anyone not on "L" bandwagon???? :)

[r2d2]

I know, stupid question. But in all seriousness:
I am thinking about purchasing a 70-200 F4 L lens. Before I do this however, is there any other lens that is comparable? be it Sigma or Tamron or anything else? I know everyone is singing the praises of all of the "L" lenses, but I just want to make sure I research everything.....Thanks for your help.

[eosster]

Me, lol, it's a disease.....good luck with your new L(LOST) quest.

Cheers,

Charles

[JK]

I know, stupid question. But in all seriousness:
I am thinking about purchasing a 70-200 F4 L lens. Before I do this however, is there any other lens that is comparable? be it Sigma or Tamron or anything else? I know everyone is singing the praises of all of the "L" lenses, but I just want to make sure I research everything.....Thanks for your help.
The 70-200 F4 L is generally considered to be a very good lens, however my copy suffers from the dreaded "back focus" problem. Sigma and Tamron do also make good lenses, however some are just "average" in terms of optical performance and at the end of the day, I guess you get what you pay for.

Have a look at http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/ for LOADS of reviews on all sorts of glass. Also, see if you can try before you buy and maybe rent a few lenses or just go to a camera store and ask to take a few shots with their display lenses on you camera body. Then go home, evaluate the pics and see what suits your budget and quality needs the best.

[sidster]

Me, lol, it's a disease.....good luck with your new L(LOST) quest.

Cheers,

Charles


Lost or rather Loss ... :D that's a good one... me neither; Too $$$!


--patrick

[SnJPhoto]

I agree with the try before you buy statement. But I recommend you look at more than just he file output when you get home. Check the focusing speed, mechanical actions for smoothness, feel and sound. The glass is part of the overall equation for selecting lenses. If you are going to use it for sports try shooting some moving subjects to see how well the focus motors work etc. Check the zoom ring for any kind of binding or tight spots (ring zooom) or check for ease of glide on one-touch zooms. Have a look at the specs to see if the lenses are protected from weather elements at all, "O"-rings or other type of seals etc.

Of course if you are shooting still life, some of the mechanicals may not be of interest to you.

Good hunting.

Scott

[poke]

I've just bought the 70-200 f2.8 IS... not sure if its better or worse than the f4 in terms of the back focus problem. So far, it seems to be absolutely fantastic. Anything crap that has come out of mine so far has been the fault of the operator, not the tool.

[PacAce]

I'm not. Although I do have L lenses but that's because that's what met my needs and requirements, not because they were Ls. AAMOF, if I could have gotten the same quality and performance characteristics on a less expensive lens, I would have opted for the more economical one. :)

[MrKickalot]

Personally... I have only used 1 L lens.. the 70-200 2.8. Of course it was 1000 times better than my 75-300 optically... but way to expensive in my opinion(at least for right now...)!! I presonally am going to fill my bag mostly with Sigma EX lenses. I can buy a 70-200 2.8 and a 50-500 for about $1600.00 USD opposed to $2400 for a Canon 70-200 2.8 and a 100-400. I know the L'Glass is better but noy that much better for what I use them for... Most here will disagree with me but that's why we all are entitled to our opinion.

[charlesu]

Most Ls are pretty solid. Some better than others. Most are way better than comparable standard lenses but there are some really good standard lenses. The 17-85 rocks, by the way.

But I've tried the off brand a few times and always returned to Canon and especially the L.

[Johnny V]

I know, stupid question. But in all seriousness:
I am thinking about purchasing a 70-200 F4 L lens. Before I do this however, is there any other lens that is comparable? be it Sigma or Tamron or anything else? I know everyone is singing the praises of all of the "L" lenses, but I just want to make sure I research everything.....Thanks for your help.

Eventhough my just purchased 70-200L f4 back focuses at the lower focal length the lens has excellent contrast, saturation and contrast...when it focuses properly!

I'll be sending if off to Canon Tech here in NJ in a couple of weeks...along with the rest of the Canon gear I just purchased.

[Belmondo]

I'm not on the L bandwagon.....I've been run over by it. :o:cry:

I do have several, and they are all wonderful. OTOH, I also have a few non-L lenses that also exceed my abilities to fully utilize.

The sharpest photo I ever took was with a 50mm f/1.8 (early---metal mount).

