How about rating Canon non (L) lens

[JZaun]

I am new to photography and reading here leads me to think all lens except (L glass) are poor lens? I am sure there are many fine non L len and I have read a few ratings on them. Many of us just can't spent $1k plus for a lens and still be active in the hobby. I would like to hear from the experts here about their non (L) lens. How does it compare to your closest (L) glass. Which is the better non (L) lens. In time many of us may upgrade, but getting started with a initial outlay of $2300 for camera, mem and 1 lens insures this may take some time to happen. During that time I would likd to have a Wide, Tele, and macro. Can I get this for the cost of 1 (L) lens.. I am aware of the 70-200mm(L) f4 for just around $600. What about the Canon 100-300 F4.5 ring USM, ($280),

Thanks for the input
JZaun

[Scottes]

The 100-300 has been rated as a pretty good lens - Fast AF, good optics. Great value for the dollars. I almost got one, but got bit by the L bug.

Take a look at http://www.photozone.de/bindex2.html for some lens reviews. PhotoZone has numerical stats submitted by real people. It's nice to see them rated the way they do, but it's still not perfect. It does allow you to narrow down your search, or choose/discount a particular lens.

[Jesper]

I am new to photography and reading here leads me to think all lens except (L glass) are poor lens? I am sure there are many fine non L len and I have read a few ratings on them.

What?! Blasphemy! Only L lenses are good enough! :mrgreen:
No, sorry, that was just a joke.

Ofcourse there are non-L lenses that are very good. I currently have two EOS lenses: the 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM and the 17-40 f/4L USM. I've read a number of reviews about the 28-135, and people seem to agree that this is one of Canon's finest non-L lenses. The 17-40L might be a little bit sharper, but you'll really have to look closely to see a noticeable difference. I love the IS on the 28-135.

I want to get the new 70-300 DO IS USM, which also isn't an L lens, but according to Canon "it approaches L quality". I'd much rather have this small, light, inconspicuous telezoom than a big, heavy white 70-200L.

One real difference between the 17-40L and the 28-135 however, is that the 17-40L is MUCH better built - metal instead of plastic, it has a rubber weather sealing around the lens mount, it really has a "quality" look and feel to it, while the 28-135 is a bit loose - if it's zoomed out, you can wiggle the lens, it doesn't feel very solid. For me that's not a big issue, because I'm always careful with my stuff, I don't handle it roughly.

But really, by reading forums and reviews, people make eachother crazy and convince eachother that you're not a real photographer unless you use only L lenses. That's ofcourse nonsense. I would avoid the cheapest kit lenses, but there are many non L lenses that are great.

[eos10dmacosx]

I shoot with Canon L IS, but also often use my 90-300 USM.
http://www.bullisurfclub.com.au/gallery/clubchampionships_011103/index.html. Note these photos were taken in .jpg, exported to a smaller resolution, and with quality loss to reduce file size and no USM.

What I love about the 90-300 USM, small, very light, doesn't stand out, inexpensive and I'm still happy with the quality of photos.

You may also want to look at http://www.photosig.com/ it allows viewing photos by Lens (amongst other options).

[Pekka]

Optically 50/1.4 and 50/1.8 are very good, also 35/2 is excellent (but noisy) as is Sigma 20mm. Then there is 100mm macro, 50mm macro, 85/1.8 and 100/2. Great lenses all. Sigma 15-35 is very sharp ( see http://www.16-9.net/ultrawides/ ).

L does not always mean "sharper". It more like means "more durable, better flare-resistant, more quiet, better built, weather sealing, good looks, good balance, even colour, usable open apertures". But many of these features may not be needed at all in normal shooting. They are good to have, or at least make you feel more secure, when you earn money on photos. Hobbyists have them because you do not have to be Schumi to drive a Ferrari but having a Ferrari makes you feel like Schumi. Of course some L's really have features that are worth the money, like same aperture on both ends of zoom with 70-200/2.8 -- a small thing but makes you forget the lens and concentrate on other things.

[evilenglishman]

--

[nosquare2003]

Optically 50/1.4 and 50/1.8 are very good, also 35/2 is excellent (but noisy) as is Sigma 20mm. Then there is 100mm macro, 50mm macro, 85/1.8 and 100/2. Great lenses all. Sigma 15-35 is very sharp ( see http://www.16-9.net/ultrawides/ ).

L does not always mean "sharper". It more like means "more durable, better flare-resistant, more quiet, better built, weather sealing, good looks, good balance, even colour, usable open apertures". But many of these features may not be needed at all in normal shooting. They are good to have, or at least make you feel more secure, when you earn money on photos. Hobbyists have them because you do not have to be Schumi to drive a Ferrari but having a Ferrari makes you feel like Schumi. Of course some L's really have features that are worth the money, like same aperture on both ends of zoom with 70-200/2.8 -- a small thing but makes you forget the lens and concentrate on other things.

