What is the most non-L L lens?

When I asked a question similar to this the replies I got mostly pointed to the 14L.

I think we are missing the point slightly here. L lenses by definition are Luxury lenses, which means they do some things exceptionally well, the important word here is "some". For example the 200 1.8 is about as sharp as they come. Does that mean that all other L lenses that aren't as sharp dont deserve to be L's. Course it doesn't because they excell in other ways. The 14 2.8 (which has been mentioned) is the widest lens that canon makes, the 50 f1.0 is the fastest lens that canon makes and therfore has the shallowest dof. It doesnt mean that they are also going to be the sharpest. Designing a lens is about compromise, you have to balance, IQ, CA, barrel/pincusshoning, speed, length and price along with a host of other issues. The better the lens rates in any of these fields the higher the cost and it gets to a point where you have to accept that the lens will have some 'faults' as its just not physically possible to reduce them within the price point of the lens.

I can only speak for the L glass that I own or have tried for an extended period of time. I think that all of my gLass qualifies for its L ring including the 14 and the 50. If they didn't I'd sell them.

All the best

BearSummer

ed rader wrote in post #2054970
roger that. i pick the 17-55, and canon agrees with me .

ed rader

Don't worry, Ed. I get it. Maybe later you can explain the humor.

incendy wrote in post #2055183
70-200 F4, but I have only used 5 or 6 L lenses, so my choices are pretty slim. Between the 85 1.2, 135 2.0, 35 1.4, 24-70 and the 70-200, the 70-200 is definately not in the same league, but then again it is like half the price too

You obviously have a bad copy! NMot only have the vast majority of poster/reviewers on POTN praised this lens , but just about everyone else, everywhere else does the same. It is a zoom though and it can't better some of the sharp L primes, but I find it sharper than the 24-70L.

cjm wrote in post #2055737
Yeah I don't get the big deal between the Non Holy Trinity versions. Basically it comes down to build and a coating on the lens as far as I can figure out, the sharpness seems to be there in the NonL versions for the photographer that knows how to use primes.

maybe only low light performance eh? and other non-optical factors such as USM and build.

incendy wrote in post #2055183
70-200 F4, but I have only used 5 or 6 L lenses, so my choices are pretty slim. Between the 85 1.2, 135 2.0, 35 1.4, 24-70 and the 70-200, the 70-200 is definately not in the same league, but then again it is like half the price too

I guess the 70-200 f/4 is the sharpest telezoom available. Pretty lightweight and excellent build. So it's quite rightfully an L.

P.

I love my 70-200 f4. It has been amazing for soccer. We have had cloudy - really cloudy - days lately during soccer and I have no complaints even with ISO up to 800 or 1600. Sharp and so fast. So, I think it's deserving.

The 70-200 F/4 better be deserving because I'm thinking of picking one up. hehe

incendy wrote in post #2055244
I wish somone would let me use the 14L so I could have an opinion on it..

The 14 L is simply misunderstood. I would say the TS-E 24 is the most undeserving.