Is it worth using L series lenses

I am new to digital SLR's and have just bought a D30 as a starting point. I plan to upgrade to a 10D when finances permit and keep the D30 as a backup.

I have read a lot about images being "soft" straight from the camera compared to consumer models that do more in camera sharpening. This can be corrected in Photoshop using Unsharp Mask I believe.

Hence my question. Is it worth paying a load of cash for an L series lens that is capable of producing tack sharp images, only to be presented with soft images from the camera that need additional sharpening ?

Thanks in advance,
Andy

Hi Andy,

Welcome to this superb forum where the wealth of knowledge is staggering.

Re your query about the worth of using 'L' series lenses I think you will find that the general consensus is if you can afford it but the 'L' lenses. I rely a lot on the advice from the members of this group of ours and consequently have just sold my Canon 20-35 USM in order to part fund the purchase of a Canon 17-40L lens such was the high opinions given here.

Hope this helps,
Barry

Oops! Sorry Andy but the first sentence should have read "..afford it buy the 'L' lenses." You'd only get a sore head if you tried to 'but' one!

Barry

Hi Andy

It depends what you want a lens for. If your thing is reportage and capturing fast moving images, often in poor light with the lens wide open you will find that spending money is your only option. If however you are into landscapes whereby you are often stopped down to f8 or less - the difference between the very expensive and some of the downright cheap is less easy to detect.

The build quality of L lenses is invariably in the tank class - whilst with consumer and third party lenses it varies from very good to very poor. On this you would have to research user reviews.

In the final analysis, assuming you use a 'reasonable' quality lens, a good picture is a good picture and the general viewer neither sees nor cares how many lines per millimetre the lens resolves.

Kevin

Is it worth using L series lenses

When I got my 10D body I went out and bought what I thought were pretty decent lenses. Then I had the opportunity to use a friends "L" glass and I was hooked. If you can swing it finacially definitely go L.

I still have those old lenses but my son has them now and is using them on his Canon Rebel film camera so all was not lost.

There really is nothing wrong with the non L glass but when you draw a comparison of the same image taken with non L and then L you will see the difference in some images, particularly low light.

Alot of this depends on your intended subject matter and how discriminating you are about your own work.

Have you actually tried to sharpen a blurred image with USM? You may improve the image, but the results are quite different from starting with a sharp image. Have you ever scanned an image at low resolution and compared it to a high resolution scan? Have you ever printed a letter at 300 DPI and compared it to one at 600 DPI?

Once you've seen a sharp image taken in your camera with an L lens (printed or on your monitor screen), it's hard to look back. So, if you are satisfied with images from a consumer lenses (as I once was), don't buy, borrow, beg or steal an L lens. The difference is (to my eyes) dramatic.

There are, of course, Canon non-L lenses of superb quality - including the 50/1.8 or 50/1.4. That's where I started and got hooked. Buyer beware

In general, the canon cheap primes are optically on par with the canon "L" zooms. Note that the cheap primes are built cheap. Many lack USM, full time manual focus, etc.

The canon "L" primes are basically built like "L" lenses, and are faster than the "non-L" primes, but are not any sharper.

The canon prosumer zooms are a step down from the primes and "L" zooms. The kit zooms are one step further down.

However it is done, sharpening creates some forms of artefacts and therefore changes the photo you though you had taken. If you sharpen in camera then do some PS levels manipulation, those artefacts become more visible. I leave any sharpening to the last operation as far as possible and accept working with a "soft" image until then. L lenses require less sharpening at any stage and there is therefore less artefaction (if thats a word; if not it should be). You are therefore taking a photo very slightly truer to reality. If that is worth the money is only a decision you can make

Andy,

Do you have any lenses yet to go with your D30?

What I recomend to people asking this question before urging them to spend the big bucks is to get the tried and true 50mm f/1.8 lens,. and compare it too whatever standard zoom they might allready own.

If you come out of that side by side wishing your zoom looked as good as the 50mm,.. then you are indeed the type of individual who may benifit from the pricey glass.

