Are L lenses overrated and overpriced?

Super overrated.

Hogloff wrote in post #16793919
All this talk about build quality...do you really feel it's worth all the extra $$$ for this? I've been shooting since the 70's with many different lenses from many different manufactures and none to this date fell apart because of their build quality.

I started in the 80s, but I've had a couple of lenses wear out from use rather than die from misadventure:

- a third party zoom with a plastic zoom cam that wore out. The part was replaced, and that also wore out. At the time this was the single most expensive piece of camera equipment I owned.

- an Olympus OM Zuiko zoom with plastic internal parts that wore out. That was the 35-70mm f/3.5-4.5 "S". Apparently the "S" was put on their cheaper build lenses - some said it stood for something that rhymes with "hit".

So far, none of my Canon L lenses shows any sign of wear, like loose focussing or barrel wobble. I've never intensively used any non-L Canon lens, so I can't say how they would have done.

- if a lens becomes loose the focussing unit can shift around, and it will produce bad images.

- if a lens breaks, say on a trip somewhere special, it will produce no image at all.

melcat wrote in post #16794034
- if a lens becomes loose the focussing unit can shift around, and it will produce bad images.

- if a lens breaks, say on a trip somewhere special, it will produce no image at all.

sort of like my 24-105 L ruined my Antelope Canyon shots because of it's zoom creep? So much for L build quality saving the day.

I actually have 3 Zuiko primes that are 25 years old that I use and they are all in great condition even after years of use.

I just hope people don't purchase this expensive L glass thinking it won't fail...that is far from reality. My experience, and I own a fair amount of L glass, I don't see any evidence that L glass will outlast god glass from third party manufactures.

My 24-105 has zoom creep, but I did the screw fix and it seems to have resolved itself. I do not think that at the end of the day, an L lens will survive an catastrophic accident better than a non L lens. But general use, they do seem to have a better feel when focusing etc.. They dont compare to the Zeiss lenses I have manipulated in the past. Tighter tolerances and more robust plastics make them feel solid.

The difference between the 18-55 ef-s and the 24-105L is pretty obvious. Same goes for the difference between the 100 2.8L and the Zeiss 100mm f2.

Hogloff wrote in post #16794051
sort of like my 24-105 L ruined my Antelope Canyon shots because of it's zoom creep? So much for L build quality saving the day.

Yes, I almost had another bullet point that a well-built lens is less likely to go out of adjustment if knocked... until I remembered that the 24-70mm f/2.8 Mk I is notorious for decentering its front element.

I sold a couple recently for very good prices. One 35 years old, the other 19 years old, both still going strong and producing excellent images. The "newer" of the two had seen some heavy usage. My point was that even with the OM lenses, well known for their build quality, there were some marketed as more affordable and the maker helpfully put a clue on the bezel.

I know people like their lenses here, but really it's taking it a bit far. And the incense wouldn't be good for it.

The Dark Knight wrote in post #16793927
LOL, you are probably going to inflame a lot of people here with this. It's just natural human instinct that if you spend the type of dough that an L-lens commands, people are going to want to defend that decision. Happens for all kinds of products.

Couldn't agree more. Also, those that defend their purchase will always be accused of just defending the purchase because they spent so much on a product. Vicious cycle, isn't it?

I can honestly say I just wanted the best glass, period. If you look at my sig, I have two ES lenses, and really the only reason I would sell/replace them is if I decided to get rid of my 7D. I could have bought "L" glass in place of those, but didn't.

If anyone is buying L glass just to blow money or impress people without honestly wanting the best glass, then they're crazy. I could think of much better things to spend my money on.. especially if I personally could get the same results (not "almost as good) from my L glass as something significantly cheaper.

Everyone has their acceptable level of what they are willing to spend to get "X" results for, doesn't mean any of us are wrong for our decisions.

they're overrated to people that dont need them and invaluable to the people that need them

melcat wrote in post #16794090
I know people like their lenses here, but really it's taking it a bit far. And the incense wouldn't be good for it.

How is it taking it a bit far?

Sirrith wrote in post #16794273
How is it taking it a bit far?

God glass..incense...

gnome chompski wrote in post #16794281
God glass..incense...

ohhh riiight

My brain is clearly off today.

Just a little input since I see this thread has taken off very quickly.

L lenses IMO are hit or miss, some are extremely good compared to 3rd party lenses at their price point, some are not that great for their price point.

Example being if you compare a Canon 70-200 f2.8 to a Tamron 70-200 f2.8, there have been results of equally sharp images on the Tamron, but coloring problems on the Canon. That being said there was slight darkening of the corners on the Tamron. Would you rather have correct colors, or perfectly light corners?

The answer is pretty simple here.

Overpriced? That depends again, some are definitely overprice for what you're getting compared to third party, then again some are pretty fairly priced, especially if purchased second hand.. 24-105 L rings a bell in that fairly priced range, being a kit lens helps to bring down that price as well. 70-200 f4 L is also pretty fairly priced if you go with the non-IS.

I'm reading this with great interest because I'm just starting back up in photography and building-up my gear. I'm not yet at the stage -- neither skill nor finance-wise -- where I'm ready to buy L lenses, but that is something I would consider in the future if/when I feel I've reached the limits of my current gear. So it's somewhat surprising to me to learn that an L is not always the best option within a given selection of focal lengths and apertures.

