\"L\" lenses worth the price??

[LuiG]

I have been taking amateur family and trip pictures with a Canon A-1 for 20 years. 5 years ago I started digital and have since had 5 digital cameras. Currently using a Olympus C-5050 (great camera). I am interested in returning to Canon and the 10D is my goal. I was always interested in "L" lenses but didnt have the money to buy them!! My situation has changed and now I can afford some "L"s.

Are they worth the price? Will anrybody note the difference of a picture taken with a 17-40 f4 "L" and the 20-35 f 3.5-4.5 or the 70-200 f4 "L" and the 75-300 f4-5.6 IS?

[Dans_D60]

As the old adage goes “you get what you pay for”. And it’s true with L glass. Sure other lenses will get close, but the extra $$$ pretty much guarantees the best in class both in optics and construction. By the way, 17-40 f4 not available yet … soon.
Dan
http://www.pettusphoto.com

[colorblind]

"L" glasses:

The L lenses are almost all built tougher, metal instead of plastic, etc. They are also heavier. Carrying a 75-300 f4-5.6 IS "L" will break your back, but will make you feel very manly. ;-)

As for optical quality, the L lenses are all great, but they are not the only ones. I own a cheap 50mm 1:1,4 USM and I have yet to see a L lens that is faster or sharper.

I would not buy an L lens just because of sharpness. But most L lenses allow you to open up another F stop or two, compared to ordinary mortal glass... So it could mean the difference between shooting ISO 400 and ISO 1600, and this is something you WILL notice in the final picture.

[Sharkman]

Everyone will have their own personal view on this one, to be honest the only way to find out for sure if you think L Glass is worth the money is to try it. Maybe you have a camera store locally that will let you shoot a couple of frames with the L series lens on the camera, then shoot the same scene again with your normal lens and compare the two shots at home before commiting (I am lucky in that my local store lets me do that sort of thing).

Personally I brought one L series lens last summer (the 100-400) and was so impressed with the sharpness and clarity of it that over the past 9 months I have been changing all my other lenses out for the L series equivilents. They are heavy, but they are very well made and I think the quality of images is worth the money

[henkbos]

I have upgraded my 75-300 IS USM for a 135/2.8L and a 300/4L (still waiting for them). Shot a few pics in the store with my camera and that convinced me. Awesome!

[wildbill]

From my experience, I agree with the post about the 50mm lens, but would also note

I would not shoot (concerts) without my 85mm f1.2L. The extra speed and superior glass make it worth the weight.

I think you'll find most photogs carry a mix of some L and some non-L glass (unless they're independently wealthy).

**Shoot a few frames with every lens BEFORE you buy it, especially if its a size you haven't shot before.

[Longwatcher]

Having both "L" and non-"L" my view is that if you need faster autofocus and/or larger aperture then go for "L" otherwise the only reason to have "L" glass is to look cool. (My 100-400 IS L is very good for that).

Individual lenses (both by class, type and serial number) will vary a lot in sharpness, so check out the MTF charts for the lenses your are interested in. Some of the non-"L" are as good (or better) at certain settings as "L".

One specific note: Unless they added one this week, there is no Canon 75-300 IS "L"; but the 75-300 f4-5.6 IS is an outstanding lens (if you got a good one). There appear to be some good copies and bad copies. I know I got a good one.

[photography By Evangelos]

I can say I have all L glass. I have tryed Sigma and Tonkina and they are not in the same class as canon L glass. I also have a few standard canon lenses that are really great in my eyes. Good luck and if you go with the canon L you will be very happy trust me.
By the way I have a older canon L lens for sale on ebay it is the 80-200 F2.8 L and its is tiptop shape the item number is #2922339207.

[Jeppe]

In some cases, the cost for L-glass is motivated.

You will defenetly see a different on a A4 printout from EF 75-300/4-5.6 and the EF 70-200/4L

You also may not see any different between the EF 20-35/3.5-4.5 and the new 17-40/4L since the 20-35 is a relly good lens.

Ofcourse there are some non-L lenses that preforms as an L lens. Those are:
EF 50/1.8 and 1.4
EF 85/1.8
EF 100/2
EF 100/2.8 Macro USM/No USM

But most primes will outperforme an L-zoom lens...

[Dan_mobile]

longwatcher wrote:

....Individual lenses (both by class, type and serial number) will vary a lot in sharpness, so check out the MTF charts for the lenses your are interested in. ....


Dear Tim:
Back in the 60’s and 70’s I remember looking at two lenses of the same type and model and could clearly see some differences. Nevertheless times have definitely changed. In my opinion lens quality from serial number to serial number or from lot to lot just does not occur anymore. Over the last twenty years or so, the quality of lenses is exceptionally consistent. Our company contracts with manufacturers in Japan and China and I’m required to audit the process in these countries from time-to-time. Moreover, one of these manufacturing sites also builds SLR camera lenses. They would not say who for. The quality inspection and validation process using lasers and other sophisticated gear is amazing. The lenses I saw were for the mid market (obviously not L class) but still absolutely consistent in quality. Again, I believe you get what you pay for and with current manufacturing technology; you can be assured the quality is uniform.
Dan
http://www.pettusphoto.com

[Yance]

The biggest reason for spending the extra money on buying an L lens is the amount of use it gets. They take alot of abuse and will last a very long time. If you are an amateur photographer who doesn't shoot alot then they are probably not the best choice. The extra weight of the lenses itself makes them a chore to use. But for pro photographers who are on the road taking hundreds of shots every day they can't be beat. You don't want a lens to fail on you when your career is on the line.

