How much of a difference is the L? Realy?

[Imperitus]

I'm a hobbies with a G2... looking to make the transition to the dSLR world.

Likely I'll be pickig up a 10D... and a couple lenses...

My biggest question is, how important is the L series lens difference? For the price of a single L I could get a wide and a longer lens from the non L models...

I realize for the pros it's a major deal, but I'm shooting for fun, not profit.
Will I notice the difference? Will I be "ah hell this is a crappy picture I wish I had an L!" or will I even notice?

It seems like the kind of thing that if I never spoil myself I'll never miss it...

Take my audio system... no DTS or fancy schmancy new 6.1 or 7.1 setup just dolby 5.1, and I can't tell I'm missing anythign in the newer stuff, but if I got it I'm sure I'd never want to go back. Is it like that with the L lenses?

[DAMphyne]

it's not that important, you can get great shots without them, and you can get horrible shots with them.. it's all about ow you use your camera and what you are shooting

[neo_xeno]

well for me when i first started out, i got these sigma lens. i thought they were awesome until i got some L Lens. i haven't looked back yet. So as long as u don't buy or use L glass, lesser quality lens will be good enough. but if u do purchase one, u'll be asking urself why u didn't get one in the first place.

[Imperitus]

So if you were me, woult you go with a single L lens, and deal with the frustration of limited versatility, no wide, or no long... and suplement it later... maybe many months later... or get all bases covered and worry about upgrading years later maybe when money is in better supply?

[DocFrankenstein]

It depends... you're gonna get nice quality pictures with all canon gear. Usually, a great picture is about colors, composition and the way you set up your camera. A good picture with the rebel kit lens is gonna be a good picture no matter what. Had it been shot with L, it just would've had better colors and sharpness.

On the other hand, I am gonna try to make an analogy with music. Let's say you buy yourself a set of 1000 dollar speakers and a nice amplifier. They are top of the notch, like your 10D. But you decide to put in a 20 year old cassete recorder and listen from there. Can you listen to music? Are you gonna see(hear) the difference? Probably you would. And this setup doesn't make much sense. Your 1000 dollar speakers can't perform to their potential because the source of the signal sucks.

Non L glass, by and large is designed for "cheap" film SLRs. For those who print 4*6 all the time and don't bother comparing the results.

Digital SLRs are about fast lenses, fast autofocus and superb quality and sharpness of the image.

If you stay with your kit lens or some other cheap slow plastic zoom(f/4.5 to f/5.6) you are gonna get images and pictures. But then you're gonna enlarge them and discover that your G2 produces sharper pictures.

If you're gonna try to take a pic of a spoting event at low light (your living room for example), you're gonna find that everything becomes blurry because the aperture value isn't fast enough.

You'll discover that the front element of the non L lens wiggles a bit when you touch it.

You'll compare a 100% enlargement from L and non L and see that there is MUCH more detail in the L lens.

If you're getting the 10D, you're gonna get an L lens sooner or later. The matrix has you now. :wink:

[DocFrankenstein]

I had the same dilemma a while back.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=36696&highlight=

Most of the SLR users go to L sooner or later. L glass is worth it, it's just you don't realize it yet. Cause you haven't shot low light and moving subjects.

[DocFrankenstein]

So if you were me, woult you go with a single L lens, and deal with the frustration of limited versatility, no wide, or no long... and suplement it later... maybe many months later... or get all bases covered and worry about upgrading years later maybe when money is in better supply?
Yes I would!

Telling us your budget would help also :wink:

[neo_xeno]

doc, there's a word for ur analogy, i forget what it is though.

[Mike H]

You should always pick your lenses by starting with your subject and then work backwards.

Example: let's say you want to photograph basketball action. Most shooters use a 50mm or 85mm on a digital camera. There is no 50mm L lens. The 50/1.4 that Canon makes is superb. Its sharpness is clearly in the same class as the L lenses, and it would make a fine choice for that subject.

Let's say you want to go longer so you can shoot the same subject, just tighter. The 85mm L lens would be a poor choice. Its outstanding characteristic is that it is very fast (f/1.2), but its reputation is that it focuses slowly. Hence, it would not work well for basketball, and you should consider the very sharp (non-L) 85/1.8, which focuses quickly.

