Canon "L" Glass vs Regular Canon Glass

[mr_clean001]

OK - so I have read all the posts about how great Canon L glass is and have played with some at the local camera shop, but what about the quality of regular non-L glass from Canon? Is it acceptable quality? What differences will I notice? If it is non-L glass from Canon could I find other lenses at a better price that are comparable?

Thanks in advance for the help.

[Scottes]

Some non-L glass is great or very good. 50mm 1.8 comes to mind, especially considering the price.

Some are good. Some are not so good. Some suck, like the 28-90 that I had as my first lens.

Though I personally wouldn't buy Sigma (again), others have gotten tremendous Sigma lenses much cheaper than Canon's. I have their 105mm macro and it's a great piece of glass, with lousy AF capabilities. I've heard of a couple Tokina lenses reputed to be excellent (90mm Macro for one).


What requirements do you have, how much money do you have, and research those particular lenses that fit the bill. If nothing fits the bill, stop and save up some more money.

[CoolToolGuy]

Geez, this is a big topic (and one that has been hashed over on this forum many times). I will give it my best summary, but I am sure there will be more, and perhaps (definitely) some disagreements.

-Canon prime (non-zoom) lenses are all pretty good, and very close to the quality of 'L' zooms. 'L' primes are typically some special use or very fast. Some non 'L's stand out - the two 50mms, the 85 f1.8, and others. 8)

-Zooms - if it has a silver stripe at the end of the lens barrel, it is a kit lens, and perhaps lower in quality than the others. Otherwise, some are outstanding, some are average. The 28-135 IS gets a lot of good press (I have one and love it). I'll leave the rest to the others.

Have Fun
Rick 8)

[chris.bailey]

Yeez a big topic indeed and like life, there is no one answer, only the answer that suits you.

What I would say is that if you are serious about your photographs and seek the holy grail then a common path is trodden by many on this forum.

Step one - the lenses you can afford. Choice made purely on getting as many bangs for the buck as you can.

Step two - an intermediate step where you pull up short of spending more per lens than you spent on the camera on the basis that they cant be worth the extra.

Step three - enlightenment as you realise that the truth is out there and it has a red stripe on it.

[garethhhhh]

Scottes wrote:
What requirements do you have, how much money do you have, and research those particular lenses that fit the bill. If nothing fits the bill, stop and save up some more money.

I couldn't agree more.

Not everyone NEEDS L Glass, you can achieve perfectly good results with regular glass. Just because its not L doesn't mean its worthless. It all boils down to what you need... not what you think you need.

Have you read this post?
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...ad.php?t=25789

spend some time thinking about the features your new lens will need, write them down. Then find some reputable sites that have lens reviews
eg. http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/index.php?cat=1 and see what everyone has to say about the lenses you are considering.

But don't go out & spend your hard earned cash on L glass just because its got a red stripe... consider your decision.

[mr_clean001]

Thanks everyone for the responses. I have to admit that while the fervor with which some pursue L glass is contagious - I doubt I will have much actual "need" for it. Then again, getting into photography again wasn't much of "need" either - more of a passion and desire type thing.

Thanks for the links - I will do some more reading and see what happens.

[kraterz]

In my experience, all the Canon primes easily match the quality of L zooms. The 100/2.8, 85/1.8, 50/1.8, 35/2 and 24/2.8 are some of the lenses I have used and they are superb.

That said, I purchased two L zooms for the simple reason that these lenses deliver outstanding results even wide open at f/2.8. My old Canon 28-105/3.5-4.5 is a great lens for the price, in fact if I stop down to f/8 or so, it is almost as good as the L zoom except for the distortion, but I shoot wide open in low light and the consumer zoom just doesn't cut it.

So, yes, L zooms are better than consumer zooms for my purposes.

[Tom W]

Originally Posted by kraterz

In my experience, all the Canon primes easily match the quality of L zooms. The 100/2.8, 85/1.8, 50/1.8, 35/2 and 24/2.8 are some of the lenses I have used and they are superb.

That said, I purchased two L zooms for the simple reason that these lenses deliver outstanding results even wide open at f/2.8. My old Canon 28-105/3.5-4.5 is a great lens for the price, in fact if I stop down to f/8 or so, it is almost as good as the L zoom except for the distortion, but I shoot wide open in low light and the consumer zoom just doesn't cut it.

So, yes, L zooms are better than consumer zooms for my purposes.

I concur - I have the 28-105/3.5-4.5 and it is a fine lens, particularly in daylight or when using flash. But it is not a low-light lens - I tend to keep it at f/5.6 and up (smaller). While I may someday opt for the 24-70/2.8, for now I find a great deal of low-light capability with my 50/1.4. Money truly does not grow on trees, at least not in these parts.

[G35Driver]

I found this cartoon on another forum, I thought I would share it with all of you

[Benandbobbi]

Camera lenses are a little like women: An average looking woman (lens) is perfectly acceptable to date (attach to your camera), kiss (print pics taken with the lens) or even marry (actually buy the lens). So long as you never see (look through) her (lens) standing next to a beautiful woman ("L" lens) then life is bliss. Then one day your buddy shows up with his new girlfriend ("L"). You look at her (his "L") then you look at your girl (lens) and even though she (lens) has been a great companion and satisfies you, you no longer think of her (lens) the same. You NEED a girl (lens) like your buddy's. It's all downhill from there...

[CyberDyneSystems]

Wow,. Old thread,. guess some things never change.

[Double Negative]

If you think you'll be pursuing photography for a long time, or have immediate needs - make the investment. Otherwise there's absolutely nothing wrong with most of Canon's lenses. There are some definite stinkers out there but by and large, they're all really good. L just adds the little things that really make it for a power user.

One such example... The lowly EF 35mm f/2.0. It's ancient by today's standards, but darn if it doesn't take some fantastic pictures. Or the nifty. It's older than dirt but for $70 it's very good.

[willg]

I have good results with my tamron lens, but it doesn't focus as fast as USM and it isn't built as well. I really like having full time manual focus because I use Cf 4-1 and full time manual means just that..manual and auto without having to switch any buttons. It really depends on the purpose. I probably don't need all of this high end stuff, but it helps to narrow down the reasons for any bad shots (user error mostly)

[sonnyc]

Was there a software glitch or something? I didn't know you can dig out threads this old!

[mwt]

Originally Posted by G35Driver

I found this cartoon on another forum, I thought I would share it with all of you

Someday that will be me back there chimpin