Any comparison photos taken from non-L and L lens?

[csondagar]

I am very aware that L lens have superios quailty glass which would definetely give better photos quality. However, is the difference between the non-L and L lens (only canon brands) noticeable? Does anyone have photos taken with non-L and L lens that shows the difference? Thanks.

[Andy_T]

Hi,

Take a look at this review of the Canon 70-300 DO lens. It's in German only, but there are some 100% crops (click at the links below the pictures with the coloured markers) that show a comparison between the Tamron 28-300 (not in the same league, really), Canon 28-135, Canon 70-200L (considered to be one of the best 'L' lenses) and Canon 70-300 DO.

These shots both show how the lens performs wide open and stopped down. Especially open, the pictures show tremendous differences.

http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman/publish/article_304.shtml

Best regards,
Andy

[Radtech1]

I had an opportunity to compare the L70-200 2.8 IS with the 28-135 IS. I compared apples to apples, that is only the focal lenghts that both lenses covered (70 to 135mm) at apertures that they both covered. I found the L lens to be only nominally sharper at times than the non-L glass, and, most times, less sharp than the non-L

I ended up taking it back to SAMYS who, after being complete JERKS about it, gave me a credit which I used for the 70-300 DO. The DO was $500 less expensive, is 100mm longer in reach, is less conspicuous by several orders of magnitude, and, by virtue of being 70% lighter, has a more usable IS.

I do wish that I was able to side-by-side the DO and the L, but I had to give them the L to get the DO. The only problem that I have had with the DO has been a little haloing around a brightly lit subject against a black background.

Rad

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34315&highlight=

[Jesper]

It isn't true that L lenses are always superior than non-L lenses.

When you stop down a non-L lens to f/8 or f/11, often it's just as sharp as an L lens. The main advantage of an L lens is that you can be sure that even wide open it will be very good. Also, L lenses most of the time are better built.

I've tried comparing my 70-300 DO with a 300 f/4 L with 1.4xTC last weekend, both stopped down to f/8. There isn't a dramatic difference in sharpness. However, I know that the DO wide open (f/5.6) at the long end is not really great - I'm sure an L lens would wide open still be great.