Is the Red ring worth it?

some are, some aren't.

looking at comparisons all over the internet, i think in the case of the two pairs of lenses you are asking about the L's aren't the winners...but of course others will say they are...but it is a comparison of older L's vs. newer lenses

I think Canon have some very low price L that very nice, the price is only little expensive than competitive lens:
70-200F4 L
17-40F4 L
100 L macro
135L

No, it depends entirely on the lens itself.

First of all, my 85L ii has magic that zeiss and sigma may have come close to, but don't have the autofocus to give the consistency. The 135L is another unmatched lens for ef mount cameras. I would buy the 35L over the sigma, but only cause I would want it to render similar to my other lenses. My 17-40L is also a fantastic piece of glass considering the price point.

I ditched my non-L lenses because I found I had to boost the contrast vibrance and sharpness to try to match my non-L files to my L's. it's okay in Lightroom, but a pain when you shoot dslr video.

I am excited and have been keeping my eye on sigma, if they really get their AF nailed down, they might start producing some real gems at a great price point

I go with no. L's are some great options and there are a few that I would consider buying, however, if there is a lens that fits my needs above a canon offering I will get that, if Canon has an offering that fits my needs better I will go with that.

My L from 1989 works like butter.

Glass is flawless, everything works.

Takes awesome pics.

Yes. Worth it.

I'd vote yes. Totally worth it. Now I may not have had as many as some of the others but they have all been 99.999% incredible. The extra 0.001% comes from lack of experience. L doesn't necessarily mean sharpest lens. You have to take into account contrast (detail?) and color rendition. I had a tamron 10-24 that was amazingly sharp, but lacked contrast and rendered colors a bit warm. It seems that the 2 70-200's and the 17-40 I've had, I never hesitate to shoot at any aperture or worry about missing focus (besides user error). That kind of accountability is what makes them worth it. Especially with the superteles. Shot with a 400 stacked on a 1.4 and it was just an absolute pleasure to shoot with.

Yes, but if your wallet is not too full, it's a good idea to have the best L lens(es) on your favorite focal length(es), and to complete with other Canon non-L or third-party lenses.

Titi

jjaenagle wrote in post #16433373
RE: Your gear list.... wow!

Yes, WoW !!!!!!!!!!!

Of course the Canon L lens are worth it. While there are times and situations that a non L can deliver simular results, an L lens really shines when it's used as it was designed for. I won't even weigh in on third party lens as I wouldn't touch one. To many inconsistencies in their manufacturing process to deliver the reliability I demand in my gear.

I love My L Lens.

Back about 1975, shortly after I switched from Minolta to Canon, I bought a non-Canon lens to add to my AE-1 with 50mm lens. I saved some money on the deal. The lens was less than sharp. I found out later that that brand was mostly junk. The fact that they're still in business today making compatible lenses surprises me, given the junk back then.

I've had nothing but Canon equipment since, and all my lenses today have red rings. Well worth the money, too.

Yes and no, depending on the lens.
When I get the fever for an L lens, one look at this thread and it cures the fever.
Post your best pics made with a cheap lens
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1324375
It always encourages me to be a better photographer and not always look for an L lens for better pictures.

I generally don't dive into the "gear" section to make this point, since, after all, this is the gear section. But given some of the statements made, it might be good to reiterate that it all depends on the photographer's needs, style, or simple wants.

You might not need an expensive lens, but if you have the financial means to buy one, and that purchase brings some pleasure, then go forth and consume.

However, the importance of of durability is going to vary among different users, and the matter of 'sharpness' is actually more subjective than many folks realize.

Moreover, buy all you want, but having the best does not guarantee improvement. Boring photos will remain boring. On the other hand, if you shoot lowlight stuff, such as at a gymnasium, then getting a faster lens can possibly help overcome some of the technical issues involved with a slower lens. Yet even in this case, a boring photo, even with less noise and such, is still going to be boring.

The one psychological area where buying different gear can possibly be beneficial, and I have no proof of this, is that if you enjoy your new gear more, you are likely to use it more. And again, while not guaranteed, increased use can help improve one's photography. Also, "different gear" doesn't necessarily mean better or more expensive; maybe you discovered that you enjoy using that Holga more than your DSLR.