I spend over a year shooting almost exclusively the 18-50mm, concerts, portrets, landscapes, product... everything was done with that 18-50mm. Now I know exactly when and why I want to pull it out.
When I got the 50mm 1.8 prime, I already had a pretty good idea what view on the world the 50mm focal length would give me, it's just the prime way of zooming, and large aperture that had to grow on me. So I took that nifty fifty with me everywhere, again, portraits, concerts, landscape, studio... And even still, 50 is the way to go at the moment.
But first things first, see how this fancy glass performs, I benchmark wise compared it to the Canon 55-200mm f4.5-5.6 kitlens.
Easy set-up: white seamless, 1 light + shoot-through umbrella, tripod and trigger.
There is a slight shift in composition between the L glass and kit, I used the body-mount on the tripod, for changing lenses without having to change general shooting angle. This made the body tip forward slightly with the L-glass in place, due to the weight.
In this test I deliberately chose not to test the lens in a way that would highlight the L glass' advantage.
It's clear that the L glass walks all over the kit in terms of focusing speed, low light situations, IS function, use of DOF, ...
These photo's are made in jpg-mode, no editing of any kind. Again so that i can not be accused of post processing images differently in favor of one or the other lens.
First 2 200mm, f11 samples, uncropped:
The kit:
The L:
Some cutouts, cropped to 100%:
The kit on the left, L on the Right. The difference in chromatic aberration is very clearly noticeable.
Again the kit on the left, L on the right:
Notice general sharpness difference: above the kit
Below the L:
The L at 70mm f11
The kit 70mm f11
Lets go wide open on both:
The L 70mm f/2.8
The kit 70mm f/5.6
the kit 200mm f/5.6
The L 200mm f/2.8
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten