Why L Series Lens?

<p>Hi Everyone,<br>

I just started getting serious about photography last month, when I purchased my first DSLR, the Canon Rebel T1i with kit lens(18-55mm). I have been taking a lot of pictures with the it lens and a bunch with my friend's 28-135mm 3.5-5.6 IS USM. I was really shocked by how sharp the 28-135 pictures came out, compared to my kit lens. This prompted me to rent a L series lens (70-200mm 2.8L IS)just to see what the IQ was on it compared to the rest I have used. I was frankly a little shocked, since I read a lot about the 70-200 and how it is one of the most sought after lenses on the market. I honestly didn't see much difference in IQ from the 28-135mm pictures to the 70-200mm pictures and actually, I sort of preferred the contrast I got from the 28-135 lens. I went and read some reviews on the 28-135 lens and it is a decent lens, better than my kit lens but according to the reviews, should be lower than a L series lens.<br>

Please help, I don't know if it is me that is not using the lens properly or if I just went into the whole "L-series" testing with extremely high expectations. Set this green photographer straight about L-Series lenses.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance everyone!</p>

 

<p>did you use a hood on the 70-200</p>

<p>Just because you use a professional lens, doesn't necessarily mean you'll get great photos. You could use Canon's EF 50mm f/1.8 and take incredible photos. The 70-200 2.8L IS is an incredible lens. What were you photographing, exactly and what time of the day? Were you shooting in P mode or aperture priority, etc. The Canon Rebel is an "ok" camera to start with, but you should still get some very good photos with the 70-200 attached to it. Compared to your 28-135, the 70-200 should be a bit sharper, but definitely more contrasty with richer colors and excellent background blur.</p>

<p>the only thing that REALLY drives me to purchase an "L" lens is aperture choices....especially the constant aperture in zooms. There are, of course, other reasons, but that is the prime reason, and the only thing that helps me decide, in the end, to spend that kind of money.</p>

<p>Obviously the optical quality is going to be better, but the drastically improved build quality and heft figure heavily into the appeal, at least for me. It the difference between plastic toys and potential murder weapons.</p>

<p>Alan,<br>

Yes, I shot with hood attached.</p>

<p>Brian,<br>

I was shooting a figurine that I have inside. I aperture priority and manual mode. I haven't had a chance to take it outside to try. When you say "sharper", how do you compare that? The way I was comparing sharpness before uploading was taking the picture and then reviewing it on the camera and zoom in all the way. I was expecting to see super sharp edges. But that was not the case. I made sure IS was on too. I like the background blur, but I honestly didn't think it looked any better than the 28-135 ones.</p>

<p>Alright, so it seems like "L" lens will give better IQ but not drastically better, yeah? Is it safe to say that most lens sold now generate very quality images and the difference in lens grade as far as image quality is not drastic especially, if I don't have a high end camera to pair with it?</p>

<p>My experience is just the opposite. When I used the 28-135 everything was a bit flat and dull and I sold it in favor of a Tamron 28-75 2.8 which I though was much better. I have the 70-200 non IS and its super sharp, probably my best performing lens. In your test, it could be user error or a maybe sample variation or what ever but there is more to the lens being an L then sharpness. Build quality, focus speed, full time manual focus, better color/contrast, constant aperture etc that contribute to it being a pro lens. Simply buying an L lens will not give you great photos but it certainly will help. But again there are many capable cheaper alternative and the 28-135 has a pretty good reputation and its a decent lens.<br /> <br /><strong> My list of good cheaper alternative lenses</strong></p>

<ul>

<li>Tamron 17-50 2.8</li>

<li>Tamron 28-75 2.8</li>

<li>Canon 28-135</li>

<li>Canon 28 1.8, 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 is a great set of fast small primes that will rival any L zoom and give you faster aperture if you can live with changing lenses.</li>

</ul>

<p>Michael, recently after purchasing an EF 24-70/2.8 L zoom, I became convinced that its IQ was substantially inferior to that of my EF 50/1.4 non-L prime. Now it is true that primes generally have better IQ than zooms, and that this also applies to some non-L primes compared to some L zooms. But after more careful comparative "testing" of the two lenses (using only the center AF point, bracing the camera, shooting the same subject with the same aperture, shutter speed and ISO, etc.), I realized that the IQ of the 24-70 is very close to that of the 50, and in some respects is even better (it has warmer colour rendition, for example).</p>

<p>The moral of my story is that I wouldn't dismiss the 70-200/2.8 IS L just on the basis of your cursory "testing." I have its slower cousin, the 70-200/4 IS L, and it's outstandingly sharp, almost as good as my primes within its range.</p>

<p>"I<em> was really shocked by how sharp the 28-135 pictures came out, compared to my kit lens</em> ."</p>

<p>actually your 18-55IS kit lens is sharper and has better image quality than the 28-135 !<br>

hint: it may be you rather than the other lens, including any "L" !<br>

www.photozone.de<br>

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=455&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=2&LensComp=116&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLI=3&API=2</p>

<p> </p>

<p>28-135mm is the worst zoom I have ever used. Some years ago, I purchased one for my walk around lens I could never get it to kit lens standard. I sent it back and got another one. Just as bad. I gave up. I hate to say this but if you don't think the 70-200 2.8 IS was THE BEST zoom you have used, either it was operator error or the rental was abused copy. You also shoot crop body so using that lens inside is very hard. Take the lens outside and it will perform like no other. I remember when I put my 70-200 2.8 IS to my digital rebel and thought this lens is way long. I snapped about 20 shots and switched back to my trusty 24-105 L. After I got the 5D, I went back to 70-200 2.8 IS and it has been on for 4 years. v/r Buffdr</p>

