"L" vs "Non-L" comparison.

I'm looking to slowly switch over all my lens to "L". Beside the nice and wider aperature I'm very curious about pixel by pixel quality.

Obvisiously the built quality is better and you get those "should have included" extra like case / hood.

Is there a direct photographic comparison test between ie: 50mm "L" at f2.0 vs 50mm "Non-L at f2.0 on the same subject?

pixel peeping is bad... reason for an L is for build, extra stop or two, focus speed (except with the case of the 1.2 lenses), bokeh quality, and because you like holes in your pockets. between the 50mm lenes there is basically no difference in sharpness from f2.8 up. thrifty and 1.4 have same sharpness, but 1.4 has better colors, focus speed, and better build. the 1.2 should have similar attributes, though the focus may be slower.

You forgot to mention that the glass in L lenses are made with fluorite. There is a difference in an L zoom vs. a consumer zoom, and not just expense. The image quality is noticeably better. However, non-L prime lenses also produce images of good quality, so don't overlook them when adding to your kit.

70-300mm f4-5.6 IS is commonly regarded as "the hidden L lens" for its sharp optics... but build quality and speed are not up to L standards. The 50mm F/1.4 is another great example of L quality optics out of a non-L lens.

Well, in my case, my 70-200/2.8 is noticably sharper at f/2.8 then my 135/2.8. But that may well be just oddity in my copies. I have yet to do (and likley wil not do) a formal comparison between them. Of course, it weighs a ton more. And doesn't have the SF capacity, but that's not exactly a disaster

This topic has been beaten to death in this forum.

My view is that L seems to be expensive, but the Image Quality backs it up (at least at the higher end Lenses).

But as Liza said, there are other non-L lenses that can provide you with the IQ and performance that you need. It all depends.

I personally am looking at some L glass in the future, but both common sense and pocket dictate that I will not be converting to an ALL L LENS setup. Someone might be happy that way, in my case I will always want some third party glass to gauge my other lenses by.

This site has some comparison shots of mostly canon lenses that may be of some use to help determine the optical differences between some lenses. Good luck

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …O-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx

Myself I'm planning on upgrading to L for the lens I use the most IE 50mm 85mm and possible get a 135 F-2 so I'll have a nice set for full frame studio shooting in the future. For most other uses I'll stick with my Tamron and Sigma lens. For those few time that I need something else IE 300 or 400 2.8 IS I'll simple spend the $50-$75 to rent them for the weekend.

Mike

What happened to the idea in photography of simply enjoying one's avocation and taking pictures? Seems everyone is out to win Sharpness Awards on a chronic basis, with all this attention given to L lenses! Does no one simply buy lenses to have certain focal lengths available?

As I have said numerous times, for DECADES photographers made award winning photos with whatever lenses a manufacturer built, and the L designation was nothing more than a marketer's dream. Now there are thousands of photographers wanting to spend $1000 more per lens simply to have a red stripe and L designation...the marketer's dream has come true because they have succeeding in getting the lemmings to come to them!

why are the L lenses slower at wider apertures? Any reason for that?

Wilt wrote in post #2126562
Does no one simply buy lenses to have certain focal lengths available?

Thank you, I was almost loosing faith in humanity

Yes! I do understand the whole idea about value vs benefits! I know "L" are definately way over priced but my question is...

Is there a direct photographic comparison test between ie: 50mm "L" at f2.0 vs 50mm "Non-L at f2.0 on the same subject?

Lorem wrote in post #2126632
Yes! I do understand the whole idea about value vs benefits! I know "L" are definately way over priced but my question is...

Is there a direct photographic comparison test between ie: 50mm "L" at f2.0 vs 50mm "Non-L at f2.0 on the same subject?

Oh, well why didn't you say so at the begining?

When the following site gets around to the comparison then I will trust one.
http://wlcastleman.com​/equip/reviews/

He has a 50/1.0, 50/1.4, and 50/1.8 comparison, but not yet has the 50/1.2 for comparison.

Fairly unbiased review of comparible lenses and he does the comparisons at various f-stops so you get a more accurate representation of the differences.

From what I have seen so far, if you use a APS-C camera (1.6 crop) then there is no advantage to getting the 50/1.2L other then bragging rights. If you have a 35mm FF camera then there are some advantages in the corners at most f-stops. But I don't see enough to justify the difference in price from the 50/1.4 unless I used it wide open a lot.
F2.0 is not wide open on those lenses so I would guess there will not be a lot of difference in sharpness or contrast at that aperture.

I do expect there to be differences in color, bokeh and secondary lens effects.

My number one question is why F2.0?

Longwatcher wrote in post #2126736
When the following site gets around to the comparison then I will trust one.
http://wlcastleman.com​/equip/reviews/

He has a 50/1.0, 50/1.4, and 50/1.8 comparison, but not yet has the 50/1.2 for comparison.

Fairly unbiased review of comparible lenses and he does the comparisons at various f-stops so you get a more accurate representation of the differences.

From what I have seen so far, if you use a APS-C camera (1.6 crop) then there is no advantage to getting the 50/1.2L other then bragging rights. If you have a 35mm FF camera then there are some advantages in the corners at most f-stops. But I don't see enough to justify the difference in price from the 50/1.4 unless I used it wide open a lot.
F2.0 is not wide open on those lenses so I would guess there will not be a lot of difference in sharpness or contrast at that aperture.

I do expect there to be differences in color, bokeh and secondary lens effects.

My number one question is why F2.0?

Thanks for the link! Too bad that example doesn't have 100% crop.

Regarding the F2.0... i'm just throwing that number out because I know there are two Canon 50mm EF lens ("L" and "Non-L") which have very low f#. It can be any f# really. 8-16... I don't really care.