L lenses vs Non

[Woodman7]

I have have been trying to figure out how much better L glass is to my 28-135 IS lense. I have yet to figure in real terms that I can understand how much better a lense say 28-70L 2.8 or a 70-200 2.8 L would be. I guess I understand that that the lower aperture will allow me to take some pictures without a flash that I may not be able to get with the 28-135 3.5-5.6. Other than that why is the L glass so much more expensive. Is it that much more sharp? If anyone can explain this to me it would be great. Everyone on the boards talks about how superb the L glass is. I just want to understand in real terms how much better it is.

[pwagner]

I have the 28-135 as well as the 100-400L.

Here are my thoughts on why an L is better than a Canon non-L:

(1) "solid"--the L's are always metal bodies with high-end rubber/plastic controls; the sheer weight of 18 pieces of glass (instead of about 12 for non-L's)
(2) the larger aperature gives better low-light speed, but ALSO more accurate autofocus, faster autofocus, and autofocus in low light
(3) better optics; non-L's will generally have subtle "problems" with the image such as poor focus at the edges of the image, flare, etc.
(4) blazingly-fast autofocus; the L's large aperature aids the camera body in autofocus and the L's focus motor is usuall state-of-the-art. My personal experience is that my 100-400L focuses faster than my 28-135 even though the 100-400 is a HUGE lens and has the worst aperature of any L. I can only imagine the blazing speed of a 24-70 2.8L.
(5) The 1D, 1Ds, and a few of the very high end chemical bodies are weatherproofed. The new L lenses are also weatherproofed. If you use a non-L on your 1Ds, then water and dust may get in between the lens and the camera interface. None of the non-L's are weatherproofed. (I think that "weatherproof" means not quite waterproof, but should be usable in the rain.)


As for the lens prices, I think that the L's should be perhaps 2x the cost of the non-L's. The L's use metal bodies, higher-price plastic fittings, are weatherproofed (most of them), use more pieces of glass for better optics, use special pieces of glass. So, 2x over a regular lens would be quite rasonable. Unfortunately, low demand means that L's are more like 3x or 4x the price.

One area where the L's excel is with teleconverters. When you add a 2x teleconverter to a lens, you magnify the image by 2x, increase your effective aperature by 2x, and magnify all the lens's imperfections by 2x. An f/5.6 lens doubled would be a troublesom f/11 and would NOT autofucs no matter what on a camera body. Plus, doubling the imperfections of the 28-135 lens at 135 and max aperature (which would only be f/11) would be a quality disaster.

[D60DIETER]

Let me add one more aspect.

The DOF of a 2,8 is different to a 5,6 lens. So you get more varieties in your creativ prozess.

[lightandlife]

Sometime before 90s, Nikon used to be number 1 among Japanese cameras. My recollection is that Canon had spent money on R&D to develop better lenses. Fluorite and UD glasses were developed and used in L glasses. That is when Canon, I think, began to surpass Nikon, converting many Nikon users to Canon. (Now 10D may be another blow to Nikon.) Later Nikon also produced similar lenses, but lost the initiative. Canon optics, I think, is superior to Nikon's in general.

This is an episode that shows one cannot live on past laurels.

My impression is that on average L glasses cost 4 times that of non-L glasses because of the superior material.

[Belmondo]

I asked my local friendly camera shop owner why, in his opinion, did Canon charge so much for L glass. His answer? "Because they can."

The lesson is that people will pay a very hefty price for a superior product. The truth is, they are superior lenses, although most people neither recognize nor appreciate the optical advantages. Professionals and/or serious hobbyists know the difference, however.

Whether or not to buy 'L' is purely a function of how seriously you intend to take your photography.

Good luck.

Tom

[Wolfgang7]

If you got to much money, go for the "L".
Really, it`s not so importent if "L" or not, the man behind the camera must be "L" :)

Regards
Wolfgang
Germany

[pwagner]

One area where the Canon L linup distinguishes itself from ALL other lenses from all manufacturers including all the other camera systems (i.e.: even Nikon can't touch it) is super-telephoto image stabilized prime lenses.

These would be: 300mm f/2.8 L IS, 400mm f/2.8 L IS, 500mm f/4 L IS, and 600 f/4 L IS.

Whenever you see professional (or very enthusiastic amerture) photographers with large white-colored lenses, you know they are using one of these big-boys. Canon is the only one who makes white lenses.

[dmalek]

my personal experience from this is that when i got the 28-135 i found it amazing.

then i bought the 28-70/28L and the 70-200/28L (x1.4 multiplier).

and these L lenses changed my photo life completely !!! really

they are very sharp, heavy, fast etc. to me the results I get with the L lenses have nothing to do with the results of the 28-135 IS. and i can shoot in low light conditions (like with the IS, but with smaller DOF) and can anyway (due to the weight) shot at low speed (eg 1/15) because heavy means stable in hands (it seems).

