Are L lenses overrated and overpriced?

panicatnabisco wrote in post #16794267
they're overrated to people that dont need them and invaluable to the people that need them

Overrated? No!
Overpriced Yes!

PoEarth wrote in post #16794649
Overrated? No!
Overpriced Yes!

I was gonna say the same thing...so +1

Hogloff wrote in post #16794648
Obviously I'm not talking about very cheap non-name lenses here, but rather good quality non L glass from Canon, Sigma, Tamron etc...

There you go.
I never said L was better, just explained my take on the build quality question.

Comparable lenses should perform the same from manufacturer to manufacturer, otherwise someone is slipping at their game.

Don't get me wrong, I abhor people who just collect the kit to be cool.
Fekking hipsters wearing a Canon medallion.

You buy the lens that best meets your shooting requirements and budget.
To the above I could sell (and might) all my kit and only have a 400 5.6, which is IMHO quite a singular lens (is there competition for this?).

L lenses are overrated. Just like FF.
/trolling

Dannydoo wrote in post #16794788
L lenses are overrated. Just like FF.
/trolling

Sneaky thing you!

Hogloff wrote in post #16794648
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...

One interesting point here is that Canon L lenses have a 12 month warranty while my Sigma 70-200 has a 48 month warranty. I'm not saying that the Sigma is somehow that much better in "build quality" but it does make one wonder......if L glass is built so darned well, why don't they have a warranty longer than 12 months?

kfreels wrote in post #16794832
One interesting point here is that Canon L lenses have a 12 month warranty while my Sigma 70-200 has a 48 month warranty. I'm not saying that the Sigma is somehow that much better in "build quality" but it does make one wonder......if L glass is built so darned well, why don't they have a warranty longer than 12 months?

Up here in Canada, sigma warrants their lens for 7 years. That is a nice peace of mind.

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."

To me, build quality isn't so much about the ability to survive serious drops, but more about being able to endure many years of normal use, which will include many tens of thousands of pictures, the occasional bang against a wall, blowing dust, some mist or light rain, and once in a while rolling off a car seat when you jam on the brakes. A Nifty 50, as good as its images are for the price, will not endure even normal hobbyist use for many years, let alone a pro using it every day for dozens to hundreds of shots.

archer1960 wrote in post #16794883
To me, build quality isn't so much about the ability to survive serious drops, but more about being able to endure many years of normal use, which will include many tens of thousands of pictures, the occasional bang against a wall, blowing dust, some mist or light rain, and once in a while rolling off a car seat when you jam on the brakes. A Nifty 50, as good as its images are for the price, will not endure even normal hobbyist use for many years, let alone a pro using it every day for dozens to hundreds of shots.

If you look at the repair history at Lenrentals, you'll see two of the most repaired lenses are the 24-70L and 70-200L. Everyone clamors over the build quality of these two L's, yet they are very susceptible to failure from usage.

Hogloff wrote in post #16794648
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...

The higher rate may be due to a higher number of L's vs 3rd party lenses in use. And the fact that such L lenses get used day in and day out. Professional users vs. hobbyists.

Alveric wrote in post #16794928
The higher rate may be due to a higher number of L's vs 3rd party lenses in use. And the fact that such L lenses get used day in and day out. Professional users vs. hobbyists.

He's talking "rate" of repair, in repairs per rental day. So the number of lenses he has in stock or rents out is irrelevant other than it needing to be enough to get a good sample size. And if you read further into his stats, ALL the 70-200s have high repair rates, no matter who the mfr is. Who rents a particular type of lens (pro vs amateur, sports shooter vs nature photog, etc) may affect it in some way, but that would be much harder to quantify.

Alveric wrote in post #16794928
The higher rate may be due to a higher number of L's vs 3rd party lenses in use. And the fact that such L lenses get used day in and day out. Professional users vs. hobbyists.

The failure rates were normalized to number of rental weeks before failure so it doesn't matter how many copies are in use. I found these figures alarming considering these high priced lenses are claimed to be professional grade...whatever that means.

Hogloff wrote in post #16793971
I have the opposite experience. My 35L rolled out of my pack and dropped onto my deck. Bent the filter ring... $275 to fix. The L build quality myth didn't save me.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with build quality.

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.

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.

Some lenses have creep. I would imagine that is true of some lenses from almost every manufacturer. None of my zooms have such a problem, including my two EF-S lenses. Does that mean that they are better than your 24-105? Not really. Just different.

Your earlier comment about sand - getting sand into moving parts is bad for anything. It's easier to seal against moisture than it is against sand. If I ever put my gear in an environment where they got sand on them, I would tuck them away and not use them until I had a chance to clean them properly. Rotating a cylinder with sand in the joint is just about the best way I know of to ruin any mechanical link. Your failure to properly protect one "L" lens doesn't qualify as a legitimate condemnation of all "L" lenses.