There are some really terrible lenses out there, but just because a lens does not have L in its name does not mean it's inferior in any way.

[poke]

Its like me driving a formula 1 car. Is it fun... you bet ya. Can I drive it to its full potential.. hell no. Am I going to try... ABSOLUTELY!!!!!

[robertwgross]

People have been telling me for a long time to go to ...L.

---Bob Gross---

[roanjohn]

I've been on the "Broke"lyn bound L train and can't seem to get off!!!

BOOOO!!

:D

Ro1

[timmyquest]

This is like asking if anyone here hates photography.

[planesh00ter]

I use the 70-300f4 & 100-400 for a 13x19 print business, and I can tell which lens is used, the "lil cheepo" is dakine for damoney

[Belmondo]

I use the 70-300f4 & 100-400 for a 13x19 print business, and I can tell which lens is used, the "lil cheepo" is dakine for damoney
And in English........??:lol:

[ron chappel]

Note that the back/front focus problems are extremely rare for the 70-200/4L and as far as i know are easily fixed by canon .
Lenses to consider instead of the excellent 70-200/4L are:

Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX Not as sharp at comparable apertures but still very sharp! -
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009Yqf
...way better than any consumer zoom for instance-
http://www.pbase.com/miljenko/image/33955546 (that sigma 70-300 apo II is one of the best consumer grade zooms.That guy also has many other tests-well worth a look!)
The best canon consumer zoom,the 100-300/4.5-5.6, is maybe a little better than the sigma 70-300 sigma apo II
http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/index_2.html
I would recommend against the canon 75-300 image stabilized lens.Firstly it has the cheap optics of the normal 75-300 shown in the link above and also i don't think the image stabilization is worth the huge premium.
I just bought one and will soon sell it and either go back to the 100-300,step up to the 70-200/4L or maybe try the sigma 70-300 apo II for something different


The sigma 70-300/4 EX This one gets praise everywhere but there are few solid comparison tests online.The guy linked above has one test with this lens

[Mogwyth]

Yes, I love my Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 APO HSM EX. I have tested it along side the 70-200 f/4 L and the very minor loss of sharpness at 70mm is worth the sacrifice for the extra stop.

Photodo.com has scientific ratings of lenses the sigma is rated at 3.9, the 2 canons are 4.1. At 135mm they rate the sigma as better than the Canon f/4.

[Mogwyth]

Lenses to consider instead of the excellent 70-200/4L are:

Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX Not as sharp at comparable apertures but still very sharp! -
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009Yqf
...way better than any consumer zoom for instance-

This test is flawed as it only compares the 2 at 70mm the weak spot on the Sigma, at 135mm it's better and at 200mm things are more or less even.

[poke]

As far as I can see from all the reviews I've read, nobody has said that the Sigma is better. The whole argument is if it is as good as the Canon.

I spent a heap of time researching these lenses on the web before going to the camera shop. I came to the conclusion that it comes down to what you can afford. For me, even though I can't really justify what I spent on the 70-200mm f2.8 IS (as I'm new to the hobby), I figured that as the lense should last alot of year's... its worth the extra (plus I really wanted the low light ability). Say you have it for 5 years, and it should last longer than that... the extra 500-600 paid will seem fairly insignificant when spread over that period.

But, if you don't have the money in the first place... then your choice is already made for you.

[charlesu]

As far as I can see from all the reviews I've read, nobody has said that the Sigma is better. The whole argument is if it is as good as the Canon.

I spent a heap of time researching these lenses on the web before going to the camera shop. I came to the conclusion that it comes down to what you can afford. For me, even though I can't really justify what I spent on the 70-200mm f2.8 IS (as I'm new to the hobby), I figured that as the lense should last alot of year's... its worth the extra (plus I really wanted the low light ability). Say you have it for 5 years, and it should last longer than that... the extra 500-600 paid will seem fairly insignificant when spread over that period.

But, if you don't have the money in the first place... then your choice is already made for you.

GREAT point Poke. I will take it a step further.

I have NEVER seen someone upgrade from a Canon L series to a Tamron, Tokina, Sigma, etc. But I have seen the reverse too many times to count. And almost always with the words "I should have bought the Canon in the first place".

