Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 16 May 2013 (Thursday) 21:54
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Are L lenses really better??

 
pwm2
"Sorry for being a noob"
Avatar
8,626 posts
Likes: 2
Joined May 2007
Location: Sweden
     
May 17, 2013 14:58 |  #46

Elfstop wrote in post #15941835 (external link)
Looks like so far is that if you own L lens they are better.....if you don't they are not better.....but they have to be because they cost more....

No, more expensive gear doesn't have to be better.

There are so many brands that live on their hyped name.

A number of Sigma lenses can compete with, and beat, more expensive Canon lenses.

But when you look at cheap and expensive items from the same manufacturer, then it generally is the case that the more expensive items are better than the cheaper items.

In most situations, you don't need to spend too much time to be convinced that the L lenses are better. Which doesn't mean no non-L can be good or that all L lenses are spectacular.


5DMk2 + BG-E6 | 40D + BG-E2N | 350D + BG-E3 + RC-1 | Elan 7E | Minolta Dimage 7U | (Gear thread)
10-22 | 16-35/2.8 L II | 20-35 | 24-105 L IS | 28-135 IS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.8 II | 70-200/2.8 L IS | 100/2.8 L IS | 100-400 L IS | Sigma 18-200DC
Speedlite 420EZ | Speedlite 580EX | EF 1.4x II | EF 2x II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
darosk
Goldmember
Avatar
2,806 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia
     
May 17, 2013 14:59 |  #47

I think the correct answer to the question "Are L lenses really better??" is:

They should be.


Tumblr (external link) | Facebook (external link) | Youtube (external link)
Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davidc502
Goldmember
Avatar
3,457 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 32
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Tennessee
     
May 17, 2013 15:19 |  #48

darosk wrote in post #15941849 (external link)
I think the correct answer to the question "Are L lenses really better??" is:

They should be.

Not only that, but at what point does it become worth it? The answer is going to vary from person to person.

IS 3x the price for L (for example) worth 10% better sharpness in the center and corners, or slightly faster auto focus, or slightly better colors and or better build quality? The answer would be an astounding YES for some, and an absolute NO from others.


_
My Gear is ---> Here

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TustinMike
Goldmember
Avatar
3,458 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 1119
Joined Feb 2011
     
May 17, 2013 15:32 |  #49

I think it's a lot like speakers, if you're into audio:

Buy the best glass you can afford. You will regret cheaping out on your lenses. If you're happy with your choice (whatever it may be), great.

And yes, we all justify our choices, to ourselves and to others. We're all humans and therefore we're not totally rational beings.


All New Year, All New Sig !

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DocFrankenstein
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
12,324 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Apr 2004
Location: where the buffalo roam
     
May 17, 2013 15:34 |  #50

TustinMike wrote in post #15941926 (external link)
Buy the best glass you can afford. You will regret cheaping out on your lenses.

I disagree. You should buy the lowest spec glass which suits your needs... regardless of what you can afford.


National Sarcasm Society. Like we need your support.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Grumpy_one
Senior Member
Avatar
596 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 30
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Portland OR.
     
May 17, 2013 15:35 as a reply to  @ TustinMike's post |  #51

I spent my hard earned money on it. Of course it's the best there ever was. :lol:


I shoot Canon's
1DX II, Canon 7D Gripped, 5D3, 24-70L II, 70-200L 2.8 IS Mk I, 85 1.8, Pocket Wizard II triggers, assorted speedlites and modifiers, 580EX, 580EXII, YN560's (6 or so) 50 1.4, t/c 1.4 MkII
www.happyvalleyphotogr​aphy.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
22,944 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 353
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
May 17, 2013 16:04 |  #52

CAL Imagery wrote in post #15941466 (external link)
I must've gotten a good copy, because the 1-4 I rented last summer was very nice. I'd highly recommend that copy for what it does.

tell him to give examples of a better zoom that covers that range :D.


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L III, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15mm FE, 35mm ef-s macro, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L, gitzo GM4562, markins Q10, markins Q3, kirk, really right stuff, sirui

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davidc502
Goldmember
Avatar
3,457 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 32
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Tennessee
     
May 17, 2013 16:42 |  #53

Here's the nice thing about L glass... Even if you can't afford one, and a stupid mistake is made.... One can always turn around and re-sell as they all hold 90-95% of thier original value, so it's not like you're not going to get your money back, because in fact you will.


_
My Gear is ---> Here

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scrumhalf
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,258 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Likes: 3388
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Portland OR USA
     
May 17, 2013 17:07 |  #54

davidc502 wrote in post #15942124 (external link)
Here's the nice thing about L glass... Even if you can't afford one, and a stupid mistake is made.... One can always turn around and re-sell as they all hold 90-95% of thier original value, so it's not like you're not going to get your money back, because in fact you will.

And if you buy used, there's even less to worry about as far as depreciation is concerned.


Sam
5D4 | 6D | 7D2 (2 bodies) | Reasonably good glass
Gear List

flickr (external link)
If I don't get the shots I want with the gear I have, the only optics I need to examine is the mirror on the bathroom wall. The root cause will be there.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Eiro
Goldmember
1,346 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Dec 2009
Location: U.S.
     
May 17, 2013 17:15 |  #55

travis4567 wrote in post #15939606 (external link)
I own a Canon 50-1.8, 85-2.8, Tokina 100mm Macro & Canon 28-135. Purchased a 6d with the Canon 24-105L kit. At 50, 85 & 100mm the prime lenses are sharper. The L is sharper than the 28-135 only at the edges of the frame & is harder to focus & zoom & much heavier. It is built like a tank though. So, are we paying more for supposedly better optics or the build quality. If I was a pro shooting in the jungle 5 days a week I may opt for an L lens but otherwise I see many really good alternatives.
BTW, the sharpest lens I own is the Tokina 100mm.

