# My new camera - pics of my M3



## Jon Shafer (Dec 15, 2001)

Welcome me to the world of digital SLR.

Thanks to those who guided me through the process...


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

Your car looks great, Jon. :thumbup: So which Canon lens are you using with your camera?


----------



## beauport (Jul 2, 2002)

Congrats - let's hear about the camera and lenses/accessories. This can be as bad as cars and mods.


----------



## jakefitz (May 27, 2005)

Jon - car looks great. What's your trick for getting the mirror finish? Looks like new!


----------



## Jon Shafer (Dec 15, 2001)

jakefitz said:


> Jon - car looks great. What's your trick for getting the mirror finish? Looks like new!


Several coats of Meguiar's Next Generation Tech wax, topped off with Carnuba, and lots of elbow grease... 

Cliff,

I used the 28- 135with image stabilaztion.

Question for the experts: does using the "L" series of lenses really improve the quality/sharpness of the images that much -- enough to justify the extra cost of the special glass?


----------



## n pinson (Feb 24, 2006)

Very nice pictures...they look professional :thumbup:


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

Jon said:


> Question for the experts: does using the "L" series of lenses really improve the quality/sharpness of the images that much -- enough to justify the extra cost of the special glass?


Let the corruption begin


----------



## KrisL (Dec 22, 2001)

Jon said:


> Question for the experts: does using the "L" series of lenses really improve the quality/sharpness of the images that much -- enough to justify the extra cost of the special glass?


Like anything else in this world, you pay 2x as much for 10% better... it all depends on what you consider "enough"...


----------



## n pinson (Feb 24, 2006)

Jon said:


> Welcome me to the world of digital SLR.
> 
> Thanks to those who guided me through the process...


What camera do you have?


----------



## Jon Shafer (Dec 15, 2001)

n pinson said:


> What camera do you have?


Canon Digital Rebel XT.


----------



## AndrewZ (Feb 1, 2006)

I thought M's had a quad exhaust I dunno, Nice Pics:thumbup:


----------



## AK (Jan 19, 2002)

Jon said:


> Question for the experts: does using the "L" series of lenses really improve the quality/sharpness of the images that much -- enough to justify the extra cost of the special glass?


The short answer is "yes", but the 28-135 is a pretty good lens for the buck. That particular lens just doesn't go very wide on a 1.6 crop sensor camera like the Rebel XT since it was designed for full frame (35mm) cameras years ago. The DSLR equivalent is the EFS 17-85mm.

FWIW, here's a sample from my 70-200 f/4L.


----------



## DragonGT (Nov 3, 2006)

nice car ... congrats !!


----------



## ClubSpec330i (Oct 22, 2003)

Very clean car Jon!!

Lots of time, I see a person with high price DSLR takes decent picture and other with consumer DSLR takes a wonderful picture. It is all about imagination.

As for L lenses, I do have them. Do I use them? Not as much. But they do produce nicer tone than non-L. 

My wife and I take picture as a hobby..
My gear 20D+Grip, 17-50F2.8, 24-70F2.8, 70-200F2.8L+580EX
My wife Rebel XTi+16-35F2.8L+420EX

Guess what..some of her pictures come out better than mine..

Here is a sample of my old 10D+70-200F4L (as quality as F2.8L)


----------



## ortoman (Jan 7, 2006)

*Nice car and pics!*

I also have a canon digital rebel, but unfortunately I only have a Macro 100mm lens because I take clinical photography.

Maybe I should consider buying a lens like the one you have. Is it too expensive? Is it Canon brand?


----------



## hhibmw (Nov 8, 2007)

Sensational car. Love the pics.


----------



## bugawako (Oct 2, 2007)

Nice Pictures! 

