Are L lenses overrated and overpriced?

I tend to look at the lens' features more than the 'L' designation, and the key is that most of the 'L' lenses have the better feature sets over the non-L Canon choices.

Take the 24-105L as an example, the key items in this lens that make me choose it over options like the 28-135 IS or the 28-105 1:3.5-4.5 are the wider wide end (24mm vs. 28mm), the constant f/4 aperture and the IS (vs. the 28-105).

Similar for other lenses I have like the 70-200/2.8 IS II and the 100-400. There simply are no Canon lenses with the same combination of focal length and aperture.

If the L lenses were really expensive I would probably compromise and live with lenses that had lesser ranges or slower maximum apertures, but to me the cost of most of the 'L' lenses is within my reach and so I pick them for the features they offer.

I don't need to try and figure out if they have better build quality or are more or less reliable at Lensrentals or whatever. In every 'L' lens I have, there is some specific feature (or set of features) that made me pick it. Usually it's focal length, maximum aperture and ring USM leading the features for me.

JeffreyG wrote in post #16795272
I tend to look at the lens' features more than the 'L' designation, and the key is that most of the 'L' lenses have the better feature sets over the non-L Canon choices.

Take the 24-105L as an example, the key items in this lens that make me choose it over options like the 28-135 IS or the 28-105 1:3.5-4.5 are the wider wide end (24mm vs. 28mm), the constant f/4 aperture and the IS (vs. the 28-105).

Similar for other lenses I have like the 70-200/2.8 IS II and the 100-400. There simply are no Canon lenses with the same combination of focal length and aperture.

That is a really good point, Jeffrey. My reasons for buying "L" lenses are the same as yours; for example, I bought the 100-400 f5.6L because Canon doesn't make a 100-400 f5.6 non-L. Same with the 400 f2.8.

In fact, of all the Canon lenses that would be useful to me, considering what I shoot and how I shoot it, in most cases, the only lenses that make sense are "L" lenses, ones that have no non-L counterpart.

I buy overrated and overpriced gear because I can
/troll

airfrogusmc wrote in post #16792384
Overpriced? Have you seen the price of Leica M or Zeiss glass? Many of those are more expensive but many are well worth the price.

ha ha! tell 'em airfrog. L lenses are the best. if you want the best you pay the price and canon is definitely not overpriced.

mike325 wrote in post #16795255
L lenses are designed for the working photographer in mind who needs the better build and nicer features of the more expensive glass.

For a lot of us, we don't need that because we do it for a hobby (myself included). I have owned the 70-200 F4 and 100-400L and both were excellent, but just too much to justify keeping for my usage. I got a cheaper telephoto for my needs. The L glass was better though. I'll get one again once I feel the need.

That does not mean that you are not going to get excellent pictures from cheaper glass. Composition, subject matter, practice, lighting, this is what you need to look at. You can take crap photos with the most expensive lenses out there.

I feel like people get hung up on the more expensive = better shots and that's just not the case.

So are L lenses over rated? No. Over priced? Maybe some are a little. Worth it? Only if you need them.

while that may be so many serious and not so serious hobbyists use L lenses because they can afford the best. photography is a lucrative field for only the select few.

Hogloff wrote in post #16794990
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.

So you use this quote to refute what I said? I never said that Canon lenses, "L" or not, were better than many others (although this quote seems to indicate that they might indeed be slightly better). I simply said that your anecdotal experiences didn't constitute significant data. Apparently the data from Lens Rentals doesn't show that any other lenses are significantly better. For me that's all I need to know.

I feel that the choices I made in my kit serve my needs and budget. If I ever decide to go full frame, I can probably sell my 60D plus the 3 EF-S lenses and recover the investment for a 6D with 24-105 "L". Then I'll have 3 "L" lenses, and still feel that it's the kit I want. If I'd gone off brand I might have had less expense initially, but I'd also have far less to turn over in a trade.

Hogloff wrote in post #16795011
As far as putting away your gear when the going gets tough...isn't this why we purchase expensive L glass versus the cheaper glass? If I put away my gear every time the conditions got lousy, I would miss most of my landscape shots.

I don't buy my gear and travel to remote areas just to hide when the weather does not agree with me. I hope my equipment can handle these conditions if I can. From my experience, having used both L and non L glass, I have not seen any benefits of one over the other in adverse conditions.

I said I'd put it away if I thought I'd gotten sand in the works. But before that I'd take some steps to protect it if I knew I was going to be in such an environment, even if nothing more than an OpTech rain sleeve.

panicatnabisco wrote in post #16795380
I buy overrated and overpriced gear because I can
/troll

I buy cheap fake dummy Canon lenses and then paint red stripes on them, so I look really cool.

Photography is just a hobby to me, but after buying two of the L lenses, I would never go back. I sometimes shoot in dusty or rainy conditions, and that alone makes it worth it to me. But that does not mean it will be for everyone.

for me the build which translates to weight of the L glass is just so nice in your hands. being old, i doubt i could see that much colour or clarity difference between L and non L but seeing that i can afford it, why not. my collection is old L glass, mk i for the 24-70 and 70-200, 85 and a 300 non is but its works well for me. i am not only a fan of L but also of just canon instead of a sigma 120-300 i chose the 300. the only question i have now is, should i get the sigma 85 1.4 seeing that its suppose to be really good. and the tokina uwa.

