Lens vs. Lens - To "L" or not

To illustrate the difference between L glass and non-L, I did a little example for a friend of mine. I thought I'd share it here.

http://www.leggnet.com​/2006/10/lens-versus-lens.html

Cheers, Rich

I think this review is a bit rigged... the 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 lens doesnt even come into its own until its stopped down to like f/7.1-8. Thats like saying the 50mm f/1.4 lens is junk cause its soft at f/1.8. Not to mention... the 100-300mm lens isnt exactly the latest greatest out of the Canon camp.

I suggest a retry but stop down a bit more. And you should track down a 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS lens to do the review with. There's a non-L lens that can put out L class IQ...should make for a more interesting review.

Not saying anything bad about L lenses... they speak for themselves. Just trying to make this comparison a little more accurate.

also... the comment about the f/4 version not being the most expensive. Just cause a lens costs X times more money than some other, doesn't immediately make it a better lens, or offer better IQ. In many cases, the 70-200mm f/4 lens is a touch sharper than its (twice as expensive) f/2.8 counterpart!! You are paying for the speed and DOF at that point....

This was a quick test for a friend, not a "let's make the 100-300 junk" rigged review. I own both lenses and use them both. While I like the extra 50% reach in the 100-300, I don't like the colored fringing I get from it. Knowing this weakness, I will use the 70-200 in instances when I don't need the reach of 300.

Rich

thats fair, but its not fair to do a direct comparion between a lenses and coming to a conclusion before testing them at a variety of settings. We now know the 100-300 is not as sharp wide open as a 70-200L stopped down. Thats no big suprise! Put the 100-300 in its element and lets see what happens!! I'm sure the results will be better, and you will probably notice less CA issues from the 100-300 stopped down.

Thanks for the edit on your first reply, that explains your point better. I agree that the 100-300 is not exactly on the top of the heap. It's biggest asset for me is the compactness.

Cheers, Rich

I can show you pictures where a consumer lens beats an L.
L's aren't perfect, and some consumer lenses are absolutely superb (like the 17-85IS, the 70-300IS, the 50 1.4)
The main attraction for me for the Ls, after generally better image quality is build quality/weather sealing.

well IDK about the 17-85mm IS lens..LOL... thats thing suffers from a whole host of problems starting at barrel distortion, CA issues, and soft edges. At ~50mm f/8 its pretty good though. I sold mine for the nifty fifty 1.8 mk1 and the 35mm f/2 primes.. never looked back. Couldn't really justify spending over doulble on the 50 1.4 for the amount I would use it.

50 1.4 and the 70-300 4-5.6 IS are definitly Canon's "sleepers". Heck even the 50 1.8 is a sleeper optically.

sirsloop wrote in post #2136866
well IDK about the 17-85mm IS lens..LOL... thats thing suffers from a whole host of problems starting at barrel distortion, CA issues, and soft edges. At ~50mm f/8 its pretty good though. I sold mine for the nifty fifty 1.8 mk1 and the 35mm f/2 primes.. never looked back. Couldn't really justify spending over doulble on the 50 1.4 for the amount I would use it

Actually I agree with you.. kinda

I guess I'm just lucky in that my copy isn't bad at all... I've heard a lot about the problems this lens has, but the problems I have aren't too bad. Notably, CA and distortion, and iffy performance at wide apertures and very small apertures.
But unless I'm pixel peeping, generally, it's a good lens (again, my copy, haha)

re: 50 f/1.8

Agreed! If you can get past the 'plasticy' build quality, the little thing is awesome!

-Rich

I splurged and found a Mk1 lens...double the cost, but 10 times better build, metal mount, decent focus ring, and feels very solid compared to the plastic mk2. Not quite up to f1.4 quality, but it feels nice. The focus motor screams pretty loud, just like on the 35mm f/2, a minor issue i'm willing to live with for the cost of these superb lenses.

AdamJL wrote in post #2136841
I can show you pictures where a consumer lens beats an L.
L's aren't perfect, and some consumer lenses are absolutely superb (like the 17-85IS, the 70-300IS, the 50 1.4)
The main attraction for me for the Ls, after generally better image quality is build quality/weather sealing.

Please do. We are always interested in these comparisons. I would agree the 50 f/1.4 is a nice lens.

rklepper wrote in post #2137471
Please do. We are always interested in these comparisons. I would agree the 50 f/1.4 is a nice lens.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=224025

The L redeemed itself of course, but there are areas where the consumer was better.

AdamJL wrote in post #2136841
I can show you pictures where a consumer lens beats an L.
L's aren't perfect, and some consumer lenses are absolutely superb (like the 17-85IS, the 70-300IS, the 50 1.4)
The main attraction for me for the Ls, after generally better image quality is build quality/weather sealing.

Not all L's are weather sealed.

that's true

I did a similar test using the same 2 lenses. Here's what I came up with:

100% crop