[pwagner]

OK, now I finally found the picture I wanted to include with my post above. It has been flying around on dpreview.com boards. Note that this isn't my picture.

http://cakeli.image.pbase.com/image/20788164.jpg:

The "Onlypus" sign is just marketing at the US Open. All the professional photographers at the bottom of the page are using Canon L's... there's not a non-L or non-Canon lens among them.

[lightandlife]

Thanks Pwagner for fetching the pic. It is a great shot!

One thing to learn from the professional using a puny white lens is that his feet are well protected. You do not want to trip over something and break the lenses.

[MediaMagic]

pwagner wrote:
All the professional photographers at the bottom of the page are using Canon L's... there's not a non-L or non-Canon lens among them.




Man, I'm suddenly experiencing a rush of "lens envy".

What's the story with the tape around the hood? it looks like the one on the right end is using tape to angle the hood downward. Is that a useful effect? or is his lens hood just broken and he continues the battle with the handyman's secret weapon?

[deztoys]

Love the pic. You can probably bet they are not using your average hardware store duct tape either. If you haven't already experienced the use of gaffers tape, I highly recommend it. No residue left behind and it rips better (IMHO) than duct tape. Like most anything specialized, it also costs more.

Scott

[AJSJones]

Norm Koren has a great site and explains how to test lenses . This will also help you see how design and manufacture affect the results. One of several aspects to consider (see the link) is "resolution". Fix the focal length and pick the appropriate chart : A non L lens will only produce a gray blur where the L lens can produce a picture of a series of black lines on a white background.
The kind of glass used, the arrangement of the pieces of glass, the coating of the surfaces, the kind of cement used.......

Why did a Yugo cost less than a Rolls-Royce - they both got you to the corner store!

Andy


http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF5.html#newchart

By the way, the 28-135 IS is one of the more highly regarded non L lenses and therefore represents pretty good value!

[pwagner]

>>> is his lens hood just broken and he continues the battle with the handyman's secret weapon?

[Aylwin]

pwagner, great pic! Thanks for sharing.

By the way, I'm another one of the proud owners of the 28-135 IS. But I'm itching to buy my first L. The 17-40L is at the top of the list.

There was a 2nd hand 24-70L for a decent price at the local camera shop but I don't really want to part with my trusty 28-135 IS yet. The 135mm has been very handy on many occasions.

Anyone have any thoughts on how much of an improvement the 24-70L would bring over the 28-135 IS?

[Longwatcher]

I have the 28-135 IS and the 28-70/2.8L and the 70-200/2.8L. (and three others)

First, the 28-135 IS is a great lens, it tends to stay on the camera (technically though right now the 70-200 is on the camera, because it is newest toy :). It stays on the camera because it is good quality lens with most flexability.

However, The "L" lenses are noticeably better quality in terms of the results.

On the positive,
- They are built better (or at least feel that way).
- They have the wider aperture (important for low light) - main reason I got them.
- They are sharper over more of the zoom range
- They impress other photographers (at least the white ones do 8)

On the negative,
- Serious credit card ouch!!!
- They are heavier, which makes it harder to travel light.

If you are happy with the 28-135 and don't need the wider aperture, save your money. The real catch is I find you can't just buy one:p

[lightandlife]

One cannot buy lenses on impulse. In addition to quality, one needs to predict what one is going to purchase in the future.

If you are young, you will eventually buy 24-70mm and 70-200mm within a decade. In addition, you can get 28-135mm now to quench your thirst. If your immediate need is not urgent, you would have bought a good lens which will be redundant later.

[hugodrax]

woodman7 wrote:
I have have been trying to figure out how much better L glass is to my 28-135 IS lense. I have yet to figure in real terms that I can understand how much better a lense say 28-70L 2.8 or a 70-200 2.8 L would be. I guess I understand that that the lower aperture will allow me to take some pictures without a flash that I may not be able to get with the 28-135 3.5-5.6. Other than that why is the L glass so much more expensive. Is it that much more sharp? If anyone can explain this to me it would be great. Everyone on the boards talks about how superb the L glass is. I just want to understand in real terms how much better it is.

Speed Speed Speed. 24 1.4L, 135mm 2.0L!!!

Where every Fstop counts the L glass is a must. If you shoot 2.8+ I would not spend the money on L but if 2.8 and under is where you live, L is the only choice. Of course there is great non L glass like the 50mm 1.8 which retails for 70-80 dollars.

[hugodrax]

pwagner wrote:
OK, now I finally found the picture I wanted to include with my post above. It has been flying around on dpreview.com boards. Note that this isn't my picture.

http://cakeli.image.pbase.com/image/20788164.jpg:

The "Onlypus" sign is just marketing at the US Open. All the professional photographers at the bottom of the page are using Canon L's... there's not a non-L or non-Canon lens among them.



Whats up with that crooked hood?? It looks like he is going to have problems