What does the "L" mean on a certain lens?

I've had four L's and only kept one because frankly I found the results don't justify the cost over cheaper lenses. There is a lot of hype and a lot of people wanting to feel good about themselves. You get the same on every forum: cars, hi-fi, music, computers, whatever. Take it all with a large pinch of salt.

The shooter makes the shot. Learn composition and exposure and you can get superb results. Learn them and use the best quality lenses and the results will be even better, of course. But the shot comes first and that is really about 'the eye' and, often, being able to compose in the moment knowing that your camera will take the right shot because you have set it up to do so. You can't buy craft and composition and that's why there is so much talk about 'lens sharpness' here. That can be bought, but it is not that important IMO.

Why not tell us the kind of shots you like to take, where you are going and what your lens budget is. People will advise. You don't have to pay big bucks. If you choose to do so then that is fine. Just remember the lens doesn't make a good shot

sometimes the L lenses are the only ones in their category such as the 135L. If you need f2 at the longest you can get its your only option (200 f1.8 was the same way, but thats a whole other disucssion). As far as the quality goes, you can get similiar image quality from non L lenses made by other manufactures such as tamron and sigma, but they will usually lack one or more L qualities. I use one tamron lens and the image quality is very good, but focus speed and build quality is not quite up to L standards, but for my needs, this is fine. I have yet to hear of a lens that will match the 70-200 f4L in terms of quality and aperture for that price. the sigma 2.8 is attractive, but at a higher cost. Consumer zooms are still a few steps behind

condyk wrote:
I've had four L's and only kept one because frankly I found the results don't justify the cost over cheaper lenses. There is a lot of hype and a lot of people wanting to feel good about themselves. You get the same on every forum: cars, hi-fi, music, computers, whatever. Take it all with a large pinch of salt.

The shooter makes the shot. Learn composition and exposure and you can get superb results. Learn them and use the best quality lenses and the results will be even better, of course. But the shot comes first and that is really about 'the eye' and, often, being able to compose in the moment knowing that your camera will take the right shot because you have set it up to do so. You can't buy craft and composition and that's why there is so much talk about 'lens sharpness' here. That can be bought, but it is not that important IMO.

Why not tell us the kind of shots you like to take, where you are going and what your lens budget is. People will advise. You don't have to pay big bucks. If you choose to do so then that is fine. Just remember the lens doesn't make a good shot

condyk,

most of the time i agree with you 100%, you don't need an L to get a great shot. however, you make it seem that the only reason people buy L is to make themselves look good which is just wrong. there are L lenses out there that are simply the best and even you can't argue with that. there are L lenses out there that are the best at what they do and that some people actually need. take the 100-400L for example, you can twist it all you want but there is no other lens on the market that offer the varsatility of this lens (i know that you will say Bigma but it doesn't have IS and it is not light enough to be used hand held for me). also, you know as well as i do that some L lenses are the best at what they do. for example, the 300 f2.8 IS for sports is very much needed if thats what you shoot. much like the sigma 300-800 is the best if you do wildlife and have a sturdy tripod. if a person buy an L lens just because it is an L than yes, you are right and it is pretty funny. however, if a person buy an L because they think that it is the best tool for the job, go for it. i know that you have something against L after you started buying all the MF lenses but you have admit that some L lenses are worth the money...

Not everyone does that. I agree.

I had both. IS is good. That's why I got my 24-105mm IS L. The 100-400mm doesn't offer what I personally need over and above the Bigma, but costs a lot more. It is personal preferences and compromise. I prefer 500mm for safari shooting and know a beanbag or monopod will get me the shots in the conditions I know I will come across. Would I say no to a 100-400mm IS L at the same price ... possibly IS and size could swing it. But actually, I probably would still go Bigma at the end of the day.

Agreed 110%.

Not so. I have an L right now and use it a lot. I am against people being brainwashed by the 'L Fever' crowd. I'd rather they took the time to learn photography as a craft and an art rather than be led to think they can buy a good shot. By definition a good shot for many has become a sharp shot. I will simply continue to say a sharp shot isn't implicitely a good shot. spend time learning what makes a good shot. I think you will agree that is a useful thing to do.

Of course, you can learn and use good glass too. They don't have to be L's. They don't have to be expensive. How about we encourage people who can't afford to spend much as well as those with money to burn? My 100-300mm F4 Sigma was better than any of my other long lenses, including the Bigma, 100-400mm IS L and 300mm IS L and cheaper than any of them. I wonder why these kinds of lenses are only spoken about by a few? It's because they are not seen as 'cool' - just having an L is somehow 'cool' I guess on the whole I am pretty 'uncool'!

