L vs "Consumer" Lenses ... Real Comparisons?

[mike_hardiman]

Hi Folks,

 

I'm in the market for going digital... either the 5D or the 30D. Not

sure at this point. I've read the multitudes of threads about L

lenses... how they are of a superior quality, how it's pointless to

spend thousands of $$ on a body then skimp on lenses, etc.

 

However, what I've yet to see (including via internet searches) is an

actual side-by-each comparison of the same body/sensor with an L-Lens

and a consumer lens. I've seen plenty of independent reviews of

individual lenses, but none comparing the consuer grade to the L-lens

variety.

 

Truly how noticable is the difference between the two? I currently

own an old Canon A1 with a few very nice "consumer" Canon FD primes.

I can't imagine I'd see an image degradation by switching to a digital

with "consumer" lenses.

 

Can anyone provide, or direct me to some comparisons between L glass

and consumer... especially when shot "full frame" on a 5D.

 

Thanks!

[brad_w]

"I can't imagine I'd see an image degradation by switching to a digital with "consumer"

lenses." Sorry to be harsh, Mike, but you have a very small imagination. FD primes were,

for the most part, fantastic lenses. Very sharp and well-made. The L designation typically

meant a faster maximum apeturee.

 

This is not true for the EOS line. There are now slow L's and fast non-L's. Pretty much

every EOS prime is good or great. Consumer zooms are typically made of wobbley plastic.

I've been able to push images into and out of focus with some of them just by supporting

an extended lens barrel with my finger. Still, If you shoot everything at f/8 you'll get

pretty sharp images out of most of them. You will see noticeably better color and contrast

with the L's and much higher resolution at wider apertures. If I had files I'd sent them to

you, side-by-side shots with a 75-300/4-5.6 vs a 70-200L. Fortunately, I upgrading

glass before buying a dslr, so they're all chromes. Photodo.com has plenty of

independently-measured MTF charts, which will show you much the same thing, though.

-Brad

[rdkirk]

Canon's lenses span a spectrum of quality. The old FD primes compare to the middle grade of current EF lenses, which does include most of the EF primes. The EF consumer zooms can be quite bad.

[sheldonnalos]

I've owned/shot with/tested most of the popular consumer primes and L lenses. My overall impressions...

 

Consumer zooms really aren't that good. Passable when stopped down, but not close to primes or L zooms.

 

Consumer primes are excellent, roughly matching or exceeding L zooms for resolution. The L zooms can have a more contrasty/color saturated look to them, which I think is due to the use of ED glass. Not a huge difference, though and really more about subtleties of the "look" of a lens.

 

L Primes are wonderful, matching resolution with color and contrast. You pay a dear price, though.

 

I'd say go for the 5D if you like a bigger viewfinder and need more resolution. If you want to do primes on the cheap, try a 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8 combo. A 70-200mm f/4 L would also be a good addition.

 

If budget is a concern, 30D with 17-40mm f/4 L, 50mm f/1.4 and 70-200mm f/4 L. It would be a little cheaper than the 5D, even with the L zooms.

[iori]

There are plenty of comparison images both here on photo.net and elsewhere on the web. Here's a link to one extreme comparison between the $100 kit lens for the Rebel XT, and the $1k+ 24-70/2.8L:

 

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/efs18-55/shootout

 

I prefer the flexibility of having zoom lenses, and long ago abandoned any thought of relying on consumer zooms to satisfy my personal expectations of image quality. If you must economize, get the Rebel XT. It's an excellent way to get acquainted with the digital world without giving anything away in image quality to the 20D/30D bodies.

[iori]

Here's yet another comparison:

 

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/300mm_lenses.html

[PuppyDigs]

"Consumer primes are excellent, roughly matching or exceeding L zooms for resolution."

 

It's hard to make generalizations as there are just too many exceptions. For example, the

fabulous 50s: EF 50 1.0L USM, 50 1.4 CM and EF 50 1.8. All three are sharp but the EF 50

2.5 CM, a $250 consumer grade optic is both the sharpest and most distortion-free. All

three are virually the same by about F8. Probably the L optic is the worst of the lot

optically but is the best built and, of course, one of the fastest production lenses ever

made.