I've bought the latest ATX/SP/whatever-the latest-non-canon-"pro quality"-glass is. I've always been disappointed. Every single time and there is no longer a non-Canon lens in my bag though I do keep several non L lenses around.

Years ago I had a Vivitar Series 1 28-90 2.8 that was a truly remarkable lens. Trouble was, it was FD and it went out with the A-1 when I made the move to AF. Aside from that, every off brand lens I owned was short-lived. For a reason.

Believe me. If Sigma or ANYONE could make comparable or better lenses for the difference in price, I would be all over it. So would most photographers. Word gets out. And people, especially people who show their work, always want the best tools they can get.

[Mogwyth]

The problem in this is that it's often the pursuit of perfection, not the neccesarily the best tool for the job.

My budget for a 70-200 lens was around £600. This narrowed it down to the Canon f4 L and the Sigma f2.8 EX.

Which to buy? The quailty of the canon was undisputed, the Sigma seemed to be loved by all those that owned it but panned by many L owners.

Photodo said that technicaly the canon was better overall but how does this transfer into my real world use printing at up to say 15x10. Well having had the chance to borrow a sigma and use it along side the canon, IMHO the differances are marginal. On screen you can pick out the Canon as being sharper at 70mm, the Sigma is slightly better at 135mm and things are even at 200mm, which backs up Photodos optical testing. Printed out the differences are less obvious. So the only real difference between the 2 lenses was that extra stop which swung me to buying the Sigma.

Actually theres is another advantage it's not white:lol:

Perhaps the biggest problem with Sigma and the like is that their QC is not as good as Canon i.e. you are more likely to get a bad copy of a Sigma than a bad Canon and people are more likely to shout about a bad one than praise a good one.

[r2d2]

WOW. I thought I was going to wake up this morning with just a few replies!! Thank you all for this info, whatever your opinion is. The 70-200 F4 is only about $530 ish, that will not break me (compared to the $2000 range- ouch!). It seems like a good lens, from what people are saying. This is my first lens EVER, so I just want to make sure I am aware of everything out there.

Again thanks for all of the recommendations, links, and ideas! :) I now have more to check out..

[Belmondo]

Although I won't say it's universal or even widespread, there is unquestioned 'L snobbery'. We've seen a few cases of it in our very own forum. Part of the problem lies in the belief that price is an absolute indicator of quality, and it takes time to learn this isn't always the case.

I fear I might have been somewhat susceptible to L snobbery myself based on early bad experiences with third party lenses. The first three Sigma lenses I ever tried on my camera all had problems, and I really don’t know where I ever got the courage to try a fourth. Eventually I did, however, and that was the Sigma 12-24, and it’s been an absolute jewel. I love that lens, and so far there’s nothing close to it in the Canon line (except for the EF-S 10-22 which won’t work on my Mk II).

Also, there are the DO lenses that Canon sells. They’re not L lenses, but they’re very close in quality. I have the 70-300DO, and it’s a marvelous bit of optics.

I think there’s a progression that many of us follow:
1. We buy a camera and lenses. Our lens choice is based on utility/price, and the belief that all lenses are more or less equal.
2. We learn that all lenses are not the same, and start lusting for (and buying) professional quality lenses.
3. We realize that in our pursuit of professional quality lenses, we’ve overlooked a lot of very good glass, both in the form of non-L primes, and third party lenses.

I find it ironic that a lot of the most extreme L-snobs are relatively new users.



Just an observation.

[timmyquest]

More on what belmondo said:

I own a 70-200 f/2.8 and now a 17-40, both L glass that cost much more then i really want to spend. I also own a $75 50mm f/1.8 lens, it remains to be my favorite.

[poke]

....I find it ironic that a lot of the most extreme L-snobs are relatively new users.....


Being a relatively new user with an L, I can certainly agree that there is that tendancy. When you first start in this hobby, you take a few photos with your kit lense... and they turn out crap. :D You then play around for a bit, and maybe see a couple of things your doing wrong. The photos are still crap, but not as crap. Then you read some reviews of Pro's who say that this lense (which ever brand you choose) produces crisp, sharp images in all conditions bar pitch black. Soooo... you think well, maybe if I get a really good lense, my pics might improve.

