more-or-less discontinued. Useful focal length range, excellent build quality, but had some quite significant distortion problems and was never popular.
    • * Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 USM about $1000. Much improved new replacement for the 17-85 IS. Not fast, but excellent in every other way: build quality, USM focus motor, image quality, latest IS. All things considered, probably the best single choice for an all-round general-purpose lens on crop, provided only that you don't need f/2.8.

  19. #19
    Member sonofcoco's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Sep 2009
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    137
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have a couple of 'L' lenses with my 40D (the 24-70mm f2.8 and the 70-200mm f4), both are great lenses and the 24-70mm was a big step up from the 17-85mm I got as a kit lens with the camera. I've also heard great things about the 17-55mm and it was a big decision choosing between it and the 24-70mm. I'd say spend some time researching all your options, as you are now on here, and make a decision that best suits your budget and your needs.

    I've also got the 10-22mm and the 100mm macro non-L lenses and they're great too. It doesn't have to be an 'L' to get a good quality lens.
    Last edited by sonofcoco; 28-06-2011 at 5:34pm.

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    26 Jun 2011
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    126
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I bought the 100-400 4.5-5.6 L series lens with my 40D over 3 years ago. I've been quite happy with the results and a few guys I know get lens envy.

    Since I bought the 7D I 've really seen a marked improvement in the images, simply because of the higher megapixel's. The L lens will always give the best image your camera was intended to give.

    Happy hunting.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •