Is the Red ring worth it?

I would have to say no. There are PLENTY of non-L lenses that are fantastic and in some cases even better than their L-counterpart. However, whenever I look at on of my L lenses I just want to go out and take some pictures with it To me at least, the only L lenses that really seem to be worth it over the cheaper options (even though I own two L lenses now), are the 70-200 2.8 IS II and above (300 f2.8, 400 f2.8 etc). The Sigma 35mm f1.4 and Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC are two fine examples of non-L lenses which are (to me) much better choices than their L counterparts (Tamron being half the price of the Canon IS II).

Samyang 14 vs 14L.......

I really can't see how the 14L would improve my photography over the third party alternative.

For me it depends on the lens and my intended use. I find that the L's I do own provide a very good value for my use compared with non-L or third party alternatives. The one exception may be the 50L since f/1.2 is probably overkill for me, but it is my most used prime focal length and I was not happy with the other available options, so I bit the bullet on the purchase price.

However, the most expensive L lenses I own are the 50L and 100-400L, so I do not own any $2,000+ L's. The rest are older, more budget friendly (24-105L, 17-40L, 135L) or have no 3rd party alternative (70-200 f/4 IS).

sjones wrote in post #16434221
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.

the old money and consumption is evil angle.

I love the red ring, the quality is amazing but the price tag makes the lenses a love/hate relationship for me !

For me, it is... One big reason is because of the excellent support I get through CPS for any issues/repairs with Canon lenses. I also never have to worry about capability issues with new bodies, AF issues due to reverse engineering, etc...

Sure, optically many third party lenses are superior... Such as the Sigma 35 vs the 35L. But performance wise overall, the 35L is the better lens. Which is why I have that instead. I am super happy with it. It may not be as sharp, but it is better in other areas (AF, colors, known durability).

KirkS518 wrote in post #16433551
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?

I agree in the Tammy example as I bought the Tammy.

I voted in favor of the Canon L lenses, but there are some lenses without any counterpart in the Canon L lineup. I have the Tokina 35F 2.8 macro and the Sigma 50 F2.8 macro lenses. Canon does not have L macro glass in these focal lengths, and the Canon 50F 2.5 macro does not go to 1:1. Yes I know that Canon has a fine 60 mm macro lens, but it is not an L and it is not a 50...
I do use those lenses and they are sharp, with accurate (and slow) AF.

What lens here is actually better than the Canon L counter-part?

the two examples he listed...

the tamron 24-70VC is probably better than your 28-80L

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

…but wheres the 24-70 in your list….

DreDaze wrote in post #16436175
the two examples he listed...

the tamron 24-70VC is probably better than your 28-80L

My 28-80L competes with the 24-70 L. Doubt it'd be a close match at all.

Also, my L is like $500, Tammy's like $1,200+.

Can't justify buying a non-L tacky Tammy glass over some fine L.

Can anyone?

When I read this question, I thought of 2 L lenses. One that is an incredible bargain and one I feel is far overpriced. The 200mm 2.8 L is the bargain. I think Canon could charge an extra $200 and it would fairly priced. On the other hand, the 14mm 2.8 (which is an outstanding lens) is not worth what Canon priced it at. So it depends on which L lens you're talking about. Most are worth the price, but a few aren't.

85L

Kanye wrote in post #16436311
My 28-80L competes with the 24-70 L. Doubt it'd be a close match at all.

Also, my L is like $500, Tammy's like $1,200+.

Can't justify buying a non-L tacky Tammy glass over some fine L.

Can anyone?

Easily. The Tamron has VC, weather sealing, better IQ, and is still supported by Tamron for repairs, unlike your 28-80. I don't have either lens, and I don't even own a single Tamron, so I'm giving a very unbiased opinion unlike some people here.