The 85/1.2L would be a better choice if you were instead wanting to shoot available light pictures at weddings, for example.

I'm not anti-L lens; I like the 2 that I have now and will likely buy another soon. I just don't think that people should regard all other lenses as junk. I get great use out of my non-L lenses.

Mike H

[Imperitus]

I can spend around 3k, I'd prefer to spend closer to 2K.

As for my photgraphy subjects, I generaly take my camera camping and have been shooting wildlife, which is why I'd like a long lens...

Of course there's also lots of fun landscapes to shoot, which cries for somethign wide... the wide shots are generaly ness important to be fast, so I won't need anything extrodinary for that, just as long as it's sharp.

But anyone taking photos of wild animals will tell you that for your zoom you want some speed to catch nature with its britches down. :)

Oh, and of course the occasional trip to a football game, or a concert, etc... but those are not as much the priorities.

[ohenry]

doc, there's a word for ur analogy, i forget what it is though.

:lol:

[johneo]

If you buy non L lenses you will be questioning "What's the big deal with L lenses? These non L lenses work great!" They will be a very good choice, for the most part, and you will have saved a ton of money and still have excellent photos.

But ... here's a little warning. Like I did, my third lens was a 17-40 L and I was hooked because there IS that much of a difference. I now have the 17-40 L and a 100-400 L and still have my 28-135 IS (non L) and although the 28-135 is a great lens, it is not in the league of an L lens. A replacement for that is on the top of my wish list (haven't decide which one or when yet :roll: )

Suggestion ... make a list of lenses you'd like over a range of focal lengths and pick out a non L and an L to fill the entire gap (sort of like picking 2 sets of lenses you need). Buy the ones you can afford and try to fit an L in there somewhere if possible. Over time upgrade but instead of a camera upgrade a lens.

I look at my L lenses as sort of an investment and I won't be replacing them anytime soon but they will be used on whatever camera I get in the future.

Good luck! It's tough but only you can make the choice.

[DocFrankenstein]

There is no 50mm L lens.
Not to be the picky little bastard, but it's a 50 mm f/1.0 L lens. :D

http://www.canon.ca/english/index-products.asp?lng=en&prodid=68&sgid=7&gid=2&ovr=1

I think I've heard about f/1.2 somewhere, but I am not sure it's canon.

[Mike H]

There is no 50mm L lens.
Not to be the picky little bastard, but it's a 50 mm f/1.0 L lens. :D

http://www.canon.ca/english/index-products.asp?lng=en&prodid=68&sgid=7&gid=2&ovr=1

I think I've heard about f/1.2 somewhere, but I am not sure it's canon.

Not to be a picky bastard, but that lens has been out of production for a while. You might be able to find one on Ebay, though. Even used it's quite expensive.

Mike H

[Mike H]

I can spend around 3k, I'd prefer to spend closer to 2K.

As for my photgraphy subjects, I generaly take my camera camping and have been shooting wildlife, which is why I'd like a long lens...

Of course there's also lots of fun landscapes to shoot, which cries for somethign wide... the wide shots are generaly ness important to be fast, so I won't need anything extrodinary for that, just as long as it's sharp.

But anyone taking photos of wild animals will tell you that for your zoom you want some speed to catch nature with its britches down. :)

Oh, and of course the occasional trip to a football game, or a concert, etc... but those are not as much the priorities.

I think you can definitely get in under $3K, though $2k will be tough. You might want to look at the Canon 100-400 L lens. It has an image stabilizer (very useful), and runs about $1400, hood included. Together with the 10D this might be good to cover most of your subjects. I don't have that lens, but there are many on this board who use it and are very pleased with it.

Keep in mind, too, that long lenses work well for landscapes. In fact, though it's counter-intuitive, over the years I've seen more outstanding landscapes with long lenses than with short ones.

Mike H

[DocFrankenstein]

not to be a picky bastard... but there IS an L 50 mm prime.... :lol: :wink:

Peace man

[unners]

How much of a difference is the L? Realy?

well, for starters the extra 'L' in 'Really' is there to make the spelling correct :D
(sorry, couldn't resist!)

seriously, i think L zooms can be similar in picture quality to non-L primes and L-primes are a noticable step above both.
often it isn't just about the optical quality though, as some builds, speeds and focal lengths are only available in L versions.
cheers
dave

[Persian-Rice]

Why will 2k be tough?

17-40 4L
50 1.8
70-200 4L
1.4 tele

for $1600.................. if you need the 2.8, $2100, you have everything covered up to 17mm-280mm + crop factor..................

[velvetjones]

Why will 2k be tough?

17-40 4L
50 1.8
70-200 4L
1.4 tele

for $1600.................. if you need the 2.8, $2100, you have everything covered up to 17mm-280mm + crop factor..................

He needs a body though too....so there is at least another $1000.

They did quit making that 50mm f/1.0 a while ago. It must have not been worth the money, because I don't know many people that have this lens. 1.0 is sort of a novelty though.

[Persian-Rice]

oops, missed the part about the body...................

You can get 300d for pretty damn cheap, if you don't mind not having the 10D. If it's for a hobby a 300D + firmware hack is a very good choice. If it's not life or death for you, it's $400-$500 better spent on lenses.

Wow I never thought I would ever reccomend a rebel over a 10d, but whattaya know, the Rebel does have a purpose on this earth lol...........

[Haifidelity]

It (the 50mm f/1.0) was a statement from Canon that they could make a lens in the EOS mount at f/1.0, more than anything.

L Lenses offer some of the best tools for Canon EOS Users to acomplish their goals, but there's more than one way to skin a cat (or shoot a picture of it--very popular around here).

Unfortunately, none of the Canon L literature that i've seen state that the L series offer talent or experience with your purchase. That's something you have to supply.

[Mike H]

Why will 2k be tough?

17-40 4L
50 1.8
70-200 4L
1.4 tele

for $1600.................. if you need the 2.8, $2100, you have everything covered up to 17mm-280mm + crop factor..................

$2K will be tough because--if I'm reading the post correctly--he hasn't bought the camera yet.

Mike H

[Mike H]

not to be a picky bastard... but there IS an L 50 mm prime.... :lol: :wink:

Peace man

Doc, it's not listed on the Canon site or at B&H.

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=152

Peace! :D

Mike H

[drisley]

I have an 85F1.8 prime which is not L, and a 135F2 which is L.
Both lenses are very sharp. Both are very well built.
The 135F2L has 2 advantages.

1. No purple/blue fringing wide open, even under the most extreme circumstances.
2. Even though the 85F1.8 is VERY well built, the 135F2L is built like a tank, and is a work of art!

85F1.8 - Image Quality: 9 - Build: 9 - Price: 9
135F2L - Image Quality:10 - Build:10 - Price: 6

When it comes to zooms, the only comparisons I've had are the 300D kit lens (18-55) and the 70-200F4L. The L lens beats the kit lens just like the 2 categories above. The L is MUCH better in build and eliminates most optical anomalies. In addition the L zoom is also MUCH sharper. If you are printing low resolutions, or using mainly for web, the non L zooms will look almost as good as the L. The big difference comes at high resolutions.

I have pictures in my gallery taken with the 18-55 lens (http://www.fotop.net/sharpnsmart/072004) that don't look out of place beside the L pictures. However, when I view them full-size, or print them, the quality difference is VERY obvious.

18-55 Kit - Image Quality: 6 - Build: 5 - Price: 10
70-200F4L - Image Quality:9.5 - Build:10 - Price: 8

[BearSummer]

Hi Folks,

Tho Doc may be a bit confrontational but he is correct there did used to be a 50mm F1.0L lens

There is also an 85mm F1.2L

Both of which are no longer made. As far as I am aware (and I could be wrong) these "rare" lenses were made as a batch and then stored until sold. The same was true of the 200mm F1.8L, basically when the warehouses are empty then the only places to get one is via the second hand market.

The 50's ran out some time ago, the 200's left us a couple of years ago and the 85's are probably fairly close to the last few. When asked Chuck Westfall said (or so I remember) that there were no plans to replace the 200 1.8 and that the dies that were used to manufacture the optics were not kept. Which I guess they would have done for the 50 and 85.

For a full list of the old and great see

Canon's museum (http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/index.html)

Best regards

BearSummer

[Imperitus]

It's true I do need thebody... I'm figuring on 1400$ for that, roughly.

as for printing, I have a canon s9000 that prints 13x19 images. And for me it does a great job. Even the 4 megapixel photos from my current G2 look very nice when printed at that size and hung on the wall. Sure if you look at them up close you can see some artifacting, and some image issues, but I'm not making archival prints for a museum. :)

My leaning is 10D + 70 - 300 mm DO IS USM, it's not an L, but seems like a high quality lens, and is smaller than the equivilent L.

But with the 1.6 crop 70 = 112, and that's not leaving me much wide... I'm fairly sure I'll miss having a wide... of course I will still have my G2, so I'm not out anything, but I have a feeling I'll be dying to order a wide very soon after I get the rest of it since I'll feel 'incomplete' :)

[scorp888]

Well it depends.

Is the D10 going to take better photos than the G2?

Not always but it will help.

same applies for the L lenses.

they will only help.

however, when all the planets align, you take that perfect photo, it will look better with an L.

Fwiw, I'm slowly converting my old non-L lenses to L ones.

That to me is a better upgrade than the change from a D10 to a D1s Mark 2 would make.

hth

[Imperitus]

I understand it's not entirely the camera that makes the photos. :)

But lately I've felt frustrated with the limited lens of the G2, I have telephoto and wide angle adaptors, but they're all pretty sub satisfactory.

Additionaly I'm looking forward to the better iso range, and playing with any number of the additional manual controls.

I've already made the transition to raw format so that I can play with greater exposure control when importing the photos... I crave more creative controls. :) I'm sure you all understand.

[roanjohn]

I say that buy a used 10D.

There was a used one in B&H for less than 900 USD>

In addition, get the 70-200 f4 and 17-40 f4 L's.

..............and a 50 f1.8.

...............grand total of...............

2500.

Ro1

[Canuck]

Here is a test I did...
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=247568 read on and I think it will be really obvious.

[WestFalcon]

I shot a large group with the 17-40L and a 20-30 usm..non L at F11. I was prepared to see the L blow away the non-L but that didn't happen at this F stop. Greatly enlarged, the difference was not perceptable. I think that the L would have been better at F4 or F5.6 but it really came as a surprise to see that the 20-35 was very good at F11. I still like L lenses but Canon makes some non L's that are pretty darned good, especially when stopped down.

[DocFrankenstein]

If you stop it down THAT MUCH, then pretty much any lens will perform nicely... I am surprised though that you didn't find it less sharp at the corners.

Ls are better because they perform flawlessly ALL the time. Backlit, wide open, in the corners... etc...

[Jon]

I am surprised though that you didn't find it less sharp at the corners.

"The corners" on a DR/10D/D60/D30 aren't the corners (or on a 1D or 1D MkII0 due to our old friend "cropping factor". You're staying inside, so there'll be less problem.

[drisley]

True, but even on a 300D, the 17-40L is much sharper than the 18-55 kit lens, even when stopped down to F11.
There was just such a comparison onine somewhere, but I cant seem to find it. :?

[abel]

i love my L lenses... i have a 17-40 f4L and a 70-200 f2.8L. sure they cost more but also resale value is VERY high so thats a good thing.

very nice to work with. my next lens be a 135 f2L which is tack sharp! very impressive.

good luck,

[BearSummer]

Ls are better because they perform flawlessly ALL the time. Backlit, wide open, in the corners... etc...

Well that is sure one opinion. I won't say that L's aren't very good but they are not flawless ALL the time. Just have a lok at the MTF for the 85's, this info was taken from photodo the top mtf is taken at f8 and the bottom is wide open.

85 1.2L (http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/CAEF8512L.gif)

and

85 1.8 (http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/CAEF8518USM.gif)

Basically the higher the lines the sharper the lens, have a look here
understanding mtf (http://www.photodo.com/art/Unde5.shtml)

So looking at the two graphs you can see that the 85 1.8 is sharper wide open that the 85 1.2L. It is also much faster to focus as there is less glass to move and is far lighter (425g vs 1025g) the cost difference is roughly 4.5x (rrp £340 vs £1540). There is more to an excellent lens than just how it performs af f8. You have to take into account its performance across the range, its size and weight and its cost. Now please dont think that I dont like the 85 1.2, its a great lens and very good at what it does but it does have limitations that the 1.8 doesn't. I have had both lenses, and they are both very good, the 1.2 does a few things better and a few things worse. It has flaws, but its benefits mostly outweigh them. I miss more pictures with the 1.2 than I did with the 1.8, now thats a flaw for sure, but when you get it right the images are stunning.