JeffreyG wrote in post #16795272
I tend to look at the lens' features more than the 'L' designation, and the key is that most of the 'L' lenses have the better feature sets over the non-L Canon choices.

Take the 24-105L as an example, the key items in this lens that make me choose it over options like the 28-135 IS or the 28-105 1:3.5-4.5 are the wider wide end (24mm vs. 28mm), the constant f/4 aperture and the IS (vs. the 28-105).

Similar for other lenses I have like the 70-200/2.8 IS II and the 100-400. There simply are no Canon lenses with the same combination of focal length and aperture.

If the L lenses were really expensive I would probably compromise and live with lenses that had lesser ranges or slower maximum apertures, but to me the cost of most of the 'L' lenses is within my reach and so I pick them for the features they offer.

I don't need to try and figure out if they have better build quality or are more or less reliable at Lensrentals or whatever. In every 'L' lens I have, there is some specific feature (or set of features) that made me pick it. Usually it's focal length, maximum aperture and ring USM leading the features for me.

This is a great post. As you say, L lenses do have tangible features that are desirable.

However, this doesn't excuse some of Canon's pricing lately nor does it explain some of the ridiculous fan-boy superlatives that often accompany any discussion of these lenses that make the optical qualities of some L lenses sound almost magical.

Windsun33 wrote in post #16795699
I buy cheap fake dummy Canon lenses and then paint red stripes on them, so I look really cool.

Like my red ring 18-135mm STM? I also have a red ring 40mm f/2.8,, and too much time on my hands

VirtualRain wrote in post #16796251
This is a great post. As you say, L lenses do have tangible features that are desirable.

However, this doesn't excuse some of Canon's pricing lately nor does it explain some of the ridiculous fan-boy superlatives that often accompany any discussion of these lenses that make the optical qualities of some L lenses sound almost magical.

Yes, I've seen that. The more vague the gushing "It just has a magical look" the more likely one is witnessing cognitive dissonance.

Not to say that some L lenses are not really excellent performers. My 70-200/2.8 IS II is just excellent in almost all measures, even wide open.

But other L lenses can have some flaws. I have the 24-105L for the reasons I mentioned, and I generally like it. But the lens does have some pretty hefty distortion and vignette between 24mm and 28mm. So I love the lens as a 'one lens solution' on vacation, but if I am shooting at 24mm and I have options, I would rather use my 16-35 or 24L at that range.

Ratjack wrote in post #16792078
Overrated? no. Overpriced? no

Once you own one, you will see . So do your wallet a favor.... don't ever touch an L lens lol.

Overrated? SOMETIMES. Overpriced? YES

If Tamron can make a 24-70 f2.8 VC and 70-200 f2.8 VC that is very, very close to Canon's legendary IQ for about $1,000 less, I find it hard to believe that Canon could not reduce their prices. I do understand why they don't, but that's not point.

Oldschool1948 wrote in post #16796607
Overrated? NO. Overpriced? YES

If Tamron can make a 24-70 f2.8 VC and 70-200 f2.8 VC that is very, very close to Canon's legendary IQ for about $1,000 less, I find it hard to believe that Canon could not reduce their prices. I do understand why they don't, but that's not point.

It's always good to remember that price and cost are only distant relations to each other.

Price is simply what people are willing to pay.

The only solid relation to cost is that when cost is higher than the price that can be charged, the item won't be available.

VirtualRain wrote in post #16796251
... nor does it explain some of the ridiculous fan-boy superlatives that often accompany any discussion of these lenses that make the optical qualities of some L lenses sound almost magical.

I think that it's a result of the maturation process of photographers.

People new to the hobby are awed and befuddled by pricing of premium lenses and may take tongue-in-cheek statements by more experienced photographers at face value. If the interest takes hold, they up their commitment level, both in terms of time and money.

Then the joy of acquiring new toys, reinforced with experiencing some of the tangible features and benefits of premium products, may kick their excitement level up to near-religious levels, at which time they parrot the tongue-in-cheek-statements but do so with sincerity. I think that this is really the fanboy stage, where we know just enough to be annoying and cocksure, but not enough to know that the person behind the camera is, by a large margin, the most important piece of the puzzle. Some grow out of this stage pretty quickly and some stay in it for a long, long time.

As far as perception of L vs other premium offerings... I think that it's understandable. There's an "off-brand" stigma in a lot of consumer spaces, I don't see why cameras would be any different. Especially when a customer is new to the market, they'll see the off brands primarily as a price-conscious compromise and that's something that's very, very hard to shake off (and, like it or not, there is something to say about the piece of mind of staying with the core manufacturer). Sigma may be starting to see some light at the end of the tunnel in this regard, but deserved or not, you still have people talking about QC and "the lottery." Zeiss is a rare alternate manufacturer that carries prestige rather than stigma.