Canon lenses: How much better is the "L" series

IncompletePete wrote:
What exactly does the "L" stand for?

LUXURY!!!

Ro1

OK ... here's the test.

Stand on your feet.
Grab one lens in each hand.
Stretch your hands.
Hold your hands up for 10 minutes

3.5 vs. 1.6 lb .....

Other than that ...

Canon L zoom lenses are generally better than Canon Non-L Zoom lenses.
Canon primes (L and Non-L like 1.4/50 or 1.8/85) deliver very good image quality and are often sharper than L zoom lenses.

Some Canon 'specialty' L zoom lenses (e.g. 35-350 or 28-300) are not outstanding, but average and not as good as primes ... but this is due to the design, because all other lenses in that zoom range are very much below average.

Best regards,
Andy

Hi Kirik

I have both of the lenses as well. Actually, I tend to use both, the f4 is quite abit lighter and more mobile to handhold so when I am shooting an all weekend swim meet and I am able to use flash I will use my f4 most of the time. Hockey is a different story, the rinks tend to be lower lit and shooting distance is greater so I will use my f2.8. I find both lenses are pretty much equal in lens quality.


Rob

I own one L lens and have shot two.

The L i own is a telephoto, and compared to other non-telephoto lenses i have, aside from the sharpness and speed, the things i notice are contrast and colors. It just makes everything look so natural.

This goes for the other lens i shot which was a wide angle, it was sharper, more accurate colors, and higher contrast.

Match that up with the fact that they have USM and some are waterproof...it just feels like driving a BMW rather then a mustang. Both are fun, but one just FEELS better.

I purchased the f2.8 version to upgrade from the f4. But, when I received the f2.8 lens, I can't seem to get rid of my f4. I just love that lens soo much!!! Now, I am thinking of actually selling my f2.8 version, its just too heavy for the type of shooting I do (hiking etc....). If I shoot a lot of sports, the 2.8 version would've been indispensable.

Ro1

Why would you shoot two L lenses? What did they ever do to you? Violence never solved anything... Give peace a chance!



SAVE THE L LENSES!!!!

IncompletePete wrote:
What exactly does the "L" stand for?

L = Lunatic?

You'll get a lot of debate on whether L lenses are really worth the extra money. A traditional cost/benefit analysis is generally worthless because there are people who would (and do) willingly pay much more for just a small improvement in performance.

To someone who absolutely needs that last little bit of image quality from a lens, almost any price is justified.

That's why we have such affection for the bargain-priced lenses that give excellent performance. After all, it's the image that matters, and not the price tag. L lenses are for the most part consistently excellent. Good cheap lenses are rare.

Yes, I played with an L lens at a local store after I got my DReb... and its just pure wowness.
Its like the "L"exus SC430 to the Toyota Solara.
Its like the "L"incoln Navigator to the Ford Expedition.
Its like the "L"ady of your dreams to the girl of your life.
Its like....
yeah, you get the idea

In most cases it does NOT stand for light, as in lighht weight.

Too true! In fact, the 'L' stands for 'Luxury'.

I have 5 lens.......I love them all!!!!!!!!

(1) is (L)


JZ

I got my first "L" lens yesterday (70-200 f2.8 L IS ) and I love it to bits! Went out today for the firts time with it and it's great! The pics I got were so sharp and colourful! Now....how much is a 400mm L f2.8.....

"L" stands for Lead weight!