 

However, L optics always something special about them, e.g., better construction, larger

aperture, weather sealing, special elements, etc., However, they don't necessarily have all

these attributes at once. Some are lucky to score one design enhancement. Some of them,

e.g., EF 35-350 L USM, are big beefy tanks but ain't that hot optically. Some are a little

better optically than a consumer zoom but are build just as flimsy and slow, e.g., EF

100-300 5.6L.

[terry_smith2]

Canon's first generation of consumer zooms was (for the most part) superior in every way to the following generations. They had metal mounts, metal parts inside, and at least good optical performance. Some of them really were entry level (those with "A" in h-their designation and a few others) and performed accordingly. The best of that bunch were the 28-70/3.5-4.5, 35-105/3.5-4.5, 35-135/3.5-4.5 plus the L versions of the 50-200/3.5-4.5 and the 100-300/5.6. The 70-210/4 was also good and much better than the current 80-200/4.5-5.6 with or without USM and the current 55-200. These old lenses were larger and heavier and often had push-pull zooms and lacked USM, but optically they were far ahead of the lenses that replaced them. Another benefit of these lenses is that they tend to sell for cheap just because they are older and because most people don't know how good they are. I have the 28-70/3.5-4.5 II, 35-135/3.5-4.5, and the 50-200/3.5-4.5 L in my collection plus some more modern pro zooms from Canon and Tamron. When my 28-70/2.8 L packed up after about 7 years of hard service, I replaced it with a Tamron 28-105/2.8. The Tamron is not as sharp (nothing else is, either) as the 28-70 but the extra flexibility is worth the slightly lower performance and build quality. Sorry I don't have any comparisons for you, but I've seen test ratings of a bunch of short trans-standard zooms. The Canon 28-70 L was always in first place and the regular 28-70 was tied with thr pro offerings of the day (i.e. 2.8 versions)from Sigma and others. The old 35-105 is far ahead of the newer ones and is also much better at 105mm than the 28-105/3.5-4.5 USM that replaced it. The 35-135/3.5-4.5 is also superior to it's replacement by a wide margin. This is an interesting lens because it's extremely sharp in the center and extremely soft at the edges. On a 1.6 crop body, you don't have to deal with the edges and you get something like a 50-200, so it's a real winner in that case. It also does very well well at isolating the subject from the background on full frame bodies.

[j.kivekas]

I think almost all have already been stated in the messages above. Let me just add that there is a correlation between price and quality, but it's not always very black and white. And one more thing, the second hand value: The L-series lenses tend to have pretty good second hand values. For 4x6 snapshots almost all the lenses are good enough. Enlargements reveal quality. <p>

Good sites to know:<br>

- <a href="http://www.photodo.com">Photodo</a><br>

- <a href="http://www.photozone.de">Photozone</a><br>

- <a href="http://www.photographyreview.com">Photographyreview</a><br>

- <a href="http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=111">Canon US</a><p>

And of all the common newstand photomagazines which do tests I've found <a href="http://www.colorfoto.de">ColorFoto</a> the best - quite distinctly.

[rodney_gold1]

If you are using film as a base for the conclusion for L vs non L , the quality differences might not be that obvious as you have to go thru a DOUBLE lens conversion to see em (shoot and then scan)as WELL as having the image post processed before the 2nd "lens conversion" (developed)

However if you shoot digital with a high resolution camera like a 5d , there is only one primary conversion and the results are more obvious. L lenses's images tend to "pop" more on print vs consumer lenses for various reasons like sharpness , contrast , saturation , flare , abberations and so forth. DSLR images also stand up to much higher scrutiny at 100%+ crops - it's really at that point that differnces become painfully obvious especially at edges and corners. Whether you want to get "L" quality is up to you and what you do with your pics. Prints made at 8x10 or smaller with either Consumer or L will not show up huge differences and PPing can add pop and sharpness and correct abberations , it's when you print bigger that you will see the advantages of top quality glass. In term of internet galleries , most of them too won't show huge differences unless you download files at full size and pixel peep. I have just taken some shots here , at 75mm and 300mm , using a 5d and a 28-300L 3.5-5.6 IS and a EF 75-300mm f4.0-5.6 III USM consumer lens. You can compare them and make up your own mind. Shot at 100 iso , at 5.6 . More or less within 4-5 mins and more or less from the same vantage point , all hand held. All shot Raw , using