how big a differance does the L really mean

Probably one of the better statements made yet.... if you can get it, and want it, great.... sure there are bum lenses in every make and model.... heck, I returned a Tameron after one day.... but I gave it a fair shot first. It just didn't compare in anyway to the 70-200f/4L, and if I had the extra $$ I would have gotten the f/2.8 IS.... but priorities are priorities.

BTW.... I still love the non L lenses as well... the 50 1.4 / 85 1.8 come to mind quickly.....

I guess (and this is pure speculation) that when things are nice and even, the L and alternatives are on a par, but when things get extreme, the L will keep it's composure longer. That is certainly what you would hope would happen.

For a pro, that may be the difference between getting paid and laid off.

Graham

I'd agree AF seems to be less than optimal at times and certainly relying on the camera to judge settings can also be a bit hit and miss. Crummy exposure, 10% sub-optimal AF plus ill-judged camera settings will always produce rubbish.

If you don't nail a good exposure you can always try and get some sharps in PP, sure, but the shot will still suck. Exposure first, glass second. A well exposed shot taken in RAW requires minimal PP.

See here too:

http://www.photo.net …a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007iOR

True That!

Baller on a Budget Lens... I have one, like it very much..

Even with that said... there is NO substitute for L Glass. As much as anyone would like to believe they are getting L quality, It will never have the L MAGIC! Sometimes you can just look at a picture and say, that’s damn good optics.

Only complaint about non-L lenses, Tamron included, is that it does not focus like a L USM Motor… That’s a very big deal to me…

If you own a rebel/20D, the 10-22 is pretty much built to L standards are far as optics go.. Great lens, but also not the cheapest on the block.

Other non L lenses I like are a lot of canon primes 35, 50, 85, 100mm macro, 10-22. All of these are like L glass. IMO, the 10-22 is an L lens.

Tamron 28-75 2.8 = Best Bang for the Buck…

I think this statement is the best the L stands for luxury not Pro. We have had L lenses since the days of FD mount. You don't need an L to take a great photo, you don't an L to make a living. The L lenses bring better sharpness, contrast, etc. to a photo. But they can't make up for bad technique, poor lighting, or bad composistion.

I think my lenses have been better then 50% of the people I know making a living with photography. I've seen alot of stunning shots taken without L lenses.

You own an L for the little things it brings to the picture. I love the build and speed of the L's but I'll take the proper lighting and composition anyday if I have to choose.

And Nikon very much does have a selection of pro-level build lenses, Olympus has some they call Pro now as well. Sigma says EX is a pro level of lens. Perhaps other system users don't need the red ring bling like we do? If you need someone to tell you your gear is pro level to justify it to you, so be it.

Yes my L's deliver a better photo and yield a superior build lens, else why did I buy them. But to tell someone it will improve their photographs they are unhappy with?

your right on the money again, fstop. I agree. It would be great to see a 24-70 EX HSM too don't cha-think?

Agreed..... I don't think I shoot any better, or worse, with L glass than any other lens or camera..... but you hit the nail on the head.... the build is usually stronger, better, better glass, etc. Otherwise, there really wouldn't be a need to throw $1200 out the window, right? I could care less if there is a white shell, red-stripe, gold stripe, green stripe, silver stripe, etc.... I view each lens as a tool in my box.... and I personally try to acquire the tools I will need to complete each job. 24-70 was added for a reason.... as was the 70-200. Never thought twice about the 50 or 85... they were a no-brainer, and Non-L's, but they fit the need I have.

So to "L" or not to "L".... well, I think there is an element of security that the "L" will or should uphold to a little higher quality standards. And of the non-L EF lenses, the great news is, they are good lenses in their own right, and if one should break, at least for the most part, it can be replaced without breaking your bank twice. If the budget allows, and there is a need for an "L", then there is certainly no reason to think twice. If it means going broke or missing a mortgage payment, well, I am sure 99% of us here could do just as well with an EF, or dare I say, an EF-s lens! Hey.... I'll admit I still use the 18-55 EFs.... it does a job... it's wide, and I own it.... so I use it.

I still love L glass =)

70-200 IS L is Gods lens. Speed, Sharpness, Accuracy.

WOW

It is a luxury lens, and belive me, your going to pay for the luxury... It just depends on what you WANT, and what you NEED... There are still L lenses out there that give a great bang for the buck. 17-40 L f/4 and the 70-200 L f/4 Both are around $500.

And I do agree with the above, you dont NEED L glass to be a profesional photographer or even to take a GOOD picture.

More about your overall skills and if your good at post processing, your pretty much set. Ive been using photoshop for 6+ years and I can make a point and shoot image look good...

No, make it a 24-70 f2.8 EX OS HSM

zooms -- not such a big deal. I have a tamron 28-75 and a sigma 70-200, and I think both are so comparable to the canon "L" equivalent that I'm not willing to spend the added money for a marginal gain.

primes -- wow. There is no substitute for the 135 f2 or the 300 f4. I don't have the 85 f1.2 or the 35 f1.4, but these also appear to be unique.

I have a sharp copy of the Tamron 28-75, and I find it to be a very nice lens. I owned it for a while before picking up a 17-40/4L and a 70-200/4L. While I agree that there's no substitute for good technique, I will admit to lusting strongly for a 24-70/2.8L after shooting with my L zooms.

I'm pleased with the images I've captured with my 28-75 Tamron, no doubt. But the number of times I've muttered "whooooooaaaa" after opening some .raw files shot with those L-zooms is proof enough to me that there's something there.

Just my $0.02...

I think that 50% of the people who dislike L glass have never owned it and the other 50% did not take the time to learn how to use it. Buy one, use it, and then come back and talk about it.

That's what I like about you Doc. As we used to say in the service (don't ask how long ago) thats a no sh!tter. As clk430 pointed out, there are differences, are they worth it? My wife had one, now she has a Sl55AMG. Is there a difference? DUG?!

If you want better pictures the best possible investment you can make is to learn more about photography - composition, making good use of light, technique and your camera.

Buy some books, maybe take a course.

This should give you far better improvements - and more fun - than ANY lens, L or otherwise. It's fine to buy any lens you want if you can afford it, but it annoys me a little to see equipment hyped up to such an extent that people who can't really afford it start to feel they must have this, then they must have that, etc etc to improve their photography. Buying an expensive L lens is fine if you know exactly why you need it, if not the only advantage might be getting a warm feeling that you are helping the Japaneese economy. You can get great pictures without breaking the bank account by learning how to make best use of what you already have - there are many fine examples in the gallery sections of this forum taken with 'budget' lenses.

L lenses tend to have better build quality - but the build of most non-Ls are perfectly adequate for most of us and this won't be the limiting factor between ourselves and getting great shots. The main advantage for pros is that Ls tend to be faster than the non-Ls, but this comes at the cost of greatly increased weight, size and expense. Used in good light and stopped down a little, I think the image quality from many much cheaper lenses won't be very different in most real world prints.