Lens reviews

[jmc41]

Not sure if anyone has seen this site before, but found it quite interesting.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx

Doesn't cover all lenses, but most of us here shoot Canon I believe :)

The differences between the generic 70-300 IS (~£400) vs the L one (~£900) are especially shocking. I use the generic, and it really is that soft at the high end.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=358&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=738&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

[Toby]

It's a useful site and one I've used quite a bit in the past. The ISO charts are useful for a quick sharpness comparison between lenses but they're not the be all and end all.

The 70-300L is a very good lens but then so are all the 'L's. Some say that you're just paying for the red ring and I'm sure there is an element of that but, IMHO, they are worth the money, not just in terms of image quality but also build quality and, in some cases, things like weather sealing.

Watch out though, L lenses can get addictive. I'm up to three now! :(

[jmc41]

Which ones may I ask? The two lenses I'm looking at are 24-105 and the 70-300; each for different reasons of course. I think lenses in general can become addictive.

Oddly the lens I'm probably happiest with is my 30mm sigma prime at 1.4, used it pretty much exclusively for outdoor shots.

[Toby]

Currently have the 24-70 f/2.8L, 70-200 f/4L IS and 100 f/2.8L Macro IS.

Both the lenses you mention are stellar performers and you won't go wrong with either. Which you get first is obviously up to you :)