how big a differance does the L really mean

I know this has been asked about a million times before but how much differance does the L Lenses really make. I am new to the hoby but have read alot and am making some progress but I was just in the photo studio section and have come to relize that I have never taken a picture that sharp. I love teh range of my sigma 18-125 DC lens but I never get a really sharp picture with it would an L lens be a huge improvment or is it more the person that the lens. If I were to give a very experanced photographer my equiptment could they still take good pictures or will I always have poor pictures with this lens.if I gave tiger woods a set of clubs from Walmart he would still play great golf is it the same with lenses or would he suck with my lens. if you hade to put a %eg on the improvment between my sigma compared to the 24-105L what would it be like taking into account the $1100 differance. Also have those images in the studio section been sharpened with PS or do the images hae to be unedited?

I found that having to drag around my big heavy L made my technique better. As such my 18-125mm pictures got better becuase my camera technique got better. I also learned how to use the flash better, as such I really like my 18-125mm again.

At f8 and above it's hard to tell my Sigma apart from my L in a 4x6 or 5x7 print. Negligable at f5.6 as well.

If your Sigma pictures look the same as your 18-55 pictures them the blame falls on technique. If the kit lens looks better then the sigma at equiv. focal lengths then blame the Sigma. My Sigma is certainly kit lens sharp.

My Sigma was a tad darker (likely the Digital Sigma coating?) then most kit lenses I've used. You can see this in the viewfinder, but it was still a fairly sharp lens. A good picture is a good picture, and I find this lens more then capable. Constrast and color pop isn't "L" good, but you don't need that for a good sharp photo.

firstly ur comparing canon to sigma, apples and oranges, secondly your comparing the L series to DC (equivalant to EF-S series), again apples and oranges. Lastly, the 24-105 is still rather new, so price is still high,again another apple and orange. lastly, in the non-apples and oranges falsity, the L lens will obviously give you better quality.

I have the Sigma 18-125 DC, and I also have an L lens. For someone new to digital photography, I doubt you'd notice much difference. Unless you got a very bad copy of your Sigma, I'd say that sharpness is much more about your lighting and your skill in using the camera than which lens you are using. Giving an expert photographer your Sigma would produce far better pictures than would giving you an L. Finally, note that pictures taken with a dSLR are going to require post-processing to look their best.

L lens is just a big marketting hype.....

Here is my theory. ALL other manufacture doesn't have a "Pro Line". Canon wanted to seperate a customer base. This way they have a "pro gear" and a "consumer" gear. Genius? Maybe.

Leica and Carl Zeiss arguably, make some of the finest lens...do they have a "pro line"? No, they just come carrying a hefty price tag. Are they better than L lens, in most cases, yes. So why are Leica and Carl Zeiss have a "professional" line up? Nikon doesn't have a "Pro Line". All Marketing.

If you want L quality pictures for alot less get yourself a Tamron 28-75mm 2.8

Really alll marketing?

I guess the UD lens elements they use must be broken shards of recyled glass bottle cokes right? Super low Dispersion? Ultra los dispersion? Flourite elements a marketing tactic? Weather proof is also a marketing gimmick? I guess Full Time Manual is useless to you?

mbze430, you have a bunch of L glass. Were you fooled by the marketers? Or did you need the wider apertures? That are, ohh ohh, arent available on most non-L glass?

No, the champion of marketing hype is Sigma's "DG" stuff. They should forget all their efforts into remaking lenses into "DG" stuff and put out some lenses consumers really want: 17-80 f4 EX OS HSM, 50-500 EX OS HSM, and some longer OS HSM primes.

I have that Sigma lens and a new 17-40 L I would say the L is much better and you would find you get better images. The L has far better focus than the Sigma.

Saying that the Sigma can capture some great images just use it about f8 and things are good most of the time.

L is best you do get what you pay for.

R

Since you have 6 L lenses, the marketing hype seems to have worked well on you

My previous explanation was on a common sense basis. The next explanation is the financial side to it. A company, in rare instances, can charge a significantly higher mark-up than competitors or at all if a monopoly. But in Canon's case, they in no way can increase the price higher than they already have. I bet you its cost + L-series mark up.

Nothing like cost + regular markup + L-series markup + Canon being bastards markup + white paint mark up...

Basic accounting/economics prevents Canon from selling or raising the markup rediculously .

Raymate wrote:
I have that Sigma lens and a new 17-40 L I would say the L is much better and you would find you get better images. The L has far better focus than the Sigma.

Saying that the Sigma can capture some great images just use it about f8 and things are good most of the time.

L is best you do get what you pay for.

R

Wow this is going to be fun. Long overdue! Sigma, Tamron and even others provide great optical performers right up there with the mighty "L" i.e. My Sigma 70-200mm EX/HSM F2.8 : Sigma 24-60mm EX/DG F2.8 - FM Reviews, Here, Good 'ol google, etc...

I agree the mighty "L" has it's benefit i.e. ".. My Lens is an L ..", UD Glass and that dam'n red ring called the "L" bug! along with IS and USM but damn Y'all ... Most of us work for the man and can't afford the prices of "Most" L's ..

I have two F4 mighty "L's" and am damn glad to have 'em but If I could get the same lens from Sigma in an EX I would of done it. IMHO SD Glass is tack on with the red ring canon BUT you have to be carefull with the outdoors elements b/c the housing is not made to be water tight on most of these competitive brands. Hell if I hit the lotto tomorrow I'd own every L Canon makes.

So it's easy ... Have the $$ cash and want an "L" -- Go for it thus you earn the right to put a red L in your siggy but frankly it comes down to the "eye of the beholder" ... If you're happy that's it. Trust me I'll stand up on stage @ a Canon show and compare Non-MFG canon mount lenses all day as long as it performs to the standards I expect.

Man, I don't think I have seen a more misleading and errounious statement on this forum.

It means about the same as driving a Toyota Corolla or a BMW.... sure, they both get you from A to B, but which would you rather drive?

The one that costs less so I have more to spend on photo gear.

Hence I went with the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8