L vs. non-L: one example

[msvadi]

This is a comparison of 135mm f/2.8 and 100-300 f/5.6L. Both are old lenses, designed in 80's. But, I still think it's interesting to see what L glass can offer. Pictures below are 100% crops taken with tripod, MLU, f/5.6, at 135mm.

135mm f/2.8:
http://pantheon.yale.edu/~vm49/135_28.jpg

100-300 f/5.6L
http://pantheon.yale.edu/~vm49/100_300_56L.jpg

I think that the 135mm looks sharper, but the 100-300 controls aberrations better.

the 135mm is slow to focus, but the 100-300 f/5.6L is even worse in this respect: the AF is very slow and very noisy. Push/pull zoom is not too bad at all, and overall, it's a nice lens. Too bad it's discontinued. I bought a copy from KEH.com for $300 including shipping. And it goes back to KEH: i noticed some marks/scratches on the glass. They are very hard to see. They are not on the front element, but somewhere inside. I don't think they affect image quality, but it's just not worth it. One can get a brand new 70-200 f/4L for $540.

The serial number of that lens is UD0605. If you decide to buy a 100-300 5.6L from KEH, check the serial number. If it's the same lens, I don't recommend it. By the way, "D" in the serial number means that it was produced around 1989, so, this copy is very old.

I think that I'm done with buying used lenses. Too risky. Good thing that KEH offers 14 days inspection period. I would never buy a used lens on the ebay. You never know what you'll get.

[Belmondo]

I'm not getting the pictures.

Just the little red "X".

[msvadi]

I'm not getting the pictures.

Just the little red "X".

Sorry about that. I fixed it, should be okay now.

[AzzKicker]

Your comparing 2 TOTALLY different lenses that server Different purposes. This test is void :)


If your gonna test L glass versus None L glass at least make them the same lenses almost Like an old 70-210 f/4 lens vs a 70-200 f/4 L lens.


Or something along those lines.


BTW, the L glass has better color. Its obvious. And it seems the 100-300 has a different focus point. Its not pointing to the YAMAHA sign.

[DocFrankenstein]

Ideally it should be primes with the same focal distance...

[msvadi]

Of course, one is faster, the other is zoom. Seriously guys, IMHO they serve the same purpose. Say you need a telephoto lens and you are about to spend about $300, both lenses are worth consideration.

By the way, the 75-300mm lens, if you set it to 135mm and f/5.6 performs similarly to 135mm f/2.8 at f/5.6.

[Tom W]

You'll be hard-pressed to find a zoom that performs as well wide open as a prime does stopped down.

I've tested my 24-70L against my 50/1.4 at f/2.8 - the prime was better, though only by a small margin.

[msvadi]

I thought that they serve the same purpose: you attach them to your camera and take pictures ;)

the 100-300 was set to 135mm. The focus point was the same on both shots. What you see, actually, are crops from lower left portions of the original images. All I wanted to show is how the L glass, even very old, takes care of aberrations.


Your comparing 2 TOTALLY different lenses that server Different purposes. This test is void :)


If your gonna test L glass versus None L glass at least make them the same lenses almost Like an old 70-210 f/4 lens vs a 70-200 f/4 L lens.


Or something along those lines.


BTW, the L glass has better color. Its obvious. And it seems the 100-300 has a different focus point. Its not pointing to the YAMAHA sign.

[msvadi]

I thought that the L glass is famous for being equally sharp through the whole apereture range. At least, that's how it's advertized.

By the way, if I replaced the 135mm with 75-300, the picture would look practically the same. Once I tested my friend's 75-300 against the 135mm. At 135mm, the 75-300 was somewhat sharper (photodo.com confirms that, by the way).

You'll be hard-pressed to find a zoom that performs as well wide open as a prime does stopped down.

I've tested my 24-70L against my 50/1.4 at f/2.8 - the prime was better, though only by a small margin.

[msvadi]

I have to admit that you may be right regarding the focus plane. I checked the originals again, and the focus plane might shifted a little bit. At 135mm it's enough for the second picture to appear less sharp.

Your comparing 2 TOTALLY different lenses that server Different purposes. This test is void :)


If your gonna test L glass versus None L glass at least make them the same lenses almost Like an old 70-210 f/4 lens vs a 70-200 f/4 L lens.


Or something along those lines.


BTW, the L glass has better color. Its obvious. And it seems the 100-300 has a different focus point. Its not pointing to the YAMAHA sign.

[Steveo31]

Primes are sharper than zooms.

