Are the "L" series lens really that good?

[Vinny454]

I am new to both this forum and DSLR photography. I believe I made good choices based on reviews and research. However I see many people saying go for the L glass. In fact someone said always go L glass.

Are they really that good? I have 2 canon lens so far. A 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM (Cost $350 CDN) and a 75-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM (Cost $700 CDN) for a total cost of $1200 CDN with taxes. The closest equivelants in the L series would have cost a total of $3500 CDN with taxes.
I would have to dish out an additonal $1000 if I wanted the IS feature on the 70-200 lens.

That's a huge price difference.

I am looking into buying a zoom with an f/2.8 in the near future. Again my question, is the L glass really worth the $2800 price tag (for the canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM) and what makes them so good?

Vince

[CyberDyneSystems]

Yes, :)

The best thing to do though is to figure out what hole you have in your existing line,. fill it with as affordable an "L" lens as you can,. and then go from there.

The IS 70-200 happens to be the most expensive L in that range.. you could get no IS or even the f/4 version.

But you also have a hole at the wide end,. maybe a 17-40mm f/4 L (now down to about $700.00 US in many places)

High quality lenses are priceless once you work with them.

On the same note,. I also urge you to look into getting a high quality prime (fixed focal length) as soon as possible. Perhaps a 300mm f/4 prime or 200mm f/2.8 as opposed to a 70-200mm zoom, so that ou can also expeirience the advantages and superiority of primes over zooms.

The sooner you get this hands on expeirience out of the way,. the less amount of time and money you will need to spend replacing lenses with ones that meet your own standards.

[ssim]

Go "L" or go home, as my son would say.

When I iniitially got my 10D I was so anxious to get some lenses that I invested in some standard non-L glass. I was pleased but not overly joyed with the quality of the images I was getting. I borrowed an L lens and spent the weekend shooting the same shot with both lenses and there is just no comparison.

It really boils down to a matter of what you are intending to do with your images and one of economics. This is purely a personal choice and given that I could afford the better glass, that's the way I went. If you are a casual shooter that no intention of doing anything even quasi commercial you may want to consider the non-L glass.

Perhaps I went a little overboard but I have the following L series:

EF 100-400 L IS USM
EF 16-35 f/2.8 L USM
EF 24-70 f2.8 L USM
EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM

I have a few other lenses as well that provide good results without being L, one of which is the EF m100 f/2.8u. This is one of favorite lenses in my bag. The EF 50mm f/1.8 II is a pretty fine lens too.

I have got alot invested in my hobby and no regrets with the way I went with the exception of the first two lenses I got. Haste makes waste and I should have done some proper research first.

Welcome to the forum and good luck.

[Sketcher]

I hate having a hole at the wide end...

DOH!

[robekert]

Vince,
Here is a guide I found interesting.

http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#Zstd

I started with a 28-135IS along with the kit lens for my Digital Rebel. Nice but not impressive. Then got a 50mm 1/8. Then a 17-40L. Wow!!!!!!!!Nice "pop" to the shots.

Good Luck,
Rob

[Sockfilter]

The saga continues for me in my choice between the 10D and the D100. As I search day and night for the things I need to put and end to my dilemma, there is one thing that seems to be consistent thought cyberspace.

“While using 'good' lenses with the 10D can have you relying on every ounce of experience to get good images, when the 10D is married to excellent glass the Wow factor seems to come for free.”

By Derek Smith on another thread

So my theory is this, You wouldn’t by a Corvette with a 4 cylinder engine ( as if that was even possible), So if you are going 10D, then you owe it to yourself to go all out L glass.

These are only my thoughts and opinions,

Mike

[GenEOS]

I have the 100-400 IS and the 70-200 IS.

I love them both and have not had a problem with them.

If you want to save the bucks the 70-200 without IS is a really nice lens, the IS just makes it more better!

They are definitely worth their weight......

[KarlJones]

ssim wrote:
Go "L" or go home, as my son would say.
Hehehe.. your son sounds like a kool kid! :D

[rdenney]

Vinny454 wrote:
I am new to both this forum and DSLR photography. I believe I made good choices based on reviews and research. However I see many people saying go for the L glass. In fact someone said always go L glass.