^^^i agree with all points, just wanted to be clear. and yes, i will put the 100-300F4 sigma against most Canon L lenses and i will even put money that it can beat them 90% of the time. i had that lens and its IQ is not far from the most expensive canon's. too bad it is kinda heavy. like you said, each person has its own shooting style, for me, after trying about 20 lenses, the canon 100-400 works best. mitcon can put me to shame any day of the week with his bigma....

as for what people call a good shot, again i agree 100%. i also see a trend here of people pixel peeping and if the picture is not 100% sharp, it sucks. i also see many amazing shots that people dismiss because they are not L sharp.

the bigma is a fantastic lens IF like you said, you can have a monopod or a bean bag handy. i for one, am a big fan of being portable and i try to avoid monopods and tripods as much as i can which is why the extra money for the 100-400 is worth it TO ME.

the buttom line is that L lens won't make you a better photographer but it can help your already good shots become better...

as for you being "uncool", not at all. i think that you are cool regardless of your lenses and at least you use them and take great shots. there are many people here that have tons of L lenses and yet they rarely use it or they still don't know what a good photograph means...

I have seen some very poor photography done by people using L lenses who seem to think that buying a more expensive lens will make them a better photographer.

For those people, L stands for "Lensoholics" who often end up suffering from "Light wallet syndrome"

WOW! What a refreshing turn this thread has taken. Even though I have only recently begun to post with any regularity, I lurk here at least a couple of hours almost everyday. I don't have a lot of photographic talent, but I like to take pictures. I also like to learn -- about anything and everything. That is my main reason for being a member here. I read almost every thread that is posted whenever I am online, even if the topic is not of specific relevance to my situation. When I read all of the 'L' this and 'L' that in response to newbies asking which $200 lense they should buy, I am often disheartened. I also look at the signatures of those posting. Man, a ton of money is being spent on L lenses! Maybe, one day the wish list in my signature will be fulfilled. In the meantime, I'll continue to be budget-conscious and, probably L - free. Besides, I don't like white lenses, so any L would have to be a short one.

Some of Canon's best lenses don't wear an L. And anyone that thinks that owning an L will make them a better photographer is insane. Superior equipment doesn't compensate for inferior subject matter and techniques.

Hear hear..
Besides, I got the Sigmonster to compensate for my small cajones..

the "L" means that some part of the construction involved something expensive that typically puts it out of the range (or needs) of a more casual user. specifically, an L lens usually has either a (1) fluoride crystal lens or (2) a ground (not molded) aspherical lens or (3) a lens using ultra-low dispersion glass.

its kinda silly to think that there are two "classes" of lenses. lots of great lenses have no "L" and no "L" counterpart - the 50mm f/1.4 for example. the 85mm f/1.8 will get you nearly everything the normal user would get from the 85mm L f/1.2 (which i say as an owner of the L and also of the 100mm f/2, sibling of the 85mm f/1.8 ). there are generally lots of tradeoffs involved. also, if you have a camera that accepts ef-s lenses, some of those are as good as or better than any L (in terms of sharpness, size, weight). the 60mm is wicked sharp and a nice tiny walkaround.

I think you guys are 'jacking the thread. The poor guy only wanted to know what an L was. Most of them are great high-performance, if expensive. They (usually) employ the latest tech. They're (mostly) big and heavy. They attract attention. Some people can afford them, some can't, some need them, some don't...yadda, yadda.

Clearly, but as you said talent + proper equipment = stunning work. You can take a great shot with a craptastic lens, perfect exposure and great composition. You can also get ridiculous color casts, light fall off, horrendous Chromatic aberration etc.

No discerning hobbyist or professional is going to learn a craft and then be happy with anything but the best equipment. I know I'd be pretty upset to have a fantastic shot that I couldn't sell due to some horrid CA or light fall off or something. It is peace of mind for a lot of people, not simple people "wanting to feel better about themselves".

This doesn't just go with L lenses either, same can be said for many non L lenses as well as Leicas or Zeiss and the like that cost exhorbinant amounts and make Ls look budget.

I think the OP has 'probably' found his answer 'somewhere' here

'TEXAS DIVER', If not, have a look at this site for more info - Just did a quick Google search and this is the top of the list, and seems to explain about them better than us rambling on and on...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …/Canon-L-Lens-Series.aspx

For more general info:

http://photonotes.org/​reviews/ef-lenses/

For the record, this "poor guy" is a woman!

'L' is for the lovelight you see in your wife's eyes before you tell her the price.
'L' is for the life you will have after you disclose the price
'L' is for lots of luck in whatever you do.