Canon L lenses that aren't that great?

I have the 70-200mm f4L lense and LOVE it. I am planning to buy more L lenses, but from your experience, are there some L lenses that are not that great? I'm asking because I don't want to spend a small fortune on something and be disappointed after.

Some people know they want an L lens even before they know what they want to use it for.

I use L zooms. 17-40, 70-200 4, 100-400. And consumer primes. 28 1.8, 35 is, 50 stm , 85 1.8 , 100 2.8. and 2 l primes, 135 & 200 2.8. happy with all.

Canon L lenses are generally good to very good and often really good but they are never inexpensive. To save on disappointment and rather than renting a lens you fancy, whether Canon or not, to try and to see if it's is as good as the hype I 'buy' from Amazon if they have it as a direct sale - through them, not a 3rd party seller. You get 30 days in which to play with it. Just make sure you look after it and also keep all the packaging. Even if the lens lives up to expectations you can still return it and buy probably cheaper elsewhere, then the only risk is that you may get a 'poor' copy if you're unlucky. Some might say this is a dubious practice but it's a service that Amazon offers so why not use it? I've done this for years without problem.

I repeat - it's very important that any lens you try/buy is a direct Amazon sale - their returns policy and service is excellent, 3rd party sellers can be dubious with returns.

Have fun.

There ARE some really mediocre L lenses that have been offered for sale in the past. There are some not-terrific (but better than 'really mediocre') L lenses.

I suggest looking up lens reports on www.photozone.de, and the MTF values (compared from one lens to another) will help you to understand which are which. Be aware the lens tested on APS-C will never have as high a number as the same lens testing on FF, so be cautious about comparing numbers directly if not the same format for the test.

Folks do not understand that L lenses were designed 'for the needs of the professional'...meanin​g 'more rugged and able to withstand pro abuse than a non-L' and/or to mean 'white barrel to better withstand heat buildup in the sun'. The public distorted the 'L' designation to mean 'superb optics' but that is not always the case. The 100-400L (the one just replaced in the Canon line-up by the II) is very mediocre.

.

Wilt wrote in post #18074461
Folks do not understand that L lenses were designed 'for the needs of the professional'...meanin​g 'more rugged and able to withstand pro abuse than a non-L' and/or to mean 'white barrel to better withstand heat buildup in the sun'. The public distorted the 'L' designation to mean 'superb optics' but that is not always the case. The 100-400L (the one just replaced in the Canon line-up by the II) is very mediocre.

That is a really great point, Wilt.

Another example of a lens that fits this description would be the 28-300mm f5.6 L. This lens definitely meets the needs of professionals, namely photojournalists. Ye the optics leave a lot to be desired, particularly from those who value sharpness and resolution of fine detail.

.

I was never really thrilled with the sharpness of my 300mm f4L. it was decent stopped down to f8 but just not 'prime sharp' at larger apertures.

My 24-105 is a very handy lens (great focal length coverage and IS) but, again, isn't what i'd call 'super sharp'.

having said that, there are many other important lens characteristics than sharpness. Both of those lenses were very well built and as long as you worked within their limitations they were very consistent performers.

Neither of them is a very expensive lens either.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18074490
.

That is a really great point, Wilt.

Another example of a lens that fits this description would be the 28-300mm f5.6 L. This lens definitely meets the needs of professionals, namely photojournalists. Ye the optics leave a lot to be desired, particularly from those who value sharpness and resolution of fine detail.

.

Its all about using the best tool for the job.

Boring concept, doesn't get you lots of friends on discussion forums and flickr, but it works.

I think you pretty much get what you pay for with L glass, at least in the used market. Sure you might pay a little bit of a premium for the canon name but lots of folks are okay with that.

As for ruggedness vs optics, seems that white lenses are the ones that favor build quality first while the black primes favor optics first.

Copidosoma wrote in post #18074492
I was never really thrilled with the sharpness of my 300mm f4L. it was decent stopped down to f8 but just not 'prime sharp' at larger apertures.

My 24-105 is a very handy lens (great focal length coverage and IS) but, again, isn't what i'd call 'super sharp'.

having said that, there are many other important lens characteristics than sharpness. Both of those lenses were very well built and as long as you worked within their limitations they were very consistent performers.

Neither of them is a very expensive lens either.

+1

The 24-105L isn't a magical pace of glass like the 135L or 85L, but its a good workhorse. It doesn't do anything particularly amazing, but its a solid all around lens. It hard to put it into a "Great" category, but it is a very good do-it-all lens.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18074503
I think you pretty much get what you pay for with L glass....

With some major exceptions, like the 135mm f/2L which is a bargain compared to it's big brother, the 200mm f2L

And I'm not sure I agree with this, although the white lenses are more rugged, in most cases they are also optically superior to their black siblings, with the chart topping MTF scores.
Nothing touches them for overall sharpness.
Of course being white lenses has little to do with why they are the sharpest, it's partly a function of being telephoto.

I always assumed the L was for Luxery, sharpness, the best, not for ruggedness, etc... nice to know. I am dreaming of getting the 135 f2L, but with a canon 7D, don't know how that will work. I do mostly landscapes and a bit of indoor shooting... might be too much for a crop sensor.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18074503
As for ruggedness vs optics, seems that white lenses are the ones that favor build quality first while the black primes favor optics first.

I am not sure that this is an accurate generalization, because so many of the white lenses are really quite superior from an optical standpoint:

400 f2.8 IS I and II
500mm f4 IS II
600mm IS II
800mm f5.6 IS
100-400mm IS II
70-200mm f2.8 IS II
70-300mm f5.6 L
200-400/560 f4/5.6 IS

It'd be hard for me to say of any of the above lenses, "they put build quality first, and optical excellence second". Having used a lot of these lenses, and having seen the files they produce, it really doesn't seem like Canon didn't see optical quality as a top priority. Rather, it seems like optical excellence was their top priority.

.

anitaw2 wrote in post #18074617
I am dreaming of getting the 135 f2L, but with a canon 7D, don't know how that will work. I do mostly landscapes and a bit of indoor shooting... might be too much for a crop sensor.

Don't want to kill your dreams! Go for it! But be aware that a 135 is not common landscape lens - especially not on a crop.

drmaxx wrote in post #18074638
Don't want to kill your dreams! Go for it! But be aware that a 135 is not exactly a landscape lens - especially not on a crop.

A lot - and I mean A LOT - of really great landscapes are shot at focal lengths of 300, 400, and even 500mm. What one photographer thinks of as a "typical" focal length for landscapes can be completely different from what another photographer thinks. A friend of mine shoots landscapes almost exclusively with his 200-400mm zoom, and his landscape work is published very frequently.

.