Aside from pouring over technical measurements on DXO or trying to weed through reviews on B&H or Adorama, which have lead to disappointment in the past, how do I learn which non-L lenses are as good as or better than their L counterparts? Assuming that weather/dust sealing is not critical and build quality needs to be good but not necessarily withstand nuclear detonation, what are the sleepers among non-L glass? Or is it entirely subjective?

In particular, if the 24-105L has bad distortion at 24mm, which alternative 24-105 fixed f/4 lens produces overall better results? Among all 70-200mm f/2.8 options, is there any one that can be categorically declared the winner? Does this change significantly if we add in the ability to automatically correct in LR/PS using lens profiles?

And also, a comment made above indicated that the optics for a full-frame lens doesn't necessarily provide the best IQ on a crop sensor. That confuses me, because I thought that when using a FF lens on a crop sensor you are using the center of the projected image, which is usually the sharpest part of the lens. Aside from the change in FOV, how does putting a good FF lens on a crop sensor degrade the IQ?

bumpintheroad wrote in post #16794385
I'm reading this with great interest because I'm just starting back up in photography and building-up my gear. I'm not yet at the stage -- neither skill nor finance-wise -- where I'm ready to buy L lenses, but that is something I would consider in the future if/when I feel I've reached the limits of my current gear. So it's somewhat surprising to me to learn that an L is not always the best option within a given selection of focal lengths and apertures.

Aside from pouring over technical measurements on DXO or trying to weed through reviews on B&H or Adorama, which have lead to disappointment in the past, how do I learn which non-L lenses are as good as or better than their L counterparts? Assuming that weather/dust sealing is not critical and build quality needs to be good but not necessarily withstand nuclear detonation, what are the sleepers among non-L glass? Or is it entirely subjective?

In particular, if the 24-105L has bad distortion at 24mm, which alternative 24-105 fixed f/4 lens produces overall better results? Among all 70-200mm f/2.8 options, is there any one that can be categorically declared the winner? Does this change significantly if we add in the ability to automatically correct in LR/PS using lens profiles?

And also, a comment made above indicated that the optics for a full-frame lens doesn't necessarily provide the best IQ on a crop sensor. That confuses me, because I thought that when using a FF lens on a crop sensor you are using the center of the projected image, which is usually the sharpest part of the lens. Aside from the change in FOV, how does putting a good FF lens on a crop sensor degrade the IQ?

I think rather than looking at every lens and asking for potn to review every pro and con regarding every lens just begin with the focal lengths that your interested in.

Currently I think the tamron 24-70 2.8 vc and 70-200 2.8 vc are both excellent lenses compared the canon counterparts that would be more than dbl the price. You can get both tamrons for less than either of the canons.
Any macro lens is excellent just choose your focal length. Sigma has some excellent excellent art series primes that are giving the canons a good run for the money. It really just depends on what focal length you are looking at at then then start the researching.

Hogloff wrote in post #16794051
I just hope people don't purchase this expensive L glass thinking it won't fail...that is far from reality. My experience, and I own a fair amount of L glass, I don't see any evidence that L glass will outlast god glass from third party manufactures.

I would hope that is about the case!

Build quality is easy.
Advancement in technology has also been about advances made in design, production and materials.
For the most part, items that had to machined to a very high standard from exotic materials, can now probably be cast from some abs resin, epoxy, composite.

We are all used to our products lasting fewer years each time we replace them.

Good glass is a luxury to many, and thus the option to go better build quality is a reassurance that the glass will not need replacing in it's normal lifetime (statistically).

Yes I am "thinning" the point down to get it across.

The talk of dropping glass is just ... wow!!!
Dropping a lens is abuse, NOT normal use, for this you need insurance, not build quality.
To make this example is the same as saying "that Ferrari might have cost $1,000,000 but it is crap and hype. It will survive a high speed crash with a wagon no better than a Fiat 500 will."

Foggiest wrote in post #16794605
I would hope that is about the case!

Build quality is easy.
Advancement in technology has also been about advances made in design, production and materials.
For the most part, items that had to machined to a very high standard from exotic materials, can now probably be cast from some abs resin, epoxy, composite.

We are all used to our products lasting fewer years each time we replace them.

Good glass is a luxury to many, and thus the option to go better build quality is a reassurance that the glass will not need replacing in it's normal lifetime (statistically).

Yes I am "thinning" the point down to get it across.

The talk of dropping glass is just ... wow!!!
Dropping a lens is abuse, NOT normal use, for this you need insurance, not build quality.
To make this example is the same as saying "that Ferrari might have cost $1,000,000 but it is crap and hype. It will survive a high speed crash with a wagon no better than a Fiat 500 will."

So where is this evidence that Sigma or Tamron lenses wear out sooner than L lenses? In fact, if you look at the lenses that require the most frequent need of repair at LensRentals, the 24-70L and the 70-200L are near the top of the list. And to boot, the L lens cost more to repair than others. So I just don't see any evidence L glass perceived "build quality" actually translates into lasting longer in the real world compared to other quality lenses.

Obviously I'm not talking about very cheap non-name lenses here, but rather good quality non L glass from Canon, Sigma, Tamron etc...