Is the Red ring worth it?

Thorrulz wrote in post #16434103
Of course the Canon L lens are worth it. While there are times and situations that a non L can deliver similar 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.

Then your opinions on these matters really has no substance. Yet you persist in trashing third party lenses at every opportunity.

jrbdmb wrote in post #16438557
Then your opinions on these matters really has no substance. Yet you persist in trashing third party lenses at every opportunity.

My opinion carries the same amount of weight as yours, sorry if it hurts your feelings but I am not trashing any 3rd party lens here only stating what I see in overall quality of a particular product.

You probably should stick to stating your own reasons as to why you choose the gear to have in your bag than to worry about what someone else thinks and take it personal.

Xyclopx wrote in post #16433451
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.

Being a bit into gear, just the feeling of having the L makes it a bit more enjoyable to me. So, to me it is worth it. Also, if I'm shooting with the best, when evaluating my images, I know that the reason they suck has nothing to do with the gear and it forces me to work on improving my technique and skill. If I was shooting with low end gear, I'd feel like it was more the fault of the gear and wouldn't push myself as hard to get better and just think that if I had spent more money, I could get better results.

tagnal wrote in post #16438733
Also, if I'm shooting with the best, when evaluating my images, I know that the reason they suck has nothing to do with the gear and it forces me to work on improving my technique and skill.

i think the thing is though...what if the L's aren't the best...like the 35L vs. Sigma 35mm...i mean yeah there are those die hard L users that will still claim the 35L is better...they'll list things like the bokeh being better, yet people in a blind test will choose the sigma...they'll say things like the vignetting isn't as extreme...they won't really talk about sharpness because i think the majority have given in there...

but the canon 35mm f1.4 is an L...and the only L at that aperture and focal length...but is it really the best?

i'm not saying L's are bad...i'm just saying that third party lenses are pushing closer and closer with good lenses, meanwhile, I don't remember the last time canon introduce an exciting somewhat affordable lens(basically ruling out the 200-400mm)...

I have a couple and they go on my best body (a 5DC), so yeah, I like 'em. As an L T in Korea told me. "It only costs a little more to go first class!" Words to live by!!!

Is BMW worth it? why buy luxury car where you can do the same with a Geo metro to go from point A to B?

First of all, I have to say Canon L-lenses are fantastic pieces of engineering. Canon has been the marker leader for a long time now and they would not have got there if they did not build quality products. Particularly their telephoto selection is so impressive. I truly admire how they are built and how most of them perform on the field.

However regarding to OP's question: I voted without a shroud of cloud,no. One of the silliest thing is to claim that all L-lenses are automatically the best and worth the price premium over their third party competitors (wow, I hate the use of word 'third party', for example Zeiss has been around since 1846 and we still call it 'third party' ??). It's certainly not true. It depends which lens we are talking about and what does the user intends to use the lens for. Particularly Canon's wide angle selection leaves lot of room for improvements in my opinion. Where is the 12-24mm f2.8L? Nikon 12-24mm simply trumps Canon's 16-35mm f/2.8L. Canon has no match for the fantastic Zeiss Distagon 21mm f/2.8. Ok, I admit 21mm is unusual focal lenght but for my taste it's simply the perfect focal lenght for landscaping. The Samyang 14mm f/2.8 is just as good as 2000$ Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L USM II (in my view the most overpriced Canon L lens, ever). Well, apart from distortion. Fortunately for Canon the TS-E lenses are fantastic pieces of engineering and it kind of makes up for the lack of quality ultra wide landscaping selection.

Some examples of possibly equal or better alternatives for Canon L-lenses:
- Canon 135L f2 is a fantastic lens. Truly Legendary. But wait until you try the new Zeiss Apo-Sonnar 135mm f/2. It will blow your socks away, image quality and build quality wise It's so much sharper wide open than the Canon and at first I couldn't even believe it. I also have a positive feeling about Sigma's plans to release their 135mm f/1.8 HSM OS Art lens. Interesting times for us fans of 135mm focal lenght
- Canon 35mm f/1.4L: Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART, Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/1.4, Canon EF 35mm f/2 USM IS
- Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L. This is possibly the most controversial L-lens for my taste. Eventually I sold it, because I concluded that I got same IQ from 4-times cheaper Sigma 50mm f/1.4. Now I am waiting for the rumored Samyang 50mm f/1.2
- Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L USM II: Zeiss Distagon 15mm f/2.8, Samyang 14mm f/2.8
- Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM: Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 DI VC USD
- Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM: Now if someone doesn't know the legendary IQ of the Zeiss MP 100 f/2.8 should go check out some image samples from this fantastic 100mm macro lens . Though I admit that I don't really like the amount of CA from this classic Zeiss lens.But then again 100L has some CA as well...

