how big a differance does the L really mean

Some other advice for the initial poster:

- Get the 75$ Canon EF 50/1.8 II lens
- Use it at f/2.8 or f/4.0
- then you know what a sharp image looks like (it doesn't get any sharper than that).
- If the image still does not look sharp to you in print or on the screen, you might brush up on your post processing technique.

One of the most pivotal moments for me was when I first tried out the 'USM' (unsharp mask) command in PS on one of my old G2 images and realized that the sharpness can be markedly improved (wich was not really a surprise to those who had read the manual, actually )

Best regards,
Andy

PS: As to MBZE430's analogy ... true, Zeiss and Leica don't offer 2 ranges, but please bear in mind that the prices of their 'standard' range are higher than normal 'L' prices .

And while it may be true that Ferrari doesn't make 2 lines of cars (hmm ... compare the f360 to the Enzo ), look at another manufacturer who does ... Mercedes sells the SL55AMG and the A140 at quite different price points to most likely different buyers ... does this make the SL55AMG markedly worse than if they would not do that?

On the other hand, Ferrari might be a bad example, after all. If they were really successful with a one line strategy (like, e.g. Porsche), then they would not have been bought by FIAT, right

About a year ago I bought me a 20D with 18-55 kitlens and a 28-135 zoom lens with IS and I was happy with the pictures.
A few months later and after spending hours of reading revieuws and articles about digital SLR's, lenses and other accessories
I stumbled on Canon "L" lenses. Naturally the same question rised to me too. "Are "L" lenses better then consumer lenses."
After a few weeks of thinking, doubthing, hoping, dreaming and so one I rented a 70-200 2.8 IS for 3 days. The shopowner
where I rented the lens for 50 €uro gived me a NEW in the box copy of this lens to play with for 3 days and for a little money.

That's what I suggest you do too. Rent you an "L" lens and go out on a shoot. Then shoot about 100 pictures with your
Sigma on one CF card and 100 pictures with the Canon "L" lens on one other CF card.

Thousands peoples can say to you: the "L" lenses are better, not better, are a marketing thing (but own six of them? ... ).
But in your photography it's about your pictures and your eyes and your wanted quality level.
If after the tests you don't see any difference in the pictures then "L" lenses are not an issue for you. Go on and be happy.
If after the tests you see the difference like others around the world then start to save for your first "L" lens.

Is that simple. Like I said it's you that must be happy with your hobby.

Good luck and don't forget to enyoj yourself on this beautiful hobby.

Enjoy the fine tools is part of the hobby too. I bought the 24-70 L to replace the kit lens, image quality aside, I could "feel" the $1100 difference in my hand too

We all work hard for the money, life is too short...

I used to shoot film with an old Olympus OM2 and some pretty good glass. Bought my 20D when it came out along with a few Sigma mid level lenses (they were gifts). My results were disapointing to me to say the least as far as optical quality goes. Bought the 100-400mm as my first "L" lens and my pictures and confidence improved dramatically. I have since added 5 more and when I get a bad shot I can no longer blame my equipment.

To expound on that analogy someone else previously used about the Corolla and BMW. Sure, they both get you down the road and to your destination but the BMW lets you drive into that corner a whole lot faster.

In the original post, the author suggests that he/she is new to photography. Does it really make sense to tell a beginner that buying an L lens will result in dramatic improvement over his/her current gear? Maybe I'm way off here, but I feel that such a recommendation is misleading, especially when we know nothing about how the author shoots.

Very good point.

Amen