Great, I thought that I was the only one who used the 35/2 (as from the other thread "Rank your lens use" http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=24772). I want to add the 24/2.8 and 28/2.8 to be other good non L lenses.

JZaun, you may refer to the Photodo for the rating of lens.
http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html
Too bad that they haven't tested new lens for quite some time. Please note that the ratings are based on optical performance, with no relation to build quality, focus speed, etc. You may find that some non L primes have similar ratings with L zoom. And some non L zoom are quite good.

By the way, I am proud to say that I have no L lens but I love all of my lenses.

[kraterz]

Most of the Canon primes are good. I use the 24/2.8 and the 50/1.8. These are as good or better than their equivalents in L zoom lenses. One of the best lenses I've ever used is my 100/2.8 USM macro.

However I can see a marked difference between the 28-105/3.5-4.5 which I own, and the equivalent L zoom (I tested the 28-70/2.8L) the L zoom beats the pants off the non-L zoom in terms of sharpness and contrast. My 70-200L is also way better than the 75-300IS. Absolutely no competition there. Bottom line - I wouldn't buy another non-L zoom. Not even the 28-135IS.

[CyberDyneSystems]

There are some spectacular non "L" Canon's,.. in fact many of there best lenses...

Both 50mm lenses are not "L"

The 85mm f/1.8 is 1/5th the cost of the "L" 85mm.. and many rate it as a better lens! The non L has much faster and more precise AF too.

The 135mm f/2.8 is a stunning and sharp lens.

The 100 Macro.

For zoom you have the 28-135mm IS and 24-80.

[nosquare2003]

I have no doubt that non L primes and L zoom have better contrast and sharpness against non L zoom. And the non L zoom will usually have a more serious flare problem. But the "28-135 IS" cannot be regarded as a "poor" lens.

100mm USM macro? I wonder why it is not an L lens...

[cowman345]

I own the 100mm 2.8 Macro and love it to pieces. The color rendition is better than perfect, i capture colors that seem more lively that real life with no saturation enhancement...

But what about non-Canon glass that compares to the quality of L lenses? I'm looking for a 60-75mm prime lens to use as a portrait lens (50mm 1.8 is great but puts me too close to subject)... anyone have any ideas?

-dave-

[dtrayers]

I like the results I get with my 24-85mm, and the zoom range is pretty useful. It's definately sharper than the 18-55 kit lens, and has some pretty good reviews.

http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/toolbox2.htm

[ron chappel]

I own the 100mm 2.8 Macro and love it to pieces. The color rendition is better than perfect, i capture colors that seem more lively that real life with no saturation enhancement...



-dave-

Absolutally,totally agree!!This lens is something special.
Not all pics taken with it come out that way though.

Alot of great advice allready posted so i'll just add my experience.

75-300 (all versions)..not very good.Certainly gets some excellent pics but the percentage will allways be much lower than with a good lens.I just tested my (particularly good example) against a newly aquired 100-300.The 100-300 is not only crisper/sharper/has better contrast but i can also get much better results at slow shutter speeds.The extra bit of sharpness makes all the difference to how many pics work out IN REAL UASAGE.
By the way-if you only need a 200mm zoom,the 80-200 II is amazing.It's reasonably sharp,tiny,fast focusing and has heaps of contrast (maybe too much....?)

The 28-105 is indeed a good lens(allthough i have seen some bad examples).In many situations i can't tell any sharpness/contrast difference between it and the 100 macro! (this is on the 300D,for some reason i haven't noticed quite the great results i get with the 100 macro on film...dunno why yet.

ALL 35-80,28-80,28-90,etc zooms i've tried are just not good enough.Sorry to be blunt but they need to be described that way.You can occasionaly get great pics with them(and that's the problem! it fools you into thinking they will do) but most will be less than you'll be proud of in years to come.I have pics taken with an ancient spotmatic (which had very good non zoom lenses) that are on average far,FAR better than anything i have ever got with any cheap zoom.
***Note** if you want to just capture memories though these cheap zooms are excellent.

The 300D kit zoom.
This one tends to be among the better of the kit zooms but it still has that same problem-it fools you into thinking it's good ...and after awhile you wonder why your photo's aren't that great.

[droosan]

optical quality and speed is to buy prime (not-zoom) lenses.

Just one Example: On a 1.6x camera, the Canon EF100/2 is a wonderful action lens. The F/2 lens gives the camera a lot more (like 6 times more) light to focus with. And obviously, the 10D and the Drebel need all they can get.