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

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

We treat everyone as equal here - with a few exceptions

condyk wrote:
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'!

Some of my best shots were taken with a non-L (the 28-105 II). With that said, IQ was definitely a factor when I purchased my first L, but more than anything else, it all boils down to build quality for me. In iraq, I just kept thinking that the environment and elements would just end up eating my poor lens and camera (20D) alive and I had to take super extra precautions when caring for the kit. I never want to be caught short like that again, so L's and weather sealed "indestructable" bodies are an obvious solution for me. It's just too bad all Canon lenses aren't built that way by default and you're forced to pay a premium price for it. But then again, not all photographic situations call for that. BTW, I still think you're cool for a girly-man, Condy.

Absolutely, Snir!

Blonde, if you want a SHARP 100-300, and can take a stop drop compared to the Sigma, find a 100-300 5.6L. No IS, the 5.6 is kind of suckfull, but for a zoom it cuts glass, almost into the 300F4L sharp catagory. Also old, pretty small, and cheeeep It is a one-touch, and some don't like them. Parts are a problem perhaps, but all except for the glass is identical to the non L version. Oh, and the red ring...

That's exactly why I keep saying the same thing ... two members who shall remain nameless: one has a truck full of expensive L's and pro bodies but his shots lack any kind of compositional value and emotion and so fail to engage IMO. Second guy has two lenses that probably cost less than $400 together plus an old body and I have never seen a single shot he's posted that didn't make me stop and think and wonder. Depends on your priorities but be sure the second guy could step up to the great gear while the first guy could never do what the second guy does. Don't be discouraged. Just don't see the gear freaks as role models Remember too that there are plenty of L owners here who can take truly awesome shots, but it's to do with them not their gear

I agree with this somewhat. I have a couple of Canon's best lenses that don't have an L... but I have to point out that there are times when the gear DOES help make a better photo.

Case in point. I was shooting little league games this summer. I started out with my Tamron 75-300mm F/4-5.6 lens and I ended up with the 70-200mm F/4L. Now I almost always found myself at around 160-175mm on the Tamron, so I knew that I wouldn't miss the extra 100mm of reach going to the 70-200. And at that length, the Tammy would be at around F/5 so I was almost a stop faster going with the L. Doesn't sound like much of a jump does it? Well, optically speaking... the shots I got with the Tamron couldn't even come close to touching what I got with the L. The technique was the same... the subject was the same. Even composing the shots were the same. But seeing one photo compared to another is just unfair. The problem is... the Tamron's AF motor is just so much slower than the L so it couldn't keep up with movement like the L could. I got some good shots with the Tammy... but if anyone moved... which happens alot in baseball... Forget it! No... the L did not make me a better photographer... but it allow me a better tool in which to create better photographs.

Guys, remember too that Canon's L series is almost guarenteed quality. I worked at a camera shop, and currently with a wedding photographer who has most L lens, so I'd say I've tried as many L lens as most on here, although none of the lens longer than 200mm in the L range (except my 100-400L).

What's most impressive is that I've never seen a collection from any manufacture come close to the L series. I've seen many positive posts about different lens, just to find myslef wondering "what if" I had gotton the L.

l lens I've borrowed from either job
16-35L, 17-40L, 24-70L, 28-70L, 14L, 35L, 85L (MKI only), 135L, 70-200L (all 3), 200L, 24-105L.

Out of all those lens, how many would I have been dissapointed in if I had purchased them? 2.
The 16-35 was an awsome lens, but I would be upset it didnt excel over the 17-40 more than it did, but the extra stop of light I guess justifys it.

The 24-105 didnt do much for me either, it seemed to be just barely lacking of the L designation.

Basically what I'm saying is that I've had the chance to play with most every L lens, and I've yet to see any that I wouldnt be amazed by, with those two exceptions, and they're only dissapointing to be because of the high standards se,t by other L lens.

I feel that the good gear, and the Low fstop is needed to get a good clean image, and everything other than that is the photographers responcibility. Other lens have their strong points, or images where they excel, I even have images from the kit lens I like, but my keeper ratio is higher with my L glass.

Oh and I just bought a non L series 17-55IS and so far love it, so theres obviously other non L glass I'd like....