<p>It's probably the way you are shooting the 70-200 that is the problem. That lens is almost universally accepted as an excellent performer and unless the lens is defective/damaged it will be tack sharp. For a longer zoom you need to adjust your shutter speed to compensate for the longer focal length. A good rule of thumb for handheld is 1/focal length in seconds. For example if you are shooting 200mm you need to set your shutter speed to 1/200 minimum. If you are a beginner and not use to a heavy lens I would go even more, maybe 1/300. Since your rental has IS that should help in this regard but keep it in mind. That said, if you want to really see what your lens can do in terms of sharpness you need to use a tripod to eliminate any chance of hand shake.</p>

<p>Without knowing what kinds of distortions and optical issues are common it can be very hard to see any difference. Barrel distortion and vignetting (two of the more common issues) may only show up clearly in certain situations (aperture, focal length, and focus distance). Careful observations may also show some difference in color, flair, and boken. What one person may see as sharp may look soft to someone else. One could write a book just on optical issues and how to check for them. A person with limited experience may see big differences or no differences.</p>

<p>Other than optics there are other reasons to purchase L lenses:</p>

<ul>

<li>Durable construction. L lenses are designed to last.</li>

<li>Constant aperture on zoom lenses. Changing zoom will not change the exposure. This is really useful if you are setting shutter and aperture frequently.</li>

<li>Ring type USM motor which are very quiet, fast, and allow full time manual override.</li>

<li>Improved weather sealing. No lens is water proof but it is more difficult for water to get into L lenses. </li>

</ul>

<p>I cannot comment on the 28-135 but I do have the new 15-135 IS (it came cheap with the 7D). I also have both the 70-200 F2.8L (non IS) and the 70-200 F4L IS and I can assure you that on the 7D or the 5DII the difference is quite marked. Obviously you cannot use the 15-135 on film or the 5DII as it is EF-S but comparing images with the 7D and the EF-S lens to the 5DII and 70-200 shows significant differences. The L series images are sharper, focus faster, do not show CA and give the image a more "three dimensional" look. It is possible the lens you rented was not in good condition or needed micro adjustment for your body.</p>

<p>You need to take the lenses outside into good light. Also forget comparing them on your camera lcd. Compare at similar focal length or adjust your shooting distance to provide similar image size.</p>

<p>with the longer FL you'll need a faster shutter speed. If you're really going to compare two lenses you should use a tripod, shoot the same subject, focus on the same object, and set all camera settings identical such as shutter, f-stop, ISO, picture settings, etc. All things should be equal.</p>

<p>Sample variation or technique? As Buffdr said, the 28-135 IS was one of the worst Canon lenses I've ever used, low contrast and not that sharp. Where as my 70-200/2.8 L IS is on of the best.</p>

<p>Michael, you've clearly seen for yourself an L-series can do. Anything else will be a compromise. There are some Sigmas other things that get close.</p>

<p>Renting, as you've done, is a good idea. I own the 70-200mm f/4L IS and find its IQ stunning on my full-frame 5D MkII and 7d. Since you're seeing these things, I think you'll ultimately end up with several good L-lenses, so why not start now. You might try buying used to save a little bit, but I've generally thought that they hold their value so well that I'd go ahead a pay the new price.</p>

<p>I have to second the opinion that comparing images on your camera's lcd is pretty much useless. If you want to get the best out of a quality lens, you really should be using a tripod & mirror lockup, or shooting at a minimum shutter speed of 1/lens focal length (I'd recommend using even faster speeds). My personal experience with Canon L lenses is that they are generally very sharp, and have great contrast/color rendition.</p>

<p>Also, all Rebels, even the old models, are capable of capturing the difference between a mediocre, and a top-notch lens.</p>

<p>Its true what you say about the 28-135 being more contrasty and somewhat different image output than my other L's like the 24-105 or 17-55(not L but similar glass elements). I have that lens you are complaining about, but the non IS version and it gives stellar images.</p>

<p>For various reasons I own mostly L optics. However... Yeah, opinions to the contrary, the 28-135 IS is a very good lens (optically, at least), as are the 18-55 IS (not the non-IS) and the 50/1.8. I think Canon likes to get these "common as dirt" lenses right and puts quite a lot of good engineering into them. They give them a rather cheap build and price them VERY low as entry lenses. I doubt they make much margin on them. Congratulations on recognizing that some consumer lenses are quite alright! Oh, also check into the 70-300 IS. I think you'll be very impressed.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>also check into the 70-300 IS. I think you'll be very impressed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You won't be impressed with the AF speed, especially after using the 70-200mm L. This is a good lens and has a good range and IS, but AF speed is frustrating; and I think AF speed is a huge factor in a tele-zoom since a lot of tele-zoom photos are of wildlife/sports or some type of action.</p>

<p>There are good reasons to buy the L-lenses:<br />1. Build quality<br />2. Optical quality<br />3. Focus speed<br />4. Another unique feature (constant aperture, range)<br />Some of the non-L lenses provide the "highest" quality and can measure up with other L-quality lenses (17-55 F2.8, 85 F1.8)<br />It is unlikely that you have discovered a new truth, after reading all the test as you already admitted. So either your 70-200 sample was bad (rental, abused?), or the 28-135 exceptionally good, both?, or you were not comparing apples to apples (both IS? distance? Aperture?) or you have a different preference than others (perfectly ok). Nobody here can find out but you.<br />I'd say keep shooting with your 28-135 and enjoy it.</p>

<p>Equipment shows its true performance when it is chalanged by demanding circumstances. It realy doesn't make a lot of difference which car you drive up to your local mall but you will sure notice the difference once you start driving off-road or on the speedway.</p>

<p>Believe it or not, my 17-40 zoom is sharper at 18mm than the 18mm Distagon FFL from CZ :) </p>