Good idea tho :)

[msvadi]

Primes are sharper than zooms

It's a good rule, but it's wrong ;) Like I said, once I tested my 135mm f/2.8 agains 75-300 (which is a crappy lens according to the majority of reviews). At comparable focal lengths, 75-300 is as sharp as 135, or may be even sharper. If you don't believe me, check the photodo.com MTF data.

It does not mean that 75-300 is a better lens, I would still choose 135 over it. Sharpness is not everything. Besides, differences are not that big, and I need 2.8 for low light shooting.

I'm very new to photography, and I still don't know and don't understand many things. But, IMHO, there are too many myths and rules that don't work.

[Tom W]

I thought that the L glass is famous for being equally sharp through the whole apereture range. At least, that's how it's advertized.

That's asking a bit more than practical physical limitations will allow from a lens. The "L" lenses are, however, more consistant across the range than most lenses.

By the way, if I replaced the 135mm with 75-300, the picture would look practically the same. Once I tested my friend's 75-300 against the 135mm. At 135mm, the 75-300 was somewhat sharper (photodo.com confirms that, by the way).


Most primes are sharper than most zooms at an equal aperture and focal length. But there are exceptions. That is why I said you'd be hard pressed to find one. I didn't say it was impossible.

Photodo tests (or used to test) one sample of each lens - although good anecdotal evidence, it isn't sufficient to draw a statistically supportable conclusion. Their tests are an aid in lens choices, but shouldn't be taken as gosphel, considering the variations among samples of the same lens.

[msvadi]

Photodo tests (or used to test) one sample of each lens - although good anecdotal evidence, it isn't sufficient to draw a statistically supportable conclusion. Their tests are an aid in lens choices, but shouldn't be taken as gosphel, considering the variations among samples of the same lens.

Good point, I totally agree with you.

I'm not trying to prove here anything or determine which lens is better. I simply report here my personal experience, which has no statistical significance at all.

I took another couple of shots at f/8. In terms of sharpness - no difference, but it's not surprizing, I guess.

Regarding primes vs. zooms, I remember reading quite a few complains from people who bought 200 f/2.8L just to find out that it was not sharper than their 70-200 L lenses.

Again, from my limited experience with telephoto lenses, zooms can be as good as primes, or at least, very close to what primes produce.

[Tom W]

Photodo tests (or used to test) one sample of each lens - although good anecdotal evidence, it isn't sufficient to draw a statistically supportable conclusion. Their tests are an aid in lens choices, but shouldn't be taken as gosphel, considering the variations among samples of the same lens.

Good point, I totally agree with you.

I'm not trying to prove here anything or determine which lens is better. I simply report here my personal experience, which has no statistical significance at all.

I was beginning to wonder. :)

I took another couple of shots at f/8. In terms of sharpness - no difference, but it's not surprizing, I guess.

f/8 is at or close to most lenses' sweetest point. If a lens performs poorly there, it has some serious issues. But its nice to have lenses that produce decent images throughout their aperture range. I've had a couple (bought used) that did not and got rid of them quickly.

Regarding primes vs. zooms, I remember reading quite a few complains from people who bought 200 f/2.8L just to find out that it's not sharper than their 70-200 L lenses.

Again, from my limited experience with telephoto lenses, zooms can be as good as primes, or at least, very close to what primes produce.

Its a generalization that primes edge out their zoom counterparts, and is true most of the time. The 70-200's (both of them) are very exceptional lenses, and hold their own against many primes in their range. If you put a pile of prime lenses on your left and a pile of zooms on your right and randomly picked one of each, the prime would probably outperform the zoom in 8 or 9 out of every 10 tests.

That said, I'm not about to give up my zooms. I have found exceptional quality out of the ones that I do own (though I did have a couple that weren't good at all), and don't see any reason to replace them with primes. The primes I've tried aren't "better enough" to warrant replacing the convenience of the zoom. I may add a couple of prime lenses when I see the need (the 85/1.8 comes to mind as does the 100/2.8 Macro), but for the most part, I have a set of lenses that serves a wide range of uses. All but one are zooms for now.

[blinking8s]

its been raining since my 70-200 f4 L came to my front door...somoene make the sun come out at 5pm when i get home from work tomorrow! PLEASE!!!

[nosquare2003]

msvadi

I remember that I have written my opinions on the 100-300/5.6L in your previous thread:
- slow autofocus
- good optics
- I hate the push pull zoom design
- lightweight

Now, you agree at least half of them... By the way, I have never mind the sound for lens focus or I have get used to. In fact, the sound of shutter is much louder.

Although it has been discontinued, I've seen a shop selling them as new. It's rather strange.

I have mixed opinions in this lens myself. If one cannot stand slow autofocus, don't touch it. Otherwise, it has a good value for the price IMHO.

