Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 07 Nov 2013 (Thursday) 19:52
Search threadPrev/next
POLL: "Is the Red Ring worth paying the extra price?"
Yes
263
84%
No
50
16%

313 voters, 313 votes given (1 choice only choices can be voted per member)). VOTING IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY.
BROWSE ALL POLLS
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Is the Red ring worth it?

 
stang67
Senior Member
Avatar
385 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2013
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Nov 08, 2013 07:00 |  #46

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 :D 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).


Canon 6D - Canon 1D Mk III - 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II | Σ 105mm f/2.8 | Canon 400mm f/5.6L | Σ 35mm f/1.4 | 17-40mm f/4L
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
15,747 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 5771
Joined Sep 2007
     
Nov 08, 2013 08:38 |  #47

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

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


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - CV 21/3.5 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scott ­ M
Goldmember
3,151 posts
Gallery: 62 photos
Likes: 230
Joined May 2008
Location: Michigan
     
Nov 08, 2013 11:01 |  #48

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).


Photo Gallery (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,055 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 410
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Nov 08, 2013 11:08 |  #49

sjones wrote in post #16434221 (external link)
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.


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L III, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15mm FE, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jonathanheierle
Senior Member
Avatar
537 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 20
Joined Aug 2013
Location: Eastern Oregon
     
Nov 08, 2013 11:09 |  #50

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


Canon 5D Mark III, Canon 70-200L F4 IS, Canon 24-105L Tokina 11-16mm f2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Invertalon
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,495 posts
Likes: 21
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Cleveland, OH
     
Nov 08, 2013 11:15 |  #51

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).


-Steve
Facebook (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Coral
Senior Member
284 posts
Joined Dec 2012
Location: Ohio
     
Nov 08, 2013 11:21 |  #52

KirkS518 wrote in post #16433551 (external link)
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.


Living the Dream
Gear: Camera 5D3, Glass: EF 50mm f1.4, EF 100mm f2.8, EF 70-200mm f4, EF 500mm f4 II, Tamron 24-70mm f2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
artyH
Goldmember
2,102 posts
Likes: 27
Joined Aug 2009
     
Nov 08, 2013 14:43 |  #53

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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Kanye
Senior Member
Avatar
670 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Oct 2013
Location: Seattle, WA
     
Nov 08, 2013 20:24 |  #54

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




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,033 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 2231
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Nov 08, 2013 20:31 |  #55

the two examples he listed...

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


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lone ­ Rider
Goldmember
Avatar
1,349 posts
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Mount Isa, North West Qld
     
Nov 08, 2013 20:35 |  #56

bps wrote in post #16433365 (external link)
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. :lol:

Bryan

…but wheres the 24-70 in your list….:D


Trevor
_______________
Canon 5D3 24-70L 70-300 DO IS 18-55 Sigma 10-20 430EXII BACKUP: 550D

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Kanye
Senior Member
Avatar
670 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Oct 2013
Location: Seattle, WA
     
Nov 08, 2013 21:45 |  #57

DreDaze wrote in post #16436175 (external link)
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?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nightcat
Goldmember
4,512 posts
Likes: 22
Joined Aug 2008
     
Nov 08, 2013 22:22 |  #58

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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
masberg24
Goldmember
1,320 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 496
Joined Jun 2011
     
Nov 08, 2013 22:24 |  #59

85L


http:// …http://Instagram.com/s​amsrhee (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sirrith
Cream of the Crop
10,545 posts
Gallery: 50 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 36
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Hong Kong
     
Nov 08, 2013 22:37 |  #60

Kanye wrote in post #16436311 (external link)
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.


-Tom
Flickr (external link)
F-Stop Guru review | RRS BH-40 review

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

16,673 views & 0 likes for this thread
Is the Red ring worth it?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Fizah1410
1071 guests, 324 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.