Here are a few observations I have made regarding Canon L glass lenses if this is of any help...
My L glass lenses delivered better quality and performance when I began purchasing 1d bodies. I noticed an improvement with my 1dmkII and more picture quality with my 1ds. Canon Repair told me the L series lens are considered pro lenses and work best with the pro bodies - they are all optimized for results at the pro level. Pro meaning picture quality expected in professional market demands - durability and quality in build, performance and image results. As an aside, it is this way with monitors as well (in my experience). Not only did I see better sharpness but faster and more accurate AF response with the same lens (from a rebel to a 10d to the 1 series). I recently read the great reviews of the Tamron 180 macro f3.5 Di LD IF lens and it was half the price of the Canon (which was also highly reviewed) - I also reviewed tests online that made image comparisons and the Tamron was equivalent if not brighter and 1/2 as expensive. I went to the local camera shop to rent the Tamron for a test, but not having one, I just made the decision to buy it instead. It delivered beautiful photos - sharp bright beautiful. But there were some aspects of how it "felt", and the push pull AF/manual switch was awkward and didn't always click in, and the AF was sometimes unable to lock with out a long search. So out of curiosity I rented a Canon. It felt more solid, it locked in the AF and faster, the switch always worked and did not knock out the focus when switching between manual and AF and of course could be manually focused even when on AF.... working with it was far better and secure for professional demands than the Tamron but what about the picture quality? I did a lot of studies and found that the appearance of brightness was a loss of detail (so slight) in the highlights and the shadow. Hitting the contrast in post took care of that for the Canon, but also lost the subtleties in the extremes that he Canon was revealing and that the Tamron was not. That "punch" that the Tamron was delivering could be created on the Canon image in post, but the very subtle detail loss in the Tamron could not. For those images where that subtlety was important, the Tamron would not deliver. Based on "Use Feel" and ease and reliability and the picture quality (not ONLY sharpness or contrast) I returned the Tamron and anteed up for the Canon - I have not looked back or thought twice about that decision although I did not feel good for having to shell out another 600 dollars at the time. I use the Canon for all my small product shots now (and rarely touch my 100 macro). I only own 4 L glass lenses that cover my perspective needs - 14mm, 24-70, 180 macro, 70-200. Although they are expensive, I have not regretted the purchase of any of them; in fact, they have been a pleasure to use and always perform well in image quality. My feeling is, that if my photos come out bad at his point, I can not blame my equipment. By the way - I made the same comparisons with third party lenses for the 14mm too (as this 14 is a chunk of change) The deciding factor was less flair and a bit less distortion. It does not take much for me to lay down the extra bucks, because in the end the money originally saved can get more expensive in post, or lost images over time. Again, let me reiterate what Canon claimed, the L series lenses and the 1 series bodies are optimized for one another to deliver the best performance. Something to keep in mind when discussing the L lenses and performance on a 20d or 350 or 5 or 30 etc. My experience has been that I got better performance from the marriage of the 1 and the L. Thought I would share a little real world USAGE tests to add to the image quality only tests because the performance of the lens in the shooting experience is also an important consideration. Specs and chart tests don't always reveal the whole story of a lens. Jeff * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