As said above,. many of the Canon primes that are not very pricey will give results as good as, or nearly as good as the costly L lens.

So experiment with these affordable options, before chasing the multithousand dollar dream lenses

I've found that paying double the price for a lens rarely nets double the image quality. It's always noticeable, but seldom astounding.

If you consider that with post processing, you can add a touch of sharpness or contrast, the loss you get with cheaper glass isn't as bad.

Also.. A lot of what you pay for in L glass is in the body material, not the glass itself. They use metal body parts instead of plastic to make them more rugged. Also, most L lenses are weather resistant and have rubber gaskets.

You definitely do get more with L glass...I'm not discounting it by any means.. But if you are budget constrained (aren't we all ) you should be able to get by with 'regular' lenses..

Some very interesting opinions in this thread... Hmmmm...

L glass is made from the finest optical glass known to man. L zooms are created with exactly the same glass as L primes. Exactly. The reason that any zoom lens will tend to be less sharp at wide apertures is because they have more glass in them to create the zoom feature. You get an L zoom such as the infamous 70-200 f2.8 IS or the 100-400 and stop it down a couple of stops, you will not be able to discern a zoom lens photo from a prime.

When I made the switch from standard Canon lenses, which are very, very fine lenses, the change was absolutely astounding. The color rendition, contract and sharpness I saw in my photos was shocking. A huge definite bundle of wow-factor came when I made the change to L.

And with the dSLRs it's not really that the images come out inherently soft, but the fact that they come out neutral. If you're coming over from a P&S, most of those cameras add gobs of in camera sharpening.

The reason that dSLRs are set neutral is that a more discerning photographer will more than likely be using the camera and we tend to want our images neutral and with little or no in camera processing whatsoever.

As it is, our images do come out of the camera slightly sharpened. You can kick up some sharpening in the camera but we never suggest it. Forget in camera processing and do your own sharpening.

But I digress, back on topic. If you don't have L glass it's hard to justify the cost. I have been there and never could understand all the hub-bub over this super expensive L glass. Everyone's running around peeing their pants over their L lenses. I thought they were nuts! There was NO WAY I was going to pay MORE for a lens than what I paid for my freaking camera.

Until I took a bite of that L lens pie.

Wow! Amazing. Yes, I do still have a few non-L lenses and probably will have them for awhile, but the next two lenses on my wish list are both L-glass.

Whether you make the plunge or not is a personal decision you have to make. Is it worth it? For me it most certainly is and I'll recommend L-glass any day of the week.

They are expensive, but I do feel, they are worth every single penny I have paid for them and the photos show it.

Good luck with your decision.

P.S.

I have not been at this for years like some of our more knowledgable contributors.

But I can offer this ...

I was not only skeptical of the "L" phenomenon,. I was downright leary of it.

It has been just about a year since the first time I even considered owning an "L" lens.. during that time I had gradually allowed my budget for lenses to increase.

I now find myself the owner of 3 "L" lenses.....

I took the long way around,. upgrading as I went. I neede to establish a control group with incrementally better lenses. In the end,. I too (as many told me I would) ended up with Canon "L"

Andy,

have you considered borrowing or renting a couple of L and non-L lenses, to find out whether the improvements gained from L lenses are worth YOUR extra money? Just an idea.

Neil D.
Jedi Master Chef

I guess what I would say is that you might get similar quality TODAY out of a non L lens, you probably won't after a few years have passed. I look at the build quality of my 16-35 and 70-200 L lenses and I can see how they are so much better built compared to my 24-85 f3.5-4.5.

But I have to tell you that I am happy with the results I get from that non L lens, as well as my 50 f1.4 and 100 macro.

To a certain extent I think that this has to be like buying carpet. Get the really, really good stuff for things that you will use in high traffic areas and save some money in the less travelled places.

Doggone it anyway - I'm having an increasingly difficult time resisting that 70-200 2.8L. Very difficult....