Are they really that good? I have 2 canon lens so far. A 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM (Cost $350 CDN) and a 75-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM (Cost $700 CDN) for a total cost of $1200 CDN with taxes. The closest equivelants in the L series would have cost a total of $3500 CDN with taxes.
I would have to dish out an additonal $1000 if I wanted the IS feature on the 70-200 lens.

That's a huge price difference.

I am looking into buying a zoom with an f/2.8 in the near future. Again my question, is the L glass really worth the $2800 price tag (for the canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM) and what makes them so good?

Vince

What makes them good? Optical excellence and mechanical excellence, plus the use of special glass to either outperform or outrun other lenses.

But there are some excellent non-L lenses, if you don't mind a slower maximum aperture or a fixed focal length.

The beauty of digital is that you can compare lenses yourself. Go to the camera store with your 10D or 300D, and ask to see all the relavant lenses. Put them on your camera, and take a picture of something demanding (like the light shining through the storefront). Zoom in on the LCD images, and at maximum zoom you'll see the differences.

But also compare handling and ease of use. That's what led me to take the 75-300 back and pay twice as much for a 70-200/4L. On the second trip, I took pictures with both and compared them. I could see the differences even on the LCD screen, when I zoomed the display all the way.

Rick "who no longer needs to rely on published lens tests" Denney

[Vegas Poboy]

I've tried all of the major brands (except Tokina) on the market with film & digital and it's hard to beat the Canon L lens. Sigmas can run a close second with some of there models but Canon L's will never let you down. So if you can, take your time and purchase carefully because the cost will hit you in the wallet.

Good Luck and ask for Canon gift cards for Christmas :)

[jeffg]

Hi all
Started with 10D and sigma 28-300 doh (soft throughout range)

Within a month got a sigma 17 - 35 (sharper than above lens but soft wide open)

After 2 months got my first Canon lens (28-80) and sold the sigma 28-300 results were much better colour rendition and sharpness (needed much less USM in photoshop)

Tried the L 24-70 although bigger and heavier it felt right !

The results are brill, wide open pin sharp with little USM (using epson 2100 (2200 in states))

Sold Sigma 17-35 and saving up for similar in an L lens, my advice if you are serious about your photography, the things that matter most are -

1 - Your eye (seeing and composing the photo)
2 - The quality of the lens to record the fine detail and colour
3 - The resolution of camera (the caveat is linked to print size, i.e. a stunning composition on and lens quality on a 1 meg pixel camera is an issue !)

[whitema]

I, too, have the 28-105mm f/3/5-4.5 and it's been a good lens over the years. I've also owned the 75-300mm f/4-5.6.
Although I've got some great shots with them they're not in the same league as the 28-70mm f/2.8, 24-70mm f/2.8, or 70-200mm f/2.8 or f/4 lenses.

I've scoured the net and read every lens test and MTF chart I could and then conducted my own exhaustive tests.

L Glass IS THAT GOOD. You don't have to be a Rhodes scholar to see the difference in images taken with consumer zooms and "L" glass zooms or primes even on 6"x4" prints.

My current arsenal is: EF17-35mm f/2.8L USM
EF28-70mm f/2.8L USM
EF200mm f/2.8L USM
EF50mm f/1.4 USM
EF100mm f/2.8 macro USM

As pointed out in a previous reply to your question, the 100mm f/2.8 macro is not an L lens but Canon's mistake is to our benefit. It's razor sharp and a fabulous portrait lens as well as meeting all my macro needs. I've got some awesome head shots of family, brides and friends and captured some extreme close ups of rings on cakes, wedding programmes & certificates,etc. as well. All with the same lens.

The 50mm f/1/4 is also not an L but is sharper than the L zooms at apertures f/2.8 - f/5.6. It goes nicely on my 10D as a roving type lens & I've got some corkers with this little number. And it's not that expensive. Once again, it's not an L but beats the L zooms in that range.

So there you go. It's up to you as to which way you go. Whatever your choices, the picture content is still the most important, not necessarily the quality. However, if you get both together you've got an image to be proud of.

[maderito]

My odyssey to L lenses began when I started digitizing old film negatives to work on in Photoshop. I was hoping to make high quality enlargements on a good Canon printer. Historically I had been using standard consumer zoom lenses on an Elan IIe, mostly for 4 x 6 prints. On scanning the old film negatives and processing in PS, I was distressed by the lack of sharpness in the images, which I initially thought was due to poor scans or poor camera technique. I finally realized that even under the best of conditions, the optics of the lenses was a limiting factor.

