What's the worst L lens?

I've noticed some people saying the 17-40L isn't so hot, but I've never owned it and probably never will. Not that I think poorly of the 17-40L, but because I don't have much need for that focal range.

Anyway, it got me wondering which Canon L lens is the worst. Is it the 17-40L? Is it one of the super-zooms (28-300L, 35-350L), or *shudder* the 100-400L? What about the L primes, any bad ones?

They all suck...

money from your wallet.

Has anyone ever told you what the " L " stands for ?

I think its a valid question
Just because they're "L" doesn't meant they're all equal, and saying that X is the worst L lens doesn't mean its a bad lens, it just means that in that person's opinion, its not as good as the other L offerings.

Silverfox1 wrote in post #12281339
Has anyone ever told you what the " L " stands for ?

[GIFS ARE NOT RENDERED IN QUOTES]

LAME?

Many users were disappointed with the old 20-35L, the original 24L, the 24 TS-E MKI, and a few others.

The 17-40L is a sick lens.

the worst 300 2.8 IS and 400 2.8 IS II. The 300 cant produce a sharp image for anything. and i imagine the 400 wont be any better

4x4rock wrote in post #12281399
Many users were disappointed with the old 20-35L, the original 24L, the 24 TS-E MKI, and a few others.

lol, the TS-E 24L mkI is my only L at the moment... It's not nearly on par with other L's as far as sharpness, bokeh, etc, and all that other good good stuff but it's not too shabby either... and what other ts-e can you get in that price range?

I'm not sure as far as the worst L but I was never terribly enamored with the 70-200 f4 non-is.... It's a good lens and all, but with only f4 and no IS and supposedly not even totally weather-sealed, I'm not totally convinced it should be in the "L" lineup

I believe the L stands for luxury, but I could be wrong. It just means that there is a quality boost, which is sometimes noticiable.

shaftmaster wrote in post #12281305
I've noticed some people saying the 17-40L isn't so hot, but I've never owned it and probably never will. Not that I think poorly of the 17-40L, but because I don't have much need for that focal range.

Anyway, it got me wondering which Canon L lens is the worst. Is it the 17-40L? Is it one of the super-zooms (28-300L, 35-350L), or *shudder* the 100-400L? What about the L primes, any bad ones?

It's all relative. I think it should be rephrased as "which has the least value for the money?", or something along those lines. Along those lines, the 400 DO gets beat on quite a bit here, there, and everywhere.

Ronald Martinson wrote in post #12281615
I believe the L stands for luxury, but I could be wrong. It just means that there is a quality boost, which is sometimes noticiable.

asphericaL, or Luxury, take your pick. Remnant designations from the FD days, back when the original "good stuff" had the AL stamps (for aspherical).

Ronald Martinson wrote in post #12281615
I believe the L stands for luxury, but I could be wrong. It just means that there is a quality boost, which is sometimes noticiable.

And I thought the L stood for "Lots of money required..."

WesternGuy

L is for the way you look at me

I never had any bad L lens.