Hogloff wrote in post #16794648
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...

Hogloff wrote in post #16794896
If you look at the repair history at Lenrentals, you'll see two of the most repaired lenses are the 24-70L and 70-200L. Everyone clamors over the build quality of these two L's, yet they are very susceptible to failure from usage.

Let's see - Canon has what - four, or maybe five, versions of the 70-200? With that many models, it's only logical to assume that a lens with that designation would be high on the list... there are more of them out in the world being used (and sometimes abused) than any other zoom. And you also don't mention what the repairs are - actual breakdown or user error or mistreatment. And people are less likely to properly care for a rental than for something they own - just ask any landlord.

If you can come back and actually provide qualification for any of your above statements I'd be happy to retract my responses, but anyone can make wild blanket accusations if they cherry pick the available data.

I happen to like both of my "L" lenses. Neither has needed repair. But then none any of my three EF-S models have had any issues either. I could use that as a refutation for your accusations, but to do so, I would have to had experience with a statistically significant cross section of the category. Since I lack that experience, I can only comment on what I actually know, and not try to extrapolate any potentially invalid assumptions.

I have used my lenses very, vey hard, in very bad outdoor conditions, on an everyday basis. And they have never needed any repair of any kind*. CPS has replaced many things for free, but I didn't need these things replaced, they just do it when a lens is sent in for regular, annual check and cleans. The lenses I am referring to are all L lenses - the 24-105mm, the 100-400mm, and the 400mm f2.8 IS . . . plus the 1.4 and 2x teleconverters.

By the way, those Canon teleconverters have survived drops on both asphalt and concrete, and they still work perfectly, despite scratches on the glass, big dents on the mounts and on the housing, and an actual tear in the metal housing. Yet they function as well as they did the day I got them. I wonder if the cheaper Kenko teleconverters would still work perfectly after being dropped on concrete several times, from heights of 3 or 4 feet.

* Except for the big 400mm needing the mount replaced a couple times. Well, I guess it didn't absolutely have to be replaced, but it does get quite worn from being manhandled (improperly?) on an everyday basis.

Preeb wrote in post #16794959
Which has absolutely nothing to do with build quality.

Some lenses have creep. I would imagine that is true of some lenses from almost every manufacturer. None of my zooms have such a problem, including my two EF-S lenses. Does that mean that they are better than your 24-105? Not really. Just different.

Your earlier comment about sand - getting sand into moving parts is bad for anything. It's easier to seal against moisture than it is against sand. If I ever put my gear in an environment where they got sand on them, I would tuck them away and not use them until I had a chance to clean them properly. Rotating a cylinder with sand in the joint is just about the best way I know of to ruin any mechanical link. Your failure to properly protect one "L" lens doesn't qualify as a legitimate condemnation of all "L" lenses.

Let's see - Canon has what - four, or maybe five, versions of the 70-200? With that many models, it's only logical to assume that a lens with that designation would be high on the list... there are more of them out in the world being used (and sometimes abused) than any other zoom. And you also don't mention what the repairs are - actual breakdown or user error or mistreatment. And people are less likely to properly care for a rental than for something they own - just ask any landlord.

If you can come back and actually provide qualification for any of your above statements I'd be happy to retract my responses, but anyone can make wild blanket accusations if they cherry pick the available data.

I happen to like both of my "L" lenses. Neither has needed repair. But then none any of my three EF-S models have had any issues either. I could use that as a refutation for your accusations, but to do so, I would have to had experience with a statistically significant cross section of the category. Since I lack that experience, I can only comment on what I actually know, and not try to extrapolate any potentially invalid assumptions.

Go and read the lens rentals report for yourself if you are truly interested. I'll paste a summary here:

ADDENDUM!! *Looking at the list and saying “Canon has the highest repair rate because they have the most lenses on the list” is pretty silly. We carry far more Canon lenses than any other brand. So they would be expected to have far more lenses in the ‘high repair’ list. The fact that they don’t dominate the list actually indicates they have a lower repair rate (they do, slightly, but it’s certainly not significantly lower).*
Looking at things statistically (as best as can be done) there really isn’t a significant difference either by all lenses, or by fraction of lenses with higher repair rates between any of the brands. *There are some slight overall differences in repair rate by brand but none that seem statistically significant, or even close to it.*
*I repeat, every brand has some fragile lenses.*If you must Fanboy go ahead. But don’t start your comment with “Roger Said” ’cause Roger didn’t.

So like Roger said...if you must Fanboy go ahead.