no and no . ts and that one macro lenses are manual focus and not all L lenses are weather sealed, just some of them

Yeah I do know what you mean here but to me the sharpness, build quality (weather sealing), contrast and overall improvement in image quality compared to those non-L lenses are well worth the extra money I have to spend on those L lenses. Though if you have a Digital Rebel or 40D/50D/7D which support EF-S lenses you may want to look at some of those high end EF-S lenses like EF-S 10-22, EF-S 15-85 and EF-S 17-55 those lenses are more or less comparable to L lenses when it comes to image quality but not build quality though



That's because it's a prime primes are known to be sharper than zooms. You should compare your Zeiss to Canon 135mm f2L

Well I am not sure if I want to go pro either but I still want the best lol because I have seen the results produced by those higher end lenses and I do see a difference. Well as I told the others if you don't want to spend too much money there are some cheaper Canon L lenses or lenses that are almost as good as L lenses like EF 17-40L, EF 85 f1.8, the new EFS 15-85 etc

its not prime vs zoom thing, i was talking about wide open sharpness. usually lenses are softer wide open that stopped down a bit, this lens gives maximum resaults even wide open, thats something that not meny lenses do. i havent tested it that much yet, but it seems to be sharper than my 50mm 1.4 stopped down to 3.5. i dont think i should compare 99€ lens to around 1300€ lens like that 135mm f/2, not to mention that this 3.5 version isnt even best zeiss 135mm and canons 135mm L is best 135mm from canon and actually the best 135mm for eny dslr afaik.

Well usually primes are sharper wide open than zooms in the same price range

http://digital-photography-school.com/prime-vs-zoom-lenses-which-are-best

I like zooms only because of the convenience and that I wouldn't miss a shot because I have to change lenses. hmm I didn't know 135L cost that much in Europe it's on sale here right now and I can probably get one for around 1200 CAD and yes it is one of the sharpest lenses Canon makes which makes me want to get one plus I want to get a lens longer than my 24-70

btw is your Zeiss manual?

This post was edited by Futurama on Dec 14 2009 09:57pm

its impossible to have the best

there are always better and newer.

and not everyone are professional or making a living from photography or even taking it as serious as to spend a bunch of money on it.

so for most, a lot of the high class lenses are pretty pointless.

just because its cheaper doesnt mean its still expensive!


1700 is less than 2000.
it doesnt make it cheap!

This post was edited by mew on Dec 14 2009 10:04pm

but you do see the huge difference between a cheap crappy lens a good one. There are exceptions of course but generally you get what you pay for. Being an amateur doesn't mean you have to use shitty or mediocre equipment it's all about how much you are willing to spend on your hobby and how fast you learn. I have talked to someone in a photography and he started photography like a month ago and already have a 7D and a few L lenses lol and he shoots only in RAW and seems to know quite a lot about RAW editing and photography in general and it only took him like a month to learn all that and hes not going to school to become a photographer or anything like that it's all just for fun to him.

This post was edited by Futurama on Dec 14 2009 10:15pm

well hes more determine to learn about it,
some people are natural, others have to work a lot harder, and some will never have the patients to learn it.

theres a difference between shitty, good/ok and great.
i think most people that at least take photography as a hobby are able to spend a decent amount of money to get good/ok stuff.
but not all of us are going to go all out to buy the great things, and if we end up not needing it or not using it as much or not liking it, then weve wasted a lot of money.
-some people dont have the money
-some people dont need it
-some people dont know if its worth it
-better doesnt mean better for you, everyones different, a great lens doesnt guarantee that you will be good with it or like it or are comfortable with it.

and dont underestimate shitty either.
some of the worst or limited resources can truely test your skills, and even surprise the supposedly better performance things.

its not all about the best equipment you can get, its more than that.

and your friend is lucky, but its very common in all sorts of fields.
there are kids who havent even started first grade yet and they have talent better than a lot of people much older than them.

This post was edited by mew on Dec 14 2009 10:29pm

I have to agree with you here; it's not always the best. I definitely can't afford the best, and I'm not willing to make myself afford the best, so I do my best with what I got and to be honest I get pictures that I am pretty satisfied with. For only having 2 lenses I use.

This post was edited by chantal7 on Dec 14 2009 10:36pm

surprisingly enough i only have 1 lens.


my old nikon that got stolen i had 3 lenses for and it took me 2 months of hard word to get one lens, they were all around 700USD each.
and they got stolen 1 month later.

and the whole time between that i was debating on spending the money on food/paying bills and things i regularly need, or saving most of it for the things i wanted for my camera.
i really wish most of use are fortunate enough to be able to spend money so freely, but the economy is so bad and there are other things people rather spend a lot of money on then a selfish hobby of their own.