[hmhm]

I thought that the L glass is famous for being equally sharp through the whole apereture range. At least, that's how it's advertized.


No, that would be overly optimistic, and even Canon's marketing department wouldn't make such a claim.

By the way, there's no such thing as "what L glass can do". Canon makes a bunch of lenses, some are made to be affordable, some are made to be very good _for what they are_, the latter are given an L designation by the marketing department. It doesn't mean much to try to apply common qualities to all lenses with an L designation, for instance the 16-35L probably doesn't share much in common with the 200/1.8L in terms of performance.

Once I tested my friend's 75-300 against the 135mm. At 135mm, the 75-300 was somewhat sharper (photodo.com confirms that, by the way).


What specific results are you looking at on photodo.com? Which 75-300 are you referring to (there are a bunch), and which 135 (there are a couple)? The only 135/2.8 on photodo.com is the "soft focus" one.
-harry

[Haifidelity]

The "L" designation to Canon means: Higher Build Quality and Materials, which typically include one of the following, Fluorite and/or UD Glass. Any pixy dust thrown in the construction is rumor.

"L" Lenses in my experience (28-70 F/2.8L, 70-200 F/2.8L & 70-200 F/4L) are so close to Prime quality that the differences are insignificant. I'd live with the SMALL (if any) differences for the versatility of a zoom.

[msvadi]

The only 135/2.8 on photodo.com is the "soft focus" one.


there is only one 135/2.8 , it's the lens with the soft focus control. The soft focus can be turned off.

[Tom W]

The "L" designation to Canon means: Higher Build Quality and Materials, which typically include one of the following, Fluorite and/or UD Glass. Any pixy dust thrown in the construction is rumor.

"L" Lenses in my experience (28-70 F/2.8L, 70-200 F/2.8L & 70-200 F/4L) are so close to Prime quality that the differences are insignificant. I'd live with the SMALL (if any) differences for the versatility of a zoom.

Build quality is often overlooked, but it is a sizeable advantage. The metal lens bodies tend to be very resistant to temperature-related expansion and contraction compared to their plastic counterparts, and exhibit longer wear capabilities (though Canon's mid-priced lenses tend to use metals at all the high-wear points such as zoom barrels and cams). Newer designs incorporate weather sealing and improved optical performance and/or range, though the optical improvements are comparatively small as the science of optics is pretty mature.

And although as HmHm points out, you can't directly compare optical performance of a 16-35L with the 200/1.8L, you can compare these lenses to other lenses in their own classification. The 16-35L compares very favorably to the 20-35/3.5-4.5 consumer zoom, and is fairly close in quality to most primes in its zoom range. The 200/1.8L compares very favorably against other primes in its focal range, plus sports a wider maximum aperture.

And that's what "L" glass does - it compares favorably to other lenses within its classification, while offering top-notch build quality. It certainly isn't perfect, nor can it be.

[msvadi]

By the way, 100-300 5.6L build quality is poor. I still think it's a nice lens. I wish I could find one in like new condition with a warranty. My copy goes back to KEH only because it has marks on the glass.

[Tom W]

By the way, 100-300 5.6L build quality is poor. I still think it's a nice lens. I wish I could find one in like new condition with a warranty. My copy goes back to KEH only because it has marks on the glass.

Having not seen the lenses' history, I'd not want to make that judgement on a 10 year old lens.

I'm growing a little less apt to buy used lenses, except from people I know. I've gotten two used lenses from KEH, one of which was a dud and went back to them. The other was a very nice 50 mm Mk I which I've since sold. I once bought a used 24-85 lens from an unknown party on another web site. Although the lens was physically perfect to the eye, its images were soft in the corners, and not nearly as good as my trusty old 28-105 f/3.5-4.5. I got rid of that one quickly, but I didn't sell it to any individual - that wouldn't be right.

There are two lenses that I did buy that have been keepers (both excellent). They were both bought from known members of this forum.

I look at it this way - the reason that someone is selling a lens is paramount to what the lens will be like when you get it. Often, the lens has been used a lot, or abused or was just a dud from day-one. Other times, the person is simply moving on to a different format, a more advanced lens, or just needs the money. KEH gets their share of used lenses from all types of people. I scored 50/50 with them on lenses (and 100% with camera bodies), but their 14 day return policy was a plus when I needed it. You won't get that on e-bay very often.

[hmhm]

there is only one 135/2.8 , it's the lens with the soft focus control. The soft focus can be turned off.

Shrug. The photodo numbers I see favor the 135/2.8 over the two 75-300 zooms (at 135mm) they have ratings for.
-harry