So you buy the L... take a few photos... and then come crashing back to earth. The photos are still crap. Crystal clear, with great contrast and sharp as a tack.. but still crap. :P

Reality kicks in then, and you realise that like just about everything... if it was easy... everyone would be pro. It takes skill and experience. My grandad can turn a plain old stick off the ground into a cool little figurine with his pocket knife. I can barely make a sharp end on a stick.

From what I have learnt so far... its 80% operator... 15% tool quality... 5% luck.

[Mogwyth]

Being a relatively new user with an L, I can certainly agree that there is that tendancy. When you first start in this hobby, you take a few photos with your kit lense... and they turn out crap. :D You then play around for a bit, and maybe see a couple of things your doing wrong. The photos are still crap, but not as crap. Then you read some reviews of Pro's who say that this lense (which ever brand you choose) produces crisp, sharp images in all conditions bar pitch black. Soooo... you think well, maybe if I get a really good lense, my pics might improve.

So you buy the L... take a few photos... and then come crashing back to earth. The photos are still crap. Crystal clear, with great contrast and sharp as a tack.. but still crap. :P

Reality kicks in then, and you realise that like just about everything... if it was easy... everyone would be pro. It takes skill and experience. My grandad can turn a plain old stick off the ground into a cool little figurine with his pocket knife. I can barely make a sharp end on a stick.

From what I have learnt so far... its 80% operator... 15% tool quality... 5% luck.
Nice one this should be compusive reading for all.

It echos the old saying "a poor workman always blames his tools".

[r2d2]

I hear that. I remember when I was first on this forum, I was in love with Scott Dommin's images......I think he was using a pin hole camera at the time :) ........ ANd there were other people using really expensive stuff that were seriously under par....

[donlavange]

I have thought a lot about this thread,

We are always guided by price when choosing anything because more $ usually means better quality. That is not always the case. And sometimes, the difference for the increased $ gets you a very small amount. $300 gets you a basic stereo that gives you 75% of what there is available. The next $300 gets you another 10% and so on with more $ getting you less in % terms as you go forward. A $15 bottle of wine can be a delight as can a $125 bottle. Personally I can appreciate both (don't get much of the latter).

People who make their living from photography are experienced in getting the most from whatever the equipment has to offer. But they can be snobs as well. Pro cyclists blow by a lumpy touring cyclist without so much as a nod. Camera store snobs laugh behind the backs of interested novice photographers that desire P&S cameras.

Next month I enter my 70th year of life and I have been a "photographer" for almost 60 of those years (I had my first darkroom at 12) and have made a reasonable amount of money from my avocation.

I have one L lens. The 70-200 f2.8 IS. It is like art to me! I bought it primarily for the reputation and the IS that my aging hands just love. In the final analysis, you are almost always correct in buying by considering the primary use of the object, it's reputation and the advice of honest third parties.

Now about all that FD glass in one of my old camera cases.

[Pyromaniac]

I don't have any of the "L" glass for the simple fact that I can't afford it right now. I have 3 lenses for my camera, all of which are Canon. A 75-300 f/4-5.6, a 35-80 f/4-5.6, and the 50mm f/2.5 macro. The 50mm is probably my favorite and the one I use most of the time. I have had it for about 6 or 8 months now and have never had any problems with it and am very satisfied with the results it produces. The next lens I would like to add is another non "L" lens and that is the 17-40mm f/4 wide angle. I have found that I like the Canon lenses better that some of the others, but that is mostly a personal choice from borrowing other lenses from people I know and trying them against my Canon lenses. My tests wheren't all that scientific either I just took shoots of the same objects with both lenes and roughly the same settings and compared the results by eye.

[Belmondo]

The next lens I would like to add is another non "L" lens and that is the 17-40mm f/4 wide angle.
The 17-40 is an L lens, and is probably one of the two 'best deals' in the L lineup (the 70-200 f/4L being the other).

[timmyquest]

The 17-40 is an L lens, and is probably one of the two 'best deals' in the L lineup (the 70-200 f/4L being the other).


Be gentel bel, this is just the third stage of L-itus...denial

While we're talking about that lens though. It's far from the sharpest, but it is stilld arn sharp. The colors are fantastic, the contrast is delightful, and the build quality is bar-none. Thus the reason L lenses are so popular if you ask me.