Now regarding autofocus performance. It is true that most of Canon lenses perform better in extremely dim light compared to their third party competitors. But it's silly argument to claim that it's true for all Canon lenses. First examples that come to my mind is the lackluster AF-performance of Canon EF 50/1.4, 50/1.8 or Canon 35mm f/2 (the old one). Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L was full of problems for few years when it was first introduced. Luckily for Canon some improvements were made and the present day 50L focuses really nicely (batches made from 2009-2013 or newer). But I particularly applaud Sigma's improvements in autofocus performance with the introduction of their Art series. Their USB dock works simply flawlessly. It would be certainly beneficial for Canon as well to release their own USB-dock for precise autofocus microadjustment (variable distance), since you can make very precise adjustments for increased autofocus performance and reliability.

To sum up: I am not trying to bash Canon here. I love Canon. But I simply feel sorry for people who are so narrow-minded to think that only one company (Canon) builds quality glass. I hope I will never become as obtuse as the world of photography becomes so much more interesting when you open your mind to other classic lens manufacturers such as Cosina, Contax, Tokina, Sigma, Zeiss, Nikon and Leica And the greatest thing staying with Canon bodies is the fact that you have so many lens options to mount in addition to their Canon counterparts

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?

If you need weathersealing... yes

ben805 wrote in post #16439614
Is BMW worth it? why buy luxury car where you can do the same with a Geo metro to go from point A to B?

good analogy, but i wouldnt say the sigma is equal to a geo metro. Id say the Ls are like a good BMW... and I love BMW's, but the Sigma might be like a dodge viper or something else. they put out some cheap stuff, but they are also able to create something fantastic.

so its like saying do you want a really nice dodge or maybe a little more expensive BMW?

I'd go with the BMW, but some im sure would choose a good dodge.

bent toe wrote in post #16440176
If you need weathersealing... yes

that is also a good point. does the sigma not have that? I mean, i only take my gear out when the weather is ok...

but build is a good factor to put in

Thorrulz wrote in post #16438608
My opinion carries the same amount of weight as yours, sorry if it hurts your feelings but I am not trashing any 3rd party lens here only stating what I see in overall quality of a particular product.

You probably should stick to stating your own reasons as to why you choose the gear to have in your bag than to worry about what someone else thinks and take it personal.

I just don't understand how you can state your opinions with such authority on lenses you have never touched (your quote), let alone owned and used for a bit. Nothing personal, I just don't get where you are coming from.

jrbdmb wrote in post #16440237
I just don't understand how you can state your opinions with such authority on lenses you have never touched (your quote), let alone owned and used for a bit. Nothing personal, I just don't get where you are coming from.

It's called Internet parroting. I read it somewhere on the net so it must be true. Don't need actual hands on experience anymore to become an expert...just need to read about it and parrot what you read.

Hogloff wrote in post #16440346
It's called Internet parroting. I read it somewhere on the net so it must be true. Don't need actual hands on experience anymore to become an expert...just need to read about it and parrot what you read.

i love learning new useless stuff... not that what you said is useless in the conversation, just mindless knowledge - epistemology...

Excuse me in that I should have said I wouldn't own a 3rd party lens. I have owned them in the past and tried several out recently to less than stellar results. In my opinion the quality and consistency isn't reliable enough to consider a 3rd party lens a viable long term investment.

If you've followed any of my other postings you've undoubtedly read my reported less than favorable results I've had with 3rd party lens being met with responses such as:

1. The problem was you were shooting indoors under fluorescent lighting and this particular lens doesn't do well under those conditions.

2. The problem was you shot at different distances and you may need to micro adjust to a given distance and just use the lens dialed in there.

3. Just send the 3rd party lens or camera plus lens in to have them calibrated to each other. Sorry, I shoot with 2 and sometimes 3 bodies so that's not an option.

4. With some 3rd party lens there is a dock to help dial in ma up to four different distances on a specific body. Again I'll state that I shoot with up to 2 full frame and 1 1.6x body sometimes so marrying a lens to only 1 body isn't something I care to do if I don't have to.

So my answer to are L lens worth it? To me for what an L lens brings in consistency and quality they are definitely worth it. In place of an L lens I would still reach for a lens made by Canon for a Canon. The same would hold true if I shot Nikon.

The only exception where I would reach for 3rd party class would be if I did start shooting with manual focus and then I wouldn't hesitate to use a Zeiss lens. I've had them in my hands often enough that I do admire the quality of their optics.

Hogloff wrote in post #16440346
It's called Internet parroting. I read it somewhere on the net so it must be true. Don't need actual hands on experience anymore to become an expert...just need to read about it and parrot what you read.

Hoggy, where have you been?