When I bought the 10D, the salesman warned me that I might not be happy with the results from my old lenses. He was right. The images were no better than my previously scanned negatives. I bought a prime lens, a 50mm f/1.4. I opened the first few shots in Photoshop and couldn’t believe my eyes. The rest is history. I gave away the Elan IIe and 3 low-end zooms to my niece (who is taking photography lessons). I bought a Canon 17-40L zoom and then the f/4 version of the 70-200L. The investment so far has been about $1600 for the two zooms and the 50/1.4 prime. I'm a happy man. :)

For several years, I had been waiting for the Canon digital SLR prices to fall to a reasonable price -- assuming that I would be able to use all my previous Canon lenses. But the folks at Canon are too smart. They’re producing high quality, modestly priced digital SLRs which inevitably sucks you into investing in their high quality “Luxury” lenses. They could probably give away the camera and still make profits based on lens purchases!

[BearSummer]

Errr, check my sig files, I think that will answer your question. There is a certain charm to buying expensive but useless trinkets. L's however are a pleasure to use, own and the results speak for themselves. Sure you can create wonderful pictures with other lenses, L's just make it easier and therefore are worth every penny. You already own one of the best non-L zooms in the 28-105, it's a very good lens. L's are just that little bit better, when they say it stands for luxury they are not kidding. If you want an unbiased view have a look at www.photodo.com.

Best regards

BearSummer

[mebow]

Hey bearsummer

try my sherpa....http://home.earthlink.net/~mr1634/

mike

[defordphoto]

Moving from consumer lenses to L-glass is like moving from film to digital SLRs. The difference is that un-subtle. You will amaze yourself with the contrast, brightness, intense color rendetion and accuracy and sharpness that seems too real to believe a camera could ever produce a photo that crisp and clean.

Photos of cars you can drive. Photos of food you can eat. Photos of people you can hug. Photos of scenes so real you can feel the breeze blowing.

You will be in awe.

[ilya]

Vinny454 wrote:
I am new to both this forum and DSLR photography. I believe I made good choices based on reviews and research. However I see many people saying go for the L glass. In fact someone said always go L glass.

Are they really that good? I have 2 canon lens so far. A 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM (Cost $350 CDN) and a 75-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM (Cost $700 CDN) for a total cost of $1200 CDN with taxes. The closest equivelants in the L series would have cost a total of $3500 CDN with taxes.
I would have to dish out an additonal $1000 if I wanted the IS feature on the 70-200 lens.

That's a huge price difference.

I am looking into buying a zoom with an f/2.8 in the near future. Again my question, is the L glass really worth the $2800 price tag (for the canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM) and what makes them so good?

Vince

Lets cut to the chase. What's the absolute total drop dead maximum amount of money you are willing to allocate to this hobby? Is it $4, $6, $8000 USD? Then think about that amount of money, and ask yourself "do I have any better use for that?" If the answer is no, photography is by far the only use for my money, then it becomes much easier. That means you're done, the momentum is there, and nothing is going to stop you at some point in the near future of getting good L-glass. So might as well get it now.

Whatever amount you pick, increase that by $1000 so you can get the IS for the 70-200 and some other stuff you'll need (see its not that hard). Once you've determined how much in total you can possibly afford, and "stretched" that, then schedule out what you want that can best cover your range.

However, if the top end of your range is not conducive to L-glassdom or in your mind could be put to better uses, then stick with the regular glass, it does almost the same thing. Most important - gotta be honest with yourself.

Ilya

[BearSummer]

Hi Mike,

I had been thinking along those lines recently, but decided that the big bag is only really for use when I need to carry everything and the rest of the time I can use a smaller bag which will take what I am going to use that day, Big bag is a LowePro Super trekker, which will carry almost everything, the small bag is a DryZone 200 which is very handy for the english summer.

Excellent advice Ilya, if you look back to the day that you walked into your local camera shop and bought your first camera, if you knew then how much you were going to spend on equipment in the years ahead, it would scare you rigid. I expected to spend about £4-5000 at the most, ever.... sheesh if we had ever known the wife would never have let me near a camera shop.

Camera equipment impulse control.... not in this lifetime.

Best regards and enjoy your hobby

BearSummer

[Canuck]

Sketcher wrote:
I hate having a hole at the wide end...