[Jim_T]

I'm on the 'L' bandwagon but.....

I think Canon lenses are overpriced whether they're L or not.. They gouge you just like printer companies rip you off with their ink cartridges. The camera companies make out big time selling lenses, batteries and flashes branded with their name. I'll bet they make more on the accessories than they do on the camera bodies. :)

If you can afford to go with L, by all means do. You can't go wrong quality wise.. But you can get better deals with Tamron or Sigma.. It basically depends on your budget.

[MarkH]

I'm not on the "L" bandwagon.

But I am saving for a 70-200 f2.8L IS.

My 28-135 is a good lens, but I can see dust inside it. I shoot motorsports quite a bit and the gravel rally photos are my favourite, but it does get very dusty. I need to change to a lens that is weather sealed and doesn't change volume when zooming or focusing. If there was enough money to be saved on buying a Sigma with the same features then I would be tempted to go that way, but there is no Sigma with the same features.

The only Sigma that really tempts me is the 120-300 f2.8EX, and I would lust over the Canon L with a similar range, if Canon were to make one. Canon should make a 100-300 f2.8L IS for me to wish I could afford.

[Oniakai]

No L-lenses here although 'shooting' with canon equipment for more than 20 years now. Rember owning a Canon Tlb and Ftb, both complete manual camera's. I had a complete kit with several lenses of several brands. Since switching over to digital I sold all my old (really old) equipment for a EOS 300D (digital rebel) and a set of lenses but still no L glass here:

Canon EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5
Canon EF 50/1.8 mk II
Canon EF-S 18-55/3.5-5.6
Canon EF 28-105/4-5.6 USM

One note on the above. I started out with the kit lens and the 28-105/3.5-4.5 USM but after two samples of this lens who where both badly front focussing (even after recalibration by Canon) especially in low light situations (which is very important to me as an available light photographer) I decided to try out the cheaper 4.5-5.6 version which worked like a dream from day one.

Perfectly happy with the line-up now. Quality of all lenses is pretty good (maybe i was lucky with the kit lens?) and with proper use they all perform very good.

[merrrrjig]

Ive never been to http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/ thanks whoever posted that

[ToddMorris]

Hi,

I don't own an L lens yet, but I suppose I am "on the bandwagon". The next lens I plan to buy will be a 70-200mm zoom. After my original research, I had been planning to purchase the Sigma 70-200 2.8. However, lately I've been leaning more and more towards the canon 70-200 F4L ...

The thing is, I'm not sure if I'm most swayed by the fact that it will be a little lighter, and slightly less expensive.

or ...

By the fact that I'll be able to say I've got at least one big white lens with a little red stipe around the end. :D

Todd

[roanjohn]

or ...

By the fact that I'll be able to say I've got at least one big white lens with a little red stipe around the end. :D

Todd
...........UH HUH !!! Thats it!!!

Ro1

[ron chappel]

This test is flawed as it only compares the 2 at 70mm the weak spot on the Sigma, at 135mm it's better and at 200mm things are more or less even.Interesting,i never thought of that.I had assumed that it was all done at 200mm

[CyberDyneSystems]

CharlesU raises a good point.. although I have used many Non "L" lenses that I liked.. and a few Non Canon for that matter... the simple point of fact is that in each case the lens in question is allways "Good enough and a better bargain"

My Sigma 500mm is my most used lens and prior to the 200mm f/1.8 it was my "best" lens including a bunch of "L".... but... it is not better than the Canon 500mm... it's just "nearly as good" and a whole lot more affordable!!!

Other lenses are only "better" when you compare apples to oranges.
(ie: Sigma makes lenses that Canon has no equivelent for.. and thus the Sigma's are better than the nearest Canon comparison like the 300mm zooms for instance, where you must compare to non-l Canon's as they have npo "L" eqivelent)

In the end.. though many lenses may be very good and competitive pricewise.. the L allways seems to be "best"

The question is allways whether or not "The Best" is a worhtwhile choice given the cost.
The only reasonable answetr to that question is "sometimes" :)

[ron chappel]

WOW. I thought I was going to wake up this morning with just a few replies!! Thank you all for this info, whatever your opinion is. The 70-200 F4 is only about $530 ish, that will not break me (compared to the $2000 range- ouch!). It seems like a good lens, from what people are saying. This is my first lens EVER, so I just want to make sure I am aware of everything out there.

