Is the L lens label foulproof?

I just want to hear opinions here. If Canon slaps the L ring on a lens, can you go wrong with it?

I know a lot of you guys compare one L with another L all the time, and decide that some Ls aren't as good as others. But in general, compared to all lenses (Canons, Sigmas, Tamrons, Tokinas etc.), would you say that any L lens, is a great lens?

Short answer - Yes, IMHO.
I have yet to have a 'bad' L. Some have. Solutions available
In comparison, I'd say, without reservation, L lenses are truly great.
They are, the best money can buy, and they cost a lot of money.
Canon does not just 'slap' a red ring on. Pick up an 85L and try it on your camera. It is a different world. Ditto the 70-200L f/2.8 IS or any prime L.
John

Depends... Are all L lenses good? Yeah, you can pretty well say that. Some are better than others, but yes, all of them are generally good lenses.

Are Ls always the best lens available? That would be a no. There are some times where a third party, or a Canon non-L are just as good, or even a bit better.

For example, the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro...every bit as good, if not a smidge better, than the 180L macro. The Canon 100 f/2 is essentially just as good as the 135L. (I've owned both).

In my opinion, the Sigma 50 f/1.4 is as good as the Canon 50 f/1.2L, save for the 1/3 stop of aperture. The new Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 HSM looks to be every bit as good as, if not better than the 24-70 f/2.8L, but we need to see more samples to make sure.

Then there are lenses that aren't Ls that Canon just doesn't make (Sigma 12-24 for full frame, Sigma 120-300 f/2.8, 200-500 f/2.8, 300-800 f/5.6, etc.)

So, in short, yes, pretty much all Ls are great lenses. However, just because it has an L stripe doesn't mean there might not be alternatives that are just as good or better for your needs, especially considering price.

I'm not sure but I notice that their prices are really really different.

I wish I could afford to find out.

Nope L is just a label....

24-105L, bad bokeh
50L, focus shift related issues
24-70L, copy variation issues

Even BMW and Mercedes made some bad cars. Judge a lens by the overall performance of the lens, not by the badge the manufacture put on it.

100-400, serious quality control problems from lens to lens and bad bokeh at certain f stops. Same for alot of Ls, they come out of the factory not working right.

I think copy variation is overrated on a lot of lenses and more comes down to user error. For example, I thought my 100-400 was soft, but then found it was just technique...

There are some bad copies out there, but I think there are less than it seems by people coming and blaming their gear all the time.

The L is not just about optical quality, they tend to be more robust as well. And if you think Canon L's are expensive, have a look at Nikons equivilent quality glass, then you can compare.

The price of Nikons glass was one reason I switched to Canon when I moved from manual to AF with my Eos-3.

One thing an "L" won't do that a Sigma might...

Jman13 wrote in post #7786993
Depends... Are all L lenses good? Yeah, you can pretty well say that. Some are better than others, but yes, all of them are generally good lenses.

Are Ls always the best lens available? That would be a no. There are some times where a third party, or a Canon non-L are just as good, or even a bit better.

For example, the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro...every bit as good, if not a smidge better, than the 180L macro. The Canon 100 f/2 is essentially just as good as the 135L. (I've owned both).

In my opinion, the Sigma 50 f/1.4 is as good as the Canon 50 f/1.2L, save for the 1/3 stop of aperture. The new Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 HSM looks to be every bit as good as, if not better than the 24-70 f/2.8L, but we need to see more samples to make sure.

Then there are lenses that aren't Ls that Canon just doesn't make (Sigma 12-24 for full frame, Sigma 120-300 f/2.8, 200-500 f/2.8, 300-800 f/5.6, etc.)

So, in short, yes, pretty much all Ls are great lenses. However, just because it has an L stripe doesn't mean there might not be alternatives that are just as good or better for your needs, especially considering price.

What will a Sigma do that a "L" will not do.

An L will not become obsolete because Canon needs to and will not or cannot rechip the lens to make it compatible with newer Canon bodies. There are Sigms lenses (I have a 28mm f/1.8 in this category) which cannot be used with newer Canon bodies brcause of Sigma's practice of reverse engineering. My 28mm cannot be used with a Canon DSLR newer than a 10D.

RPCrowe wrote in post #7788098
What will a Sigma do that a "L" will not do.

.

I think the question is, what will an L do that a non L won't.

I do not have any of the following but the 17-40, 24-105 seem to be uninspiring, considering they are supposed to be almighty L's, from everything I have seen or read over the last year or so.

I would also be leary of the 100-400 due to IQ inconsitencies.

Maybe unfounded but that is the way I feel and perception is often more important than facts.

bohdank wrote in post #7788237
I think the question is, what will an L do that a non L won't.

I do not have any of the following but the 17-40, 24-105 seem to be uninspiring, considering they are supposed to be almighty L's, from everything I have seen or read over the last year or so.

I would also be leary of the 100-400 due to IQ inconsitencies.

Maybe unfounded but that is the way I feel and perception is often more important than facts.

maybe. have you owned or used any of these lenses? can you name better alternative to these lenses?

ed rader

Grentz wrote in post #7788036
I think copy variation is overrated on a lot of lenses and more comes down to user error. For example, I thought my 100-400 was soft, but then found it was just technique...

There are some bad copies out there, but I think there are less than it seems by people coming and blaming their gear all the time.

Totally agree. Also some lenses are more sensitive than others to filters. My 100-400 did not at all like a certain type and I ended up using it without.

I will repeat

I think the question is, what will an L do that a non L won't.

I have already stated that I have not used those lenses.

I don't need to own a Chrysler to know if they are reliable. I don't need to get hit in the head by a hammer or a marshmellow to know the former will hurt and the latter won't

There is a body of evidence that builds over time, which excuses one from often having to have direct experience.

bohdank wrote in post #7788281
I will repeat

I think the question is, what will an L do that a non L won't.

I have already stated that I have not used those lenses.

I don't need to own a Chrysler to know if they are reliable. I don't need to get hit in the head by a hammer or a marshmellow to know the former will hurt and the latter won't

There is a body of evidence that builds over time, which excuses one from often having to have direct experience.

that's what i thought .

so tell me which non-Ls will do a better job of than lenses you named.

ed rader