Canon lenses: How much better is the "L" series

[Kirik]

How much better is the "L" series than the non-L series - worth the $?
Thanks

[evilenglishman]

brief answer? yes.

[neil_r]

To be more precise... Lots & Yes

N

[Kirik]

"Lots"

Is that what the L stands for? :)

[JK]

"Lots"

Is that what the L stands for? :)

No, no... it stands for "Loan" and your bank manager will be more than happy to give you one... :D

[waynejgilbert]

For me the *L* stands for Lucky to have a couple LOL! :D

[Schizophreak]

L = Luxury = $$$

[chris.bailey]

How much better is the "L" series than the non-L series - worth the $?
Thanks

Like many areas of life, the law of diminishing returns sets in where twice the price does not mean twice the quality. To me paying double for a 10% improvement is worth it, for others it may not be.

[BearSummer]

Hi Kirik,

yep they are worth the money if you are trying to get as close to ultimate quality as you can. However you need to be using the camera to the best of your ability to get the best out of them. Obey the rules, 1/lens length, shoot with a tripod/monopod where possible, use mirror lockup if you can etc etc. they are still lots better than the consumer glass. If you aren't doing the right things to begin with then the improvement from L's isnt going to be as great as it could be.

Well I like them :>

Best regards

BearSummer

[Schizophreak]

Hi Kirik,

yep they are worth the money if you are trying to get as close to ultimate quality as you can. However you need to be using the camera to the best of your ability to get the best out of them. Obey the rules, 1/lens length, shoot with a tripod/monopod where possible, use mirror lockup if you can etc etc. they are still lots better than the consumer glass. If you aren't doing the right things to begin with then the improvement from L's isnt going to be as great as it could be.

Well I like them :>

Best regards

BearSummer

Well said. If you don't know how to use the L's to its abilities, then its a big waste.

[tommykjensen]

Obey the rules, 1/lens length

How does this relate to the ISO rule 1/ISO ?

For example:

Lens at 200 mm = 1/200 shutter
ISO 100 = 1/100 shutter

which to use?

or

Lens at 200 mm = 1/200 shutter
ISO 400 = 1/400 shutter

which to use?

[ralee]

Hi Kirik

I do find that L's are worth the extra money. If you are starting to look for good value L's you should look at the 17-40 f4L or the 70-200 f4L. Both of these lenses are amazing value. L lenses are usually faster aperture, faster focusing, and sharper ( most noticeable when used wide open)

Rob

[BearSummer]

Hi TommyKjensen,

The rule I was refering to was.. when hand holding a lens dont shoot with a shutter speed that is less than 1/lens length not the sunny 16 rule. The only reason to use the sunny 16 rule is if you dont have a hand held meter or your in camera meter has packed up. Sunny 16 says that if you set the shutter speed to be 1/iso then you should be shooting af f16 on a sunny day (or anything that is directly lit by sunlight eg the moon). Hopefully you wont need to use this rule as if you do then your cameras broken (as we are talking about eos's) and needs to go in for fixing. I was guessing that as we were talking about L glass you would know that i meant hand holding rather than sunny 16. You can push it with hand holding but its best not to, better to use a tripod/monopod/chainpod if possible.

Hope that helps

BearSummer

[IncompletePete]

What exactly does the "L" stand for? :?

[tommykjensen]

Hi TommyKjensen,

The rule I was refering to was.. when hand holding a lens dont shoot with a shutter speed that is less than 1/lens length not the sunny 16 rule.


Thanks, I had forgotten that this was the sunny 16 rule.

[roanjohn]

What exactly does the "L" stand for? :?

LUXURY!!!

Ro1

[Kirik]

Roan, I noticed you list these lenses: 70-200 f2.8 L, 70-200 f4 L

Why would you have those two - aren't they incredibly similar? Just curious, thanks

[Andy_T]

Roan, I noticed you list these lenses: 70-200 f2.8 L, 70-200 f4 L

Why would you have those two - aren't they incredibly similar? Just curious, thanks

OK ... here's the test.

Stand on your feet.
Grab one lens in each hand.
Stretch your hands.
Hold your hands up for 10 minutes :lol:

3.5 vs. 1.6 lb .....

Other than that ...

Canon L zoom lenses are generally better than Canon Non-L Zoom lenses.
Canon primes (L and Non-L like 1.4/50 or 1.8/85) deliver very good image quality and are often sharper than L zoom lenses.

Some Canon 'specialty' L zoom lenses (e.g. 35-350 or 28-300) are not outstanding, but average and not as good as primes ... but this is due to the design, because all other lenses in that zoom range are very much below average.

Best regards,
Andy

[ralee]

Hi Kirik

I have both of the lenses as well. Actually, I tend to use both, the f4 is quite abit lighter and more mobile to handhold so when I am shooting an all weekend swim meet and I am able to use flash I will use my f4 most of the time. Hockey is a different story, the rinks tend to be lower lit and shooting distance is greater so I will use my f2.8. I find both lenses are pretty much equal in lens quality.


Rob

[timmyquest]

I own one L lens and have shot two.

The L i own is a telephoto, and compared to other non-telephoto lenses i have, aside from the sharpness and speed, the things i notice are contrast and colors. It just makes everything look so natural.

This goes for the other lens i shot which was a wide angle, it was sharper, more accurate colors, and higher contrast.

Match that up with the fact that they have USM and some are waterproof...it just feels like driving a BMW rather then a mustang. Both are fun, but one just FEELS better.

[roanjohn]

Roan, I noticed you list these lenses: 70-200 f2.8 L, 70-200 f4 L

Why would you have those two - aren't they incredibly similar? Just curious, thanks

I purchased the f2.8 version to upgrade from the f4. But, when I received the f2.8 lens, I can't seem to get rid of my f4. I just love that lens soo much!!! Now, I am thinking of actually selling my f2.8 version, its just too heavy for the type of shooting I do (hiking etc....). If I shoot a lot of sports, the 2.8 version would've been indispensable.

Ro1

[openspace]

I own one L lens and have shot two.

Why would you shoot two L lenses? What did they ever do to you? Violence never solved anything... Give peace a chance!

:D

SAVE THE L LENSES!!!!

[pehabe]

What exactly does the "L" stand for? :?

L = Lunatic?

:shock:

[Belmondo]

You'll get a lot of debate on whether L lenses are really worth the extra money. A traditional cost/benefit analysis is generally worthless because there are people who would (and do) willingly pay much more for just a small improvement in performance.

To someone who absolutely needs that last little bit of image quality from a lens, almost any price is justified.

That's why we have such affection for the bargain-priced lenses that give excellent performance. After all, it's the image that matters, and not the price tag. L lenses are for the most part consistently excellent. Good cheap lenses are rare.

[Reminisce]

Yes, I played with an L lens at a local store after I got my DReb... and its just pure wowness.
Its like the "L"exus SC430 to the Toyota Solara.
Its like the "L"incoln Navigator to the Ford Expedition.
Its like the "L"ady of your dreams to the girl of your life.
Its like....
yeah, you get the idea :lol:

[GenEOS]

In most cases it does NOT stand for light, as in lighht weight.

[Morden]

In most cases it does NOT stand for light, as in lighht weight.

Too true! In fact, the 'L' stands for 'Luxury'.

[JZaun]

I have 5 lens.......I love them all!!!!!!!!

(1) is (L)


JZ

[IncompletePete]

I got my first "L" lens yesterday (70-200 f2.8 L IS :D) and I love it to bits! Went out today for the firts time with it and it's great! The pics I got were so sharp and colourful! Now....how much is a 400mm L f2.8..... :D

[chops]

"L" stands for Lead weight! :p