[Slow]

colorblind wrote:
"L" glasses:

Carrying a 75-300 f4-5.6 IS "L" will break your back, but will make you feel very manly.




Have Canon ever made a 75-300 f4-5.6IS "L" lens? Why would carrying one make someone feel "very manly"?

[CoachP8]

"Worth" of course is subjective.
My two "Ls" are stunning works of tech art...

And yes, the longer lenses do compensate for a variety of shortcomings...

[hugodrax]

the best general purpose lens for your needs will be the 24-80L if you want L but its 1300 but if money is no issue go for it.

If you want the best bang for the buck and you will be shooting mainly for personal use (ie parties etc..) the Tokina 28-70 f2.8 ATX pro SV is an excellent lens in the under 300 range that will blow out any canon zoom in that money range. I like canon glass but on occasion there are gems in the third party world and the 28-70 f2.8 would be my primary recommendation for your requirements and you can use the cash for other things.

[Jorge]

HA! My most expensive “piece of glass” is the monstrous, heavy duty and all weather proof Canon 50/1.8. Not a lot, but it does leave me a lot of … potential?!

Perhaps someone with a suitable arsenal of “L” and non-“L” lenses could provide a few comparisons for illustrative purposes.

I would definitely like to get at least one “L”. If primes are better than zooms and “L” is better than non-“L” then I figure prime “L” must be best?

[jmamer]

I have L and non-L. I can only report my subjective assessment. I've used 28-135 non-L, 28-70 L, 85 F.18 non-L, and 200 f2.8L. With the exception of the 85mm non-L, the L lenses seem sharper to me. They're also faster than the non-L's. I have found that the Potodo MTF ratings (http://www.photodo.com)seem to predict very well how I will like a lens. A photodo average of 3.9 and better seems to work well for me.

I also like the build quality of the L lenses. Heavy-yes, but solid too....

[TheClone]

I would say yes. I have been both a film and a digital camera user for many years. My thought is that in a film camera you can change the type of film but in a Digital camera you can not change the CCD ( Film ). I am currently waiting for my 10D and 24-70 2.8L. By the way State Street Direct gave me an outstanding deal on a complete package $3370.00usd

[mrbobco]

seeing that i, too, own a case full of "L" glass (with only one exception...the wonderful 100/2.8 macro) i am probably biased...

but my immediate reaction when i first started using "L" glass...was just how silky and beautiful the contrast and saturation of colors was on these lenses...i shot almost exclusively with the 28-70 L and have not been unhappy since...if you must buy only one "L" zoom lens...in my opinion this one is it :)

bob

[boBquincy]

I would say 'it depends'. When I started with my D30 I bought the least costly long zoom available, Canon's 55-200. This lens was designed for Canon's APS SLR and is really only meant to cover the smaller frame, which is about the same size as the sensor in the D30/D60/10D.

As expected, edge performance of this small, plastic lens is not good but center performance is decent, especially when closed down a couple stops. For full frame this lens would not be a good choice but for the digitals it's not bad.

Is my 70-200 f4 L better? Yep! Is it better wide open? Definitely!!!

I really like the L for stage shows when light is at a premium and I'm usually shooting wide open. For bright sunlight images I can't tell a great difference, although I'm sure a greatly magnified image would show a huge difference.

The 55-200 goes for about $100, is about the same size as my Canon 24-85, and weighs even less than the 24-85. It is definitely my choice for long hikes! ;)


boB

[D60DIETER]

Yes, they are worth the price.

- You have one, two or more stops you can open.

- The AF is much faster than with non "L"

- They are sharper than non "L"

- They are built for longer lifetime (for Pros.)

- They are adjusted in their colorbalance

- Your AF will work much better in dark situations.

Have I forgotten something. Ah, yes, would you buy a stereo for 2500.- US$ and connect speakers for 250.- US$. No you won´t.

Doubts? Take the 2,0/135 L USM and shoot some portraits with 2,0 !!!! I never saw anything better!

[Jorge]

I have my eyes on a used 200/2.8L. I see D60Dieter has one. Is it sharp wide open? And being a prime lens is it sharper than for example 70-200/2.8L @ 200?

Anyone know where to find test shots from L-lenses - for example same object shot at different apertures?

[hugodrax]

Honestly most people who ask usually do not need an L lens. the majority of 10D owners spend the time shooting Cats and the kids running around something that a regular non L lens will be able to capture fine since most users just take snapshots and do not make full use of the lens. Those like sports photographers and professionals who make a living from photography will notice the difference because they actually take the forsight to compose and take pictures with some thought and they usually print them for consumption. Get yourself a 24-85 for about 210-250 and you will be amazed with the picture quality compared to your P&S or regular consumer digital camera.

[kendersplace]

Slow wrote:

Have Canon ever made a 75-300 f4-5.6IS "L" lens? Why would carrying one make someone feel "very manly"?


It's all about the red stripe. ;-)