Is the Red ring worth it?

Is the red ring on the lenses really worth paying for?

for instance:

sigma 35 1.4 vs canon 35 1.4L
Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC vs Canon 24-70 2.8 I

Sometimes I get this fuzzy feeling in my head when i carry a 5dII with a 70-200 2.8 II or even a 24-105...

But... is it worth paying the price especially for my second option?

I guess you really need to compare each lens for its own merits, but for me, I'm a Canon-only guy all the way. And yes, I have a love affair with L-series lenses.

Bryan

bps wrote in post #16433365
I guess you really need to compare each lens for its own merits, but for me, I'm a Canon-only guy all the way. And yes, I have a love affair with L-series lenses.

Bryan

RE: Your gear list.... wow!

i feel that way also. now im debating between a 24-105 and flash OR 24-70 2.8 / for shooting my kids

I love L lenses and I think they are worth paying for.

I suppose I have to vote yes because most of the time it is worth it. You can't really beat the big white primes or the 70-200 mk2. But sometimes it is a toughy, just look at the 100mm macros. The L is twice the price for IS and weather sealing, but the non L is fantastic.

this question is like asking whether brand names matter to you. one of my exs' moms used to do work on the side making clothes for brand names. the cost say for a shirt or pants is like < $1 for these companies. yet they will turn around and sell the same $1 shirt to you for $50-100 or more. if the off-brand shirt and the name brand are identical, would you feel more special in the brand name shirt?

for most that feeling is worth the $. yes, it's completely illogical. but i do feel more special shooting with nice gear. it does inspire me to some degree.

I'd select "Maybe, depends on the lens"

But since it's not there, I choose NO. Not that I'm anti-L, but only because there are a lot of really great lenses out there made by Canon, Sigma, Tamron, and others, that are just as good as L glass without the L tax. And it's been my understanding from reading here that there are some L lenses that fall a bit short (not by much) of the IQ of their L brethren.

In the case of 35mm, I'd say no its not worth it. Eye test, chart test, scientific tests all points to Sigma being the better lens.

Save your money and get the Sigma Art lens.

jjaenagle wrote in post #16433351
Is the red ring on the lenses really worth paying for?

for instance:

sigma 35 1.4 vs canon 35 1.4L
Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC vs Canon 24-70 2.8 I

Sometimes I get this fuzzy feeling in my head when i carry a 5dII with a 70-200 2.8 II or even a 24-105...

But... is it worth paying the price especially for my second option?

Heya,

If you want that last ounce of performance, yes.

If you are more minded to not purchase well past the plateau point of a product line, then no.

Very best,

Xyclopx wrote in post #16433451
this question is like asking whether brand names matter to you.

That is probably exactly the question i was getting at.

MalVeauX wrote in post #16433458
Heya,

If you want that last ounce of performance, yes.

If you are more minded to not purchase well past the plateau point of a product line, then no.

Very best,

My wife would tell me i don't need the best, but you know canon photographers... we have to have that L

KeyserSoze1 wrote in post #16433455
In the case of 35mm, I'd say no its not worth it. Eye test, chart test, scientific tests all points to Sigma being the better lens.

Save your money and get the Sigma Art lens.

I'd agree on that

KirkS518 wrote in post #16433452
I'd select "Maybe, depends on the lens"

But since it's not there, I choose NO. Not that I'm anti-L, but only because there are a lot of really great lenses out there made by Canon, Sigma, Tamron, and others, that are just as good as L glass without the L tax. And it's been my understanding from reading here that there are some L lenses that fall a bit short (not by much) of the IQ of their L brethren.

I specifically didnt put maybe so people would have to make a choice.... or not to choose but at least give their feedback

jjaenagle wrote in post #16433351
Is the red ring on the lenses really worth paying for?

for instance:

sigma 35 1.4 vs canon 35 1.4L
Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC vs Canon 24-70 2.8 I

Sometimes I get this fuzzy feeling in my head when i carry a 5dII with a 70-200 2.8 II or even a 24-105...

But... is it worth paying the price especially for my second option?

unfair comparison. do I need to explain why? as a group L lenses are the best lenses far and away for canon DSLRS.

KirkS518 wrote in post #16433452
I'd select "Maybe, depends on the lens"

But since it's not there, I choose NO. Not that I'm anti-L, but only because there are a lot of really great lenses out there made by Canon, Sigma, Tamron, and others, that are just as good as L glass without the L tax. And it's been my understanding from reading here that there are some L lenses that fall a bit short (not by much) of the IQ of their L brethren.

give us some examples because that statement wafts of BS

ed rader wrote in post #16433478
unfair comparison. do I need to explain why? as a group L lenses are the best lenses far and away for canon DSLRS.

But buying L lens blindly as a group is foolish. For many...and I mean many people on these boards, the non-L equivalents from Canon and 3rd party lens providers would more than meet their needs...and save them a ton of money. Many people get caught up in all the hype, yet I would bet my yearly salary that I can print out 10 photos from various lens and I would say the vast majority of people here could not tell which were shot with an L lens and which were shot with a lens 1/4 the price of the equivalent L.

The red ring and L designation is a marketing ploy that has sucked in many of photog and taken their hard earned cash right out of their open hands.

ed rader wrote in post #16433484
give us some examples because that statement wafts of BS

What's wrong with using the two that jjaenagle referenced?

What I'm saying is sort of what you said above - as a whole, the L lenses are best, but there are some others out there that can certainly hold their own against thir comparable L lens, without breaking the bank.

The Tammy 24-70 VC is arguably every bit as good as the 24-70 L, but at about half the price.

So to echo the title of this thread, is the red ring worth it?

What do you get for the extra $1000, other than prestige?