What makes an L an L?

[Schipperke]

If this is somewhere else please point it out.

What makes an L an L?

Thanks

[ghms421]

They all have a red ring, which is why everyone writes the L in red, just like you have.

[ct dub12]

they have better glass most of the time, larger apertures most of the time, constant apertures most of the time. red rings.

[AirBrontosaurus]

Canon's highest build quality, they each have at least one special fluoride glass element, Canon's best color reproduction and saturation, best flare control, and all around Canon's "best" lenses. They cost a lot though. To some they're worth it, to others they aren't.

[_aravena]

It's mainly the glass. They use different glass in the L's just as Sigma does with APO, Nikon with ED, etc.

Better overall build as well cause they do take their time on these beauties, but it's glass and build.

[StealthLude]

Dont forget AF peformance as well. Their USM lenses like the 300mm 2.8 IS L has the fastest AF in the world when paired with a 1 series camera.

The camera has a lot to do with it, but lenses like the 70-200 are also very fast on a standard body like a 20D.

But yes, it comes back to build and glass are the main reasons. Id say they are pretty durable. I baby my gear so I have no idea HOW durable, but they are built for profesional use.

[StealthLude]

To add to what I had to say, just because its got a red L, doesnt mean its the best either.

Ive seen and used plenty of non L lenses that preform amazing with L type optics. 100mm Macro is one that I hold in very high regards as a non L lens.

[godzakka]

I'm suprised no one said it: because Canon said so.

As others have said, it (to my knowledge) always has special glass (such as aspherical or flouride elements) and better build quality, among other things.

[AirBrontosaurus]

L's must also be compatible with FF bodies, so no EF-S lens can be an L.

[august23]

L's also make you a better photographer. If you don't become a better photographer from the glass you use, you're not using an L.

[Sir Tony]

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-L-Lens-Series.aspx

[Eagle]

L's must also be compatible with FF bodies, so no EF-S lens can be an L.

Is that stated somewhere by Canon. I know there are no EF-S currently that are L but who's to say they don't make one in the future.

[AirBrontosaurus]

Is that stated somewhere by Canon. I know there are no EF-S currently that are L but who's to say they don't make one in the future.

I think that's just built into the L definition. But, I suppose I could be wrong.

[_aravena]

Yeah, I don't see it. I think the EF-S thing was a failed experiment. Maybe not, but who knows.

[Richard7481]

I think the EF-S line already has an "L" in the form of the 17-55.

[AirBrontosaurus]

Well, I can't imagine Canon would make a professional lens that isn't compatible with its professional bodies. And, I imagine there would be significantly less money generated for and EF-S only L lens. If someone has $3,000 to spend on a camera body, then you can charge them more for lenses and still expect to sell them. However, if someone buys a <$1000 body, it's less likely they will be willing to spend big bucks on a lens.

Also, a lens that can fit all bodies has a wider market than one that can only fit EF-S bodies.

So, it may not technically be in the definition, but I highly doubt an EF-S L will ever be made.

[ed rader]

I think the EF-S line already has an "L" in the form of the 17-55.

i sorta agree. that's as close to an L lens that ef-s will see.

ed rader

[Double Negative]

...they each have at least one special fluoride glass element...

False.

[IKEACAR]

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/l_plant/f_index.html

This is AMAZING. You wouldn't believe the process which they use to create these lenses. This is a virtual tour which takes you from creating the glass to shipping the finished lens. Everyone should see this...

On another note as well, after seeing the process, it's completely understandable why these lenses cost what they do!

[CyberDyneSystems]

Check the EF Lens FAQ/Sticky thread.

[SaSi]

Actually, L lenses are designated L because Canon decides so.

It has been written (by Canon and others) that L lenses have Fluorite elements, UD elements, aspherical elements, constant and bright apperture, weather sealing, white color, etc.

Of course, other lenses in the Canon line-up feature UD lenses and not all L lenses have fluorite elements. Other lenses have constant apperture and not all L lenses have constant apperture. Other lenses are bright enough and not all L lenses are white.

It has been written in reviews about the EF-S 10-22 and EF-S 18-55/2.8 that they should have been designated L class. Such is their image quality.

In my view, it is a mixture of properties of a lens (build quality, elements and features) that make a lens become marketed as L.

Obviously, all L lenses give excellent IQ, although there are some exceptions. The EF 180L macro lens gets a fair run for it's money by the EF100 macro and the EF-S 60 macro lenses.