L lenses make a huge difference. Besides better color, you'll notice how sharp your pictures will become. Your 28-135 is a great every day lense, but when you want to start doing serious photography, L is the way to go. I don't shoot anything but L


----------



## FastWoman (Nov 18, 2007)

Jon, whether the L lenses are justified/needed depends on what you're doing with the lens. I'm a pro, and most of my shooting is with L lenses, but I do happen to own the very lens you're using and have even used it professionally. Here are some guidelines:

Weather: If you're going to be shooting in damp/wet conditions, you'll want the L lens. You can recognize the L lenses by the red ring on the front. When you see press photographers standing outside in the rain, waiting for some celeb to do something interesting, you'll notice all their lenses have red rings. (No Nikon glass there, by the way.) You'll also notice that the build quality of an L lens is much more substantial. The controls work smoothly, and all the elements are tight. That's not true with your 28-135.

Chromatic abberation (the color fringing you see in contrasty parts of the picture especially on the outer margins): Most of the L lenses have aspherical elements that do a good job controlling chromatic abberation. They are also manufactured with better quality control, which helps control this problem. You'll notice this problem if, say, you're shooting lots of outdoor pictures with some objects sillhouetted against a bright sky. The EF 28-135 IS USM does a pretty good job with chromatic aberration, but not great.

Lens costings: Always much better on the L glass, which means less lens flare and ghosting. Contrast will be better, but that depends somewhat on whether the lens is looking at bright lights, whether the sun or even artificial lights and reflections. PhotoShop can compensate for much of the contrast problem, but the "ghosts" of the lights are more daunting.

Sharpness: Better on L, of course. The difference is most apparent at wide apertures. At smaller apertures, there's much less difference between your 28-135 and an L.

You'll struggle to see most of these problems in a 4x6 print. You might notice them a bit more with a photo blown up to the size of your computer screen. However, most people don't get that nit-picky about image quality. For amateur work, the 28-135 is an excellent choice of lens, IMO.

If you want to get into L glass, not all of it is priced in the stratosphere. For instance, there's a very reasonably priced EF 17-40 f/4 L USM that is becoming very popular. I own it and love it. It's tack sharp, with no chromatic aberration that I can tell, and the coatings are amazingly good, making it an excellent choice for landscape photography. 

*Some* of the Sigmas are also quite good and well exceed the quality of most of Canon's non-L lenses. For instance, they make a 12-24 zoom that's quite extraordinary. Quality control is a big Sigma issue that matters to those like myself who *are* nit-picky about image quality; however, the engineering work that went into the lens is nothing short of amazing, and if you're patient enough to search for and find a good copy of the lens, you will be well rewarded for your efforts. There are also some non-L Canon lenses well worth owning. For instance, the EF 50 f/1.8 is superbly sharp and contrasty, although the build isn't great, and it's also a bit of an imprecise lens in its auto-focus. You can buy the lens quite cheaply. 

You'll find that the telephotos are where the biggest differences in price lie, particularly the fast telephotos. You can save yourself a *lot* of money by buying IS (imaged stabilized) lenses, rather than faster lenses -- with the same results, unless your objective is to minimize depth of field. For the telephotos, there is often a BIG difference in image quality between L lenses and ordinary glass, but you'll have to take out a second mortgage to afford some of those lenses! A cheap alternative is the older mirror lenses, adapted to your camera with adaptors found on Ebay. The old Soviet screw mount mirrors are optically quite good but uncoated. Nikon made some excellent mirrors that you would probably like better. The only problem with ANY mirror lens is the "bokeh" -- the shape of the blurred spots, which is in circles and crescents with the mirror lenses. Other than that, it's a cheap way to go long -- up to 500 and 1000mm with the Nikons.


----------



## Jon Shafer (Dec 15, 2001)

FastWoman said:


> Jon, whether the L lenses are justified/needed depends on what you're doing with the lens. I'm a pro, and most of my shooting is with L lenses, but I do happen to own the very lens you're using and have even used it professionally. Here are some guidelines....


Thanks for the follow-up Fast Woman!

A lot has changed since I made that post.

I now shoot with a Canon 1D Mk II, and I own a full arsenal of Canon L glass.



Thanks for your insights nonetheless!

:thumbup:


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

Cliff said:


> Let the corruption begin





Jon S. said:


> A lot has changed since I made that post.
> 
> I now shoot with a Canon 1D Mk II, and I own a full arsenal of Canon L glass.


:lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------