Do L's perform flawlessly ALL the time, no. There are compromises made to produce specific performance. They are stunning at what they are good at, but aren't good at a wide range of things. Rather like a 100M sprinter, excellent over 100m, poor in the marathon, dont even think about the weight lifting. Most lenses are like decathletes, good at a wide range of subjects but not outstanding, L's are outstanding but only in one, or at most a few subjects.

Do I have a bag full of gLass, yes, but I am aware of what they are good at and shoot for where they are strong and not where they are week. I would suggest that you try a few L's before you start thinking they are perfect.

Best Regards

BearSummer

[Belmondo]

The real value to L lenses is their performance at their limits. It just isn't reasonable to compare the 85mm f/1.2 and f/1.8. They are not the same lens and are not in the same league (especially between f/1.2 and 1.8 :lol: ).

Many non-L lenses can and do perform very impressively in certain situations, but generally lack the versatility and overall performance of comparable professional lenses, especially at larger f/stops (lower numerically).

[ScottW]

Imperitus,

I was in the same boat as you a few months ago. I moved up from a G3 to the 10D. I pondered the "L" question for quite a while but in the end I bought the 24-70 L for two reasons:

1 - Getting to know the 10D and all its features is a daunting task and having one good lens to work with is all I need at this time. No sense in having additional lenses to complicate the learning curve.

2 - I decided to get one L lens and learn to work with it rather than two non L lenses. Later on as bodies improve the L glass will still be the best and will work with the newer bodies.

BTW I kept searching the web for good prices from reputable online stores and when I made my purchase I got the 10D for $ 1,211 and the 24-70 L for $ 1139.

[BearSummer]

Hi Belmondo,

My point was that L's are good but not perfect. The focus speed of the 85 1.2 is a well known flaw, and wide open the 1.8 is slightly sharper (which is to be expected). What I was trying to do was pick two lenses that were fairly similar where one was an L and one was prosumer and show how by pushing the L to perform well in an area there had to be compromises in others. Speed of AF, weight and cost spring to mind instantly. L's are very good, but they are not flawless ALL of the time and people shouldn't think that they are. Doc is saying that they are something that they are not, I just suggested that he should try one before making such a sweeping statement. I love all of my L glass and wouldn't be without it, but none of them are perfect, they all have weekensses in certain situations. You just need to be aware of it and work around it.

Best regards

BearSummer

[Belmondo]

Hi Belmondo,

My point was that L's are good but not perfect. The focus speed of the 85 1.2 is a well known flaw, and wide open the 1.8 is slightly sharper (which is to be expected). What I was trying to do was pick two lenses that were fairly similar where one was an L and one was prosumer and show how by pushing the L to perform well in an area there had to be compromises in others. Speed of AF, weight and cost spring to mind instantly. L's are very good, but they are not flawless ALL of the time and people shouldn't think that they are. Doc is saying that they are something that they are not, I just suggested that he should try one before making such a sweeping statement. I love all of my L glass and wouldn't be without it, but none of them are perfect, they all have weekensses in certain situations. You just need to be aware of it and work around it.

Best regards

BearSummer

I don't disagree with a single thing you've said. :wink:

[DocFrankenstein]

I agree with bear summer too. I really should stop making such absolute statements

Peace

[Belmondo]

Are we ready for a group hug?

[BearSummer]

Hi folks

BEARHUG :D

best regards

BearSummer

[cmM]

You speak bad of L :shock:

Blasphemy, I say !!! Blasphemy !!! :x

:P j/k ;)

[BearSummer]

LOL

yeah I know, let me guess, burn the heretic and divide the gLass amongst the mob.

I should warn you that my wife expects first dibbs on my gLass when I'm gone. You better believe it's in my will. Reads something like this

"Being of sound mind and body and having a full belief in the afterlife I want my camera gear to be included in the coffin so that I can take photographs in the here after"

Somehow I think she will contest the will.

BearSummer

[cmM]

Somehow I think she will contest the will.
Somehow I think I'm gonna start digging up photographers' graves :D

[BearSummer]

Somehow I think I'm gonna start digging up photographers' graves :D

Dont bother, where do you think I got mine from. You dont expect me to have paid for it surely.

BearSummer