\"L\" glass VS. standard lenses on 10D

[Highland]

Is there a noticible difference between "L" series lenses and the standard variety on the 10D? Particularly in the area of image sharpness?
Don

[RichardtheSane]

Ok, three points here.

Yes, yes and YES!

(with a few exceptions - 50mm F1.8MKII being one of them)

[PaulB]

Have to agree with Richard on this - a big YES.

Also there seem to be fewer people complaining of 10D focus problems using L lenses.

[rdenney]

Highland wrote:
Is there a noticible difference between "L" series lenses and the standard variety on the 10D? Particularly in the area of image sharpness?
Don

Yes, for lenses otherwise similar. I tested the 75-300 against the 70-200/4L, and the L lens was noticeably sharper and noticeably contrastier at aperturers wider than f/11, particularly when racked out to full telephoto. It was also far easier to use in real life because of its configuration. Photodo compares the 70/200 at a rating of 4.1 quite favorably to the 75-300, with a rating of 3.1.

I suspect you'll see the same differences in other comparable lenses. The 24-70L will be much better than the 24-85 USM at wide apertures, for example. I have found that the 20-35 USM might be an exception--it seems to perform as well as the old 17-35L, though that was not one of the best L's. I expect that the current 16-35 and 17-40/4 are both better. Even the 50/1.2L is better than the 50/1.8 II.

But you have to compare against similar lenses. The 50/1.2L might be better than the 50/1.8, but the 50/1.8 is better (optically, at least) than all the L zooms and many of the L telephotos.

Whether they are better enough to be worth the money depends on how much money is worth to you. And whether the non-L lenses are good enough in a specific cases is also hard to tell. The mid-line ring-USM lenses with full-time manual focusing seem to be pretty good, particularly stopped down.

Rick "who thinks 10D users are seeing images blown up to pixel resolution on their 19" monitors and are now seeing their lens aberrations more clearly" Denney

[deztoys]

I tend to use the L glass I have, more because it is better than the other non L lenses I have. Does that mean they are better, not really, just better than the non L's "I" have. One exception is a 24-70 Sigma that I picked up. I really like that lens. I have a few other Canon lenses, but don't like them nearly as much. Sorry this didn't provide any technical input to reason, just opinion.

I'm probably in the minority, but I really like the 35-350 L lens. Its heavy, but I've really grown to like this lens.

I do wish they would make regular black L series again instead of the white barreled ones.

Scott

[boyhowdy]

It's like when I used to work in computer sales and Sony made these killer computers that were a blue-grey color and then they made these killer monitors and LCD panel displays that were white/cream!!! What the hell were they thinking? I guess Canon thinks that white distinguishes the pro from the amateur but they also stick out like a hanging wallet to a thief! I really want to invest in some "L's" because I have seen what they can do and I am very impressed, but I just don't want white lenses on a black body..it would draw too much attention.

Patrick

[nucki]

I copmletly agree with you patrick! Just take a look at a canon advertising in some photo magazines. Its the one with andre agasi who won a tennis match. the picture is taken from above, so that you can see andre an all the photographers taken a picture from him!

over the image the text is like this:

"some people see a brilliant star reasserting his dominance"

under the picture:

"we see 32 of our lenses dominating a tennis match"

the message is clear! but why they can say that? because the 32 they counted are all white!
so it's like, if you have a white canon lens, you must be a pro! thats just marketing, nothing else. but, for normal persons who owns a "L" lens, its like Patrick said, you throwing to much attention.

regards
Peter

[John57]

I have to agree with everyone else - L lenses seem much sharper than 'normal' ones on a 10D.... just be prepared for the weight, cost and in the case of the larger lenses the awful colour!

[PaulB]

Rick,
Love the sig on your post above.

Everyone,
There is a good reason for the 'white' colour of the longer L lenses.
Because of the construction and types of glass used in the long L lenses Canon found that in hot, direct sunlight the longer lenses in black were absorbing enough heat to interfere with the correct functioning of the lens.
This was caused by lens barrel (a metal alloy in the L lenses of course0 expansion and even glass lens element expansion.
It was decided that the 'white' finish would significantly reflect enough of the heat to make a difference - hence its' adoption.
The shorter L lenses do not have the mass or physical length to suffer so much and thus are still black.
Use your equipment on a hot sunny day and you can feel the difference in temperature on the outside of the black and 'white' lenses - I know I can

[Roger_Cavanagh]

The L designation isn't per se an indication of a "pro" lens vs a "consumer " lens. It's an indication that there are special components used in the lens construction, such as fluorite or aspherical components.

I guess it's these special components that are a factor in the cost of L lenses. I am very happy with quality of the L lenses I own. However, there are several non-L EF lenses that give excellent results: the 50/1.4 and 50/1.8 have already been mentioned. I'd add the 20/2.8 and 85/1.8 to those.

Check out this summary of a research study:

http://www.rogercavanagh.com/helpinfo/25_analogvs.htm

One key finding is that DSLRs are much more demanding on lens quality than the equivalent film SLR.

Regards,

[Roger_Cavanagh]

Since my last post, I discovered this page:

http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/technology/lseries.html

which, y'all might find interesting.

Regards,