05-20-2014 03:48 PM
"... if Canon could make a nice zoom that is comparable and higher quality, but lighter, ..."
In photography there is no free lunch. You give to get.
The EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM, or
EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM, or
my personal favorite and quite possibly the best zoom lens made, the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM.
But in order to make a zoom lens in this quality level it is heavy and it is expensive. Canon does make lenses in the same class as Tamron and they cost about the same and weigh about the same. The EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM.
And Tim is spot on, it all depends on your desired result and how you use it.. However, there is no denying the difference.
05-20-2014 08:11 PM
Truth be told, I think you have choosen a different subject (wine) to explain because it is easier than explaining the one we are discussing (lenses). In the field of logic, this is called a red herring argument. I don't mind that you devoted 262 words to explaining that red wine can taste better if allowed to "breath". It was an amusing story. But if you want the reader to take away from this argument that, "any pedestrian person would have noticed the difference" in the same way with lenes, you'll fail because you're not using sound logic.
So, what I'm left with is the suggestion that certain lenses might not be appropriate for enlargement because they fail to meet the highest standards, those of a gallery-sized print. I know I can treat many images to post processing techniques but that apparently doesn't count. I know that Canon makes a 28-300mm lens that suffers from that sort of edge softness that you describe but that doesn't count either.
What you're really saying is that there exists a lens that can do the job better. I don't need to be anything more than "pedestrian" to know that.
My point is that when one says, "Your lens is holding you back" they are suggesting that if only the person would change their tool, it would solve their problems. Well, I don't see any of posters arguing that Cindy doesn't take good pictures with her camera and I certainly haven't heard a single comment regarding what problems need solving.
The takeaway is to fill your bag with Canon lenses. Just trust us. This is not a well targeted form of advice and it hints of a bind devotion to a brand.
Just my $.02.
05-21-2014 09:48 AM
What Tim used is called a parable or analogy. It expresses his point, and mine I might add. It is a technique commonly employed to make a point in discussions.
And what we are trying, albeit somewhat unsuccessfully, is the OP's belief that, she bought “better” equipment and is getting worse results because of it. Sometimes it is just how the equipment is used!
The three of us cicopo, Tcampbell and myself represent over a 100 years of photographic experience. This is offered free but in this case has been mostly rejected by the OP. Not trying to say we know all and I guess it is worth whatever you think it is.
05-21-2014 10:01 AM
When I showed my husband how much clearer the images are with the new lens, because it is able to pick up the fine details of every hair, he said: "but why do you need to see that?" I don't believe the new equipment will make my images better, just sharper. If sharper means better, then I guess that is a matter of opinion. For me, sharper images are important. But after all is said and done. I am VERY grateful that I had enough money to invest in such good equipment. Many people cannot. I will continue with my photography and when this equipment wears out, I hope I can afford to move up to medium format someday.
In the beginning I was feeling frustrated and perhaps I did not choose my words wisely. But alls well that ends well, and I am happy to be out there shooting again. The conversations have been elightening. Thank You!