DOH!

You have 2 choices I can think of off the top of my head:
Canon 16-35 F2.8L (about $1400) or the Canon 17-40 F4L (about $700-800). Take your pic.

[Canuck]

BearSummer wrote:
Hi Mike,

I had been thinking along those lines recently, but decided that the big bag is only really for use when I need to carry everything and the rest of the time I can use a smaller bag which will take what I am going to use that day, Big bag is a LowePro Super trekker, which will carry almost everything, the small bag is a DryZone 200 which is very handy for the english summer.

BearSummer

English summer? What's that??? Was this one a one-off??? LOL!!! I'm wondering in East Anglia!

In regards to the lenses, check out the EF web pages on various lenses at http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/ and take the info that is there and sift thru the bs and it tells you a lot. I have the 16-35 F2.8L and I can't begin to tell you what it has done for my confidence taking pics and the like. I really hate to be (I don't know what the word is, but) when you can walk into a ton of situations and know beforehand tha tyou will have a lot of stunning pics, that's what it can do for you once you realise what pro glass can do for you and how to use it to its full capacity.
It is different than using consumer grade glass! I as a John Doe off the street am really going thru a revolution and a lot of money stocking up on Canon L/Sigma EX glass, but the end of the day I have a lens collection that is truly awesome. I'm still adding. My next one will be a 24-70 F2.8L and then I'll have a gap from 70-120mm. I'm thinking a Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX might do real well in this slot. The 120-300 is a real beast of a lens, at 5.75 lbs and I might be feeling lazy. Who knows? after that I'll be covered from 16mm-300mm (or 25.6mm-480mm on the 10D). Right, I only put in the signature what I have to show newbies what I shoot with to give you an accurate idea what kind of pics I have been taking and I'm no one special, really. My photographic experience is as follows: in high school took a class using Pentax K1000 SLR my senior year 96-97, then hiatus till Dec, '99 when I got the Canon EOS 50E, and used that till end Apr, 03 when I got the 10D. I added the Sigma lens in Aug, 03 and the Canon Lens in Sept, 03. BTW, I'm 25 to answer that question. Since trying the Sigma lens I have decided I'm NEVER going back to consumer grade glass, it is a revolution of sorts! It will really open your eyes to how cool this hobby really is. So for me, the ONLY way to go is Canon L or Sigma EX glass. So that said, hope this gives you a better idea and see what you think. Another option, is if you have a friends that is into Canon stuff and has either digital/EOS 35mm system you might see about borrowing it and trying it out yourself. Once you get the hang of it, you will not be let down.

[droosan]

The short answers.

For zooms: yes.

L zooms are so much better than non-L zooms that if you require zooms, you will not regret spending the money on a L zoom, whatever you're budget.

For primes: depends on your budget.

You can't beat Canon's non-L primes in terms of value for money. If you want high quality images and can't afford L zooms, buy primes. You won't be disappointed with the superior image quality and responsive-ness of Canon's non-L primes. The difference between them and Canon's cheap (especially the mid-range) zooms is huge.

[imago57]

My experience is that at the time I couldn't afford to buy L glass lenses I went on and bought what my wallet was allowing me, Canon 28-200 and later 75-300 IS. I kept shooting for a few years and putting money aside to buy the L glass. Now I just got myself the 17-40 L and the 70-200 F4 L, and I am planning to sell on ebay the previous non L glass lenses. Even though I wasn't getting the best results with the non L lenses,in terms of sharpness and contrast and resolution, I was still sharpening my compositional skills, and since I did not need to sell my images at the time to National Geographic or such high demanding pubblications, those lenses just served me well for a couple of years.

Did it make a difference to switch from non L to L glass? You bet, I do not regret having taken the plunge.

Hope this help.

Regards:

Max

[BearSummer]

Canuck wrote:

"English summer? What's that??? Was this one a one-off??? LOL!!! I'm wondering in East Anglia!"

Not wishing to over plug bags as this thread is about lenses (LowePro rock) The dryzone 200 is a 100% waterproof bag. Apparently if you drop it into a pond and its all sealed up it will float, even fully loaded.... Have I tried it, hell no. But its keeps the gear dry and safe during the "summer" ;)

Best regards

BearSummer

[justme_dc]

It's all been said over and over again....

so the short answer is YES.