A good photographer can shoot with just about any tool you provide them,but L glass helps a good photographer use their skill to a greater potential with quality equipment. :D


Get out and shoot

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Snydremark
my very own Lightrules moment
18,323 posts
Gallery: 44 photos
Likes: 1368
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
     
May 17, 2013 17:24 |  #56

CAL Imagery wrote in post #15941466 (external link)
I must've gotten a good copy, because the 1-4 I rented last summer was very nice. I'd highly recommend that copy for what it does.

My 100-400 is a fantastic performer, too; however, what Wilt is referring to is the MTF charts that measure resolution of lenses. And, by the numbers in those, the 100-400 is significantly duller than, say, the 400 f/5.6.

With MTF charts, though, you're talking about numbers that have every chance of not being applicable to the real-world scenarios you may find yourself shooting in. It's sort of like worrying about a car that has a top speed of 140mph and one with a top speed of 200mph. Sure, one is clearly faster than the other, but how often are you going to even hit 140 in either car.

Roger Cicala, over at LensRentals, has an interesting article related to this: http://www.lensrentals​.com …have-you-seen-my-acutance (external link)

Luminous Landscape also has a very good writeup, that even includes an MTF comparison of the 100-400 and 400 f/5.6, coincidentally.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com …s/understanding​-mtf.shtml (external link)

One of the important things to note in that article is the point about:
"Canon's MTF charts are based on theoretical calculations used in the design of the lens, while some other manufacturers use actually measurements. There are valid arguments in favour of both methods. Be aware though that different manufacturers have different measurement procedures, and therefore while comparing MTF charts between lenses in the same line is possible, and is in fact very useful in making a purchasing decision, doing so between different manufacturer's MTF charts isn't."

So, while MTF charts give us SOME information, they're not the be all/end all of information about how a lens may perform.


- Eric S.: My Birds/Wildlife (external link) (7D MkII/5D IV, Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5, Canon 24-105L f/4 IS, Canon 70-200L f/2.8 IS MkII, Canon 100-400L f/4.5-5.6 IS I/II)
"The easiest way to improve your photos is to adjust the loose nut between the shutter release and the ground."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nikesupremedunk
Goldmember
Avatar
1,131 posts
Joined Feb 2011
Location: ny
     
May 17, 2013 21:01 |  #57

I bought my L lenses simply because there were no alternatives. When I bought my 35L, there were no other 35mm lenses that shot at 1.4 (with AF). There were no 70-200 or other non-L zooms that had constant aperture. There are no FF UWA options at the price point of a 17-40 (not counting third party), and the 100 non L macro lacks IS.

I realized with my first L lens purchase that optics are not the biggest advantage of getting an L. Some might think going from 18-55 to a 24-105 was a huge upgrade...except I saw no difference in IQ. The L's offer something that the non-L's lack, usually a constant/faster aperture, build, and IQ for the higher priced gems.


| Andrew | 5D Mark II | EOS-M | Canon 17-40mm f 4 L | Canon 35mm f 1.4 L | Canon 100mm f 2.8 L Macro | Canon 70-200mm f 4 L IS | Canon EF-M 22mm f 2.0 | Speedlite 430EX II|

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CAL ­ Imagery
Goldmember
Avatar
3,375 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Apr 2008
Location: O-H
     
May 18, 2013 00:26 |  #58

Snydremark wrote in post #15942235 (external link)
My 100-400 is a fantastic performer, too; however, what Wilt is referring to is the MTF charts that measure resolution of lenses. And, by the numbers in those, the 100-400 is significantly duller than, say, the 400 f/5.6.

With MTF charts, though, you're talking about numbers that have every chance of not being applicable to the real-world scenarios you may find yourself shooting in. It's sort of like worrying about a car that has a top speed of 140mph and one with a top speed of 200mph. Sure, one is clearly faster than the other, but how often are you going to even hit 140 in either car.

Roger Cicala, over at LensRentals, has an interesting article related to this: http://www.lensrentals​.com …have-you-seen-my-acutance (external link)

Luminous Landscape also has a very good writeup, that even includes an MTF comparison of the 100-400 and 400 f/5.6, coincidentally.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com …s/understanding​-mtf.shtml (external link)

One of the important things to note in that article is the point about:
"Canon's MTF charts are based on theoretical calculations used in the design of the lens, while some other manufacturers use actually measurements. There are valid arguments in favour of both methods. Be aware though that different manufacturers have different measurement procedures, and therefore while comparing MTF charts between lenses in the same line is possible, and is in fact very useful in making a purchasing decision, doing so between different manufacturer's MTF charts isn't."

So, while MTF charts give us SOME information, they're not the be all/end all of information about how a lens may perform.

Yeah, the MTF for the 50 MP is good, but it looks much, much better as an image than on a chart.


Christian

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nightcat
Goldmember
4,511 posts
Likes: 22
Joined Aug 2008
     
May 18, 2013 06:46 |  #59

I have 7 "L" lenses and my 60mm 2.8 is sharper than all of them.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CharlieB2B
Member
73 posts
Joined May 2013
     
May 18, 2013 08:29 as a reply to  @ nightcat's post |  #60

I shoot sports and there is absolutely no comparison between the L glass (70-200, 300 and 400) and the rest. For some the price differential is justified and for others it will never be...

Cheers,

Charlie



Canon 1DX, 7D - Only sports pictures...

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

9,723 views & 0 likes for this thread
Are L lenses really better??
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is AvroPiklu
968 guests, 306 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.