Is the Red ring worth it?

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?

doesn't really compete much at 70mm and f2.8...

and you typically get what you pay for...so for $500 you're getting a worse lens...but yes it is an L...

It's not a fast aperture (2.8-4.0).

Willing to guess most people here haven't shot it in the first place.

Then shoot your beloved Tamron.

Kanye wrote in post #16436487
It's not a fast aperture (2.8-4.0).

Forgot that point, add that to the list of reasons to get the Tamron over the 28-80. It has constant f2.8 throughout.

Kanye wrote in post #16436487
It's not a fast aperture (2.8-4.0).

Willing to guess most people here haven't shot it in the first place.

Then shoot your beloved Tamron.

I also have a 28-80, I bought it as it was cheap and I don't use the range a huge amount. What I did find was that it suffers quite badly from flair, more so than any other lens I have used.

It's a nice lens though, AF lets it down a bit, not proper USM.

Hay guise check out my 7.2-50mm f/2.4-3.5L!

HTTP response: 403 | MIME changed to 'text/html'

Sirrith wrote in post #16436493
Forgot that point, add that to the list of reasons to get the Tamron over the 28-80. It has constant f2.8 throughout.

Not to mention newer optical design, better manufacturing methods etc. There's a reason why some older lenses are still in production, and others aren't.

[QUOTE=ed rader;16433616]

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?[/quote]

you are comparing old lenses with new lenses. the new canon L lenses are all stellar with a few minor exceptions.

L lenses are weathersealed. they have ring USM which no third party focusing system can match and IS is superior to the third party anti-vibration mechanisms.

plus, and this is a big one, L lenses are optimized for canon DSLRS.

http://www.imaging-resource.com …ity-part-3b-canon-cameras

Well I guess it's best then you keep buying those them L lens and paying that then there Canon tax. Yep, third party lens could not et that shot....yeh right.

KirkS518 wrote in post #16433658
And rightfully so.

But, how do you know the 3rd's would have missed focus? Just curious.

He doesn't...period.

ed rader wrote in post #16433667
I've owned sigma, tamron and tokina lenses in the past plus I can read . I used the 100-400L in this case.

Are you really telling me a sigma 120-300 could not get those shots. Really Ed. Those are static shots that could be taken with manual focus.

Yes if you are talking about the 24-70 IS 2.8 II and 70-200 2.8 II both are sharpest center to edge zoom lens ever made

To be honest this debate is pointless everyone knows Zeiss Otus 55mm will be have best color and IQ, the Nikon 14-24 is best wide angle zoom lens, the Sigma 35 1.4 ART has the best IQ for 35mm, etc..........

Kanye wrote in post #16436163
What lens here is actually better than the Canon L counter-part?

Sigma 35 art.

Zeiss 100mm

Zeiss 21mm ... Even though Canon has no counter.

Nikon 14-24 much...much better than Canon 16-35.

The Sigma 120-300 is fabulous...but Canon has no counter.

Those are just ones I have used. I'm sure there are others.

I think I missed the point of this thread. Was it really supposed to be 100% serious?

Done anyone really think that EVERY L lens is currently better in every way than ANY other option?

And the OP's tile 'worth it' is like asking the most open ended question possible.

Really....

Looking through the different sections and various threads on potn, the very best photos have been taken with L lens so the short answer is yes. Sure there are some options that are reasonable, but obviously not enough from any one particular company to challenge the L lineup as a whole.

No.

Would I pay extra for the "red ring"? No. I will pay extra for a superior lens, not for a piece of red plastic and that "L" on the side. Many, but not all superior lenses are Canon Ls.

Canon and their accountants thank you.

No.