Again thanks for all of the recommendations, links, and ideas! :) I now have more to check out..
It's probably no surprise that this is a very popular subject.
The 70-200 question is one of the biggest there is and i for one am absolutally staggered that no one has ever done a good test between the contenders and posted the results online!!!
Yes there are dribs and drabs of info,MTF graphs and example pics but nothing like we all need.:( :(

[rbbblues]

i am an avid canon enthusiest......can't do better than the 'L' glass....really no room for dispute there...but note:....
#1. you have to be able to afford it....
#2, and #3, and #4....the best glass in the world will not make you a good photographer...only creativity and the knowledge of the technical aspects of the tools at hand will do that......
there are some really great images produced from holgas and other 'cheapee' cameras.....
it's (almost) all in the creativity of the shooter

Please visit my website at:
www.richardbluesteinphotos.com
(my 'homepage)
Some from 'L' glass, some not.....Can you trll which???Let me know what you think.

[ron chappel]

Just saw this in another thread!
http://www.slo-foto.net/reviews-56.html

As with all reviews one should be carefull!
Note that all examples are center crops-no edge tests were done (this don't bother me at all but some will like to know)
He give no indication as to wether focus bracketing was used (?)
Acurate focus is *essential* when doing lens tests.

I must say that a cracked fencepost is NOT a good indicator of sharpness.I can say this because i made the same mistake once.It's so hard to make a definite choice as one day you'll look at it and say lens X is better...then another day you'll think lens Y looks best...!

The good parts are that he did most other things perfectly/very well like using a tripod and remote release, did the test at a sensible distance and most imprtantly did no resizing in photoshop!
Resizing images to match onscreen absoloutally ruins any relevance to sharpness tests:evil: :evil:

[charlesu]

Folks, I should add that I absolutely do not mean any offense to anyone not shooting L glass and/or anyone shooting other brands. I'm talking about my experience. I've owned Tamron, Tokina and Vivitar. I've shot some Sigma but never bought one. In my experience, Canon L has always performed better on the whole. But, if you have $450 for a short zoom you cannot get the 24-70 2.8L. You can get a 28-135 IS, or a 28-105 and some change. Or you can get the Sigma, Tokina or Tamron. None are bad choices (so far as I know--though I am sure there are differences). I had the previous generation of Tokina AT-X 28-70 2.8. It was a good little lens and only about $400 at a local dealer. However, I had already owned a 28-70 before. I missed a couple of things. One, the Canon focused faster and more certainly. Two, it was sharper in almost all circumstances. Three, it seemed to have better coatings. On more than one occasion I had flare issues with the Tokina. I sold the Tokina to a friend. I bought the Canon again. A month later, he sold the Tokina and bought the Canon.

For the money, the Tokina was good. But it was not quite as good. For me, the difference was worth the extra $$. For some people, it is simply not. And that is OK.

For the record, I use the 28-135 IS frequently (esp on the 20D where it stays most of the time). I use an 85 1.8 which absolutely ROCKS for portraits and glam/fine-art people. We all know how wonderful the 50 1.4 is, and it is reasonable in cost. And I have an old 28-105 which I used to shoot my very best selling print of all time (on B&W film no less).

Here's something shot with non-L glass.....

http://ompi.onemodelplace.com/OMP_Images/Photographer/3661/3661_p_853CC707-2B3D-897A-2560E2299F6306D0.jpg

[spoolin_photography]

whilst on the topic of the L lens whats the 35_350mm like???

[timmyquest]

I love the smell of L in the morning

:D :D :D

http://www.questphotos.com/lenses/3.jpg
http://www.questphotos.com/lenses/2.jpg

[charlesu]

I love the smell of L in the morning

:D :D :D

http://www.questphotos.com/lenses/3.jpg

You're 70-200 is nekkid!! No hood and no tripod collar!!! LOL I took off my tripod collar as well. I should look in the box to make sure I still have it.

[timmyquest]

The only thing i use the collar for is when i'm shooting with my flash in portrait, it acts as a nice rest for my thumb to help make the camera a little more stable.