[Radtech1]

because Canon said so.

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding!

No more calls, we have a winner!

[ans3288]

they say ef-s 10-22 has L pedigree

[Double Negative]

We all have different ideas on what makes an L an L... But the most general way of describing it is "dependability." They're made to take the abuse of professional use. Then there is performance. You're paying to be able to use the lens wide open if you wish and the lenses generally have a "flatter response curve" - that is, you know what to expect from them.

For me, weathersealing is important. This may not be to others. I've trashed lesser lenses due to harsh environments. It cost me money and time and aggravation. I'd just as soon not repeat that again.

Of course we all want a quality image... It's also a certain peace of mind. Generally an L lens is as good as it gets. There's no need to upgrade nor will there be any upgrade envy. You're done. I like to buy my gear once, be done with it, and expect it to last until *I* decide I'm done with it.

It's just one less thing to worry about. Your gear can take it - can YOU?

[picturecrazy]

L's are known to turn many of it's owners into snobs... otherwise known as L-snobs that think anything without a red ring is a pathetic piece of crap.

[MegaTron]

L's also make you a better photographer. If you don't become a better photographer from the glass you use, you're not using an L.

You forgot the sarcasm tags.

[nicksan]

For the most part, better IQ (especially color and contrast, perhaps not always sharpness)

For the most part, better glass elements.

Better build, this is not disputable in my book. (Although some would lead you to believe that lenses like EF-S 17-55 are VERY cheaply built...which is simply not the case in my opinion)

Weather sealing on most, but not all L lenses.

Fast ring USM AF is pretty much a given on L lenses, not so on cheaper lenses.

Red rind which is pretty much the L "status" indicator...snobbish or not...

Desireable specs/features...such as constant f2.8 and f4 zooms with IS. (exception is the EF-S 17-55...that's a constant f2.8 and IS!!!)

Price! Your wallet will CRY!!!

That said, there are many non-L lens that are more than good enough for prime-time shooting...dare I say near "L" level lenses.

EF-S 10-22
EF-S 17-55 IS
EF 70-300 IS

And a host of primes (50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 100mm f2.8 Macro to name a few)



If this is somewhere else please point it out.

What makes an L an L?

Thanks

[4x4rock]

The price tag.

Canon can easy take the red ring off of the 300/2.8 or the 400/2.8 and paint them black and sell them for $800 but NOOOOOO....

They have to paint them white and sell them for $4000 and $7000

That freaking price tag.

[Lord_Malone]

What makes an L an L?

Cool J

[nicksan]

Doh!
Cool J

[Double Negative]

There are definitely lenses out there that don't bear the "L" that are fantastic. The 35mm f/2.0, 85mm f/1.8, either the 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 even. Or the 100mm f/2.8 Macro. The list definitely goes on.

[mcminty]

There are definitely lenses out there that don't bear the "L" that are fantastic. The 35mm f/2.0, 85mm f/1.8, either the 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 even. Or the 100mm f/2.8 Macro. The list definitely goes on.
Sure ;) .


Andrew.

[Double Negative]

Sure ;) .

Okay, that one was a reach... :D

But hey, for $70 it's quite sharp at least.

[SuzyView]

The price?

[Schipperke]

Cool J

I'm so Slowwww - I just got that!

[bungee]

Read http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

This reviewer rated the EF-S 17-55 IS as optically superior to all of his L zooms in the same focal length. They were ...

EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L USM
EF 17-40mm f/4 L USM
EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM

The only lens that could match it was the similarly-built Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM which turned in similar optical results in the short range of focal lengths that overlap.

Why aren't these called EF-S L lenses ? It's a marketing thing.

[ans3288]

ef-s lenses delivering L quality pictures unfortunate are also priced near L prices... 10-22 vs 17-40L

[Double Negative]

Don't take this the wrong way, but EF-S lenses may be very good and all... But they only work on 1.6x crop bodies. No full frame bodies, no pro series bodies. That really limits their use (and market) IMO.

Pros don't generally use 1.6x bodies (save for tele work perhaps) so I seriously doubt Canon would make L lenses for this format.

That is of course, not to say that optically the EF-S lenses aren't every bit as good as an L... But don't hold your breath waiting for weathersealing or higher-end build. If the bodies aren't this way, again, there's no point.

Two very distinct markets.