L Glass vs 'Standard'

[damian_tinsley]

I bet this in various forms has been debated before - but...

 

Apart from the extra stop of light, is the HUGE increase in cost

justified by the optical performance of the L series prime lenses?

Specifically I am thinking of the 24mm EF f2.8 (which I am very

happy with) vs the f1.4L. Also the 85mm f1.8 vs the 85mm f1.4L?

[eoghan]

Undoubtedly better, but whether or not it's worth the extra cost is up to you. I'd say if you're happy with what you have already, why change. Unless for example you're missing shots and really need the extra light.

e

[phule]

<< I bet this in various forms has been debated before >>

 

And if you searched for them, you'd find that the responses haven't changed.

[damian_tinsley]

I did search - mostly the stuff I found related to L series zoom vs consumer zooms. This wasn't the question. Perhaps I should ask "At what point in enlargement would you feel the difference was noticable in prime lenses - ignoring speed and hence shutter speed issues?"

[jbq]

The "L" quality buys you optical performance, but also speed and construction. At 85mm and 135mm the difference in optical performance between the L and non-L lenses is here (especially 135mm).

[illusions photo art studio]

I have a 50mm 1.8 II and believe me, that little one is way sharper than my 20-35 2.8L. I'm beggining to think that "L" lenses will show a difference only in zoom lenses but not in fixed focal lenses. that's my .02?

[james_baird]

Well, in the case of th 24 1.4L, it's in fact 2 full stops faster than it's closest equivilent. If

you need those stops, you need 'em, but I think you'd be hard pressed to tell the

difference between it and the 2.8 stopped down to f8 or so.

 

Me, I like low-light, no flash photography, and I like being able to get some background

blur while still having enough of a wide angle (on my 1.6 DSLR) to show most of the

people in a room. So, you can have my 24 1.4L when you pry it from my cold, dead

fingers...

[digitmstr]

The L glass is made to bring home the bacon under very, very difficult situations and offer years of reliable service. Everything else it's gravy...

 

For a non-pro it becomes a luxury, not a necessity.

 

That IS the difference.

[working with attitude sin]

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85mm/index.htm

[phil vaughan - yorkshire u]

If you need it, you need it. If you don't, well you just don't. But you can't deny it's nice!

 

I have the 70-200 2.8, I will get the 17-40, then probably no more, I can't justify a 24-70 2.8 (too much money), if there was a 24-70 f4...hmmmm.

 

If you MUST get the shot a 1 series camera and only L series glass is a small price to pay. If you'd LIKE to get the shot, well HOW MUCH would you like to make sure. Obviously all of this demands that YOU are capable of getting the shot. Me I'm not always capable, the gear is not the weakest link.<div></div>

[mcgarity]

I own an FD 24mm f1.4L and an FD 85mm f1.2L. I have been told that optically these are very close to the EOS versions. Those are two very sweet lenses and after you use them its easy to believe L series primes really are superior. Those two convinced me a long time ago.

[John Crowe]

Be careful, Luis A. you are comparing a ZOOM L versus one of the sharpest lenses Canon makes, the 50mm f1.8. Yes, if you need the speed, you need the speed.

 

 

The 85/1.2 L in particular is designed for portraiture and is not only faster but gives extremely shallow depth of field and awesome looking out of focus regions, referred to as bokeh. With the 85/1.2L, 135/2L, 200/2.8L, 300/2.8L, 400/2.8L this bokeh allows you to clearly isolate the subject from it's background.

 

 

I have never been able to justify speed in a wideangle lens, as someone pointed out, it really is for photojournalists. For the most part wideangle lenses live on tripods and are set to f16 or smaller and by then the differences would be negligible. Take care.

[rodolfo_negrete]

I think we all know that the 24mm 1.4 is worth the extra bucks and the 85mm 1.8 are the best portrait lens (head and shoulders)

 

I have never own the 85/1.2 but I heard plenty of photographers complaining that they have to very careful since the dept of field is very shallow,kind of like taking a picture of someone and the person who happens to be slightly on the side (not behind) comes up kind of blurry.

 

Altough the 85/1.2 wouold be nice to have but I do not think that we could justify the price enough.

[pbizarro]

Well, the extra stop(s) of light come at the cost of having to use more exotic glass, hence the increase in price.

 

Whether or not is justifiable for you, only you can answer.

[ed_blagden]

For Canon prime lenses (as opposed to zooms), unless you have specialist requirements, for example an extra stop of speed over an above the already *very* fast non-L primes, or bomb-proof build quality (as opposed to just very very good), then the answer is probably no. Stick with your non-L primes.

 

The 85/1.8 , which I own, is a beauty. How much more image quality or AF speed could any ordinary mortal possibly want?

 

I don't own the 24mm, but I'm struggling to imagine any justification for going for the 1.4 as opposed to the 2.8. You can hand-hold this lens 1/30th, 1/15th if you are careful, and with a 2.8 apeture this covers many low-light situations. Yes, in some situations a couple of extra stops would be nice, but in those circs why not just use faster film? Maybe the shallower DOF is a factor for some, but for a wide angle lens I can't think of any realistic need for a shallow DOF.

 

I'll probably get flamed by pros for this. Don't get me wrong. There must be a market niche for the 24 and 85mm L Class lenses othrwise Canon wouldn't make them. What's more, I would think that the vast majority of people who buy these L lenses are professionals and therefore take a rational commercial decision in response to their real-world needs.

 

It's just that for the rest of us serious amateurs - I'm taking the liberty of assuming you too fall into that category - I just can't see any practical reason to go for the L class primes over the standard ones.

 

Ed

[rob_ewart]

I only quickly read this series of posts, and thought I would add a couple more differences between L and non-L.

 

At the wider end, L means an upgrade to USM, and always means full-time manual focus capability. L generally means that the lens contains a UD glass element (low dispersion glass - very expensive to make), although this does not hold true for the 35 1.4 or the 85 1.2. In the case of these two, there is an aspherical lens element where the non-L lenses contain none.

 

Again, how worthwhile the above is to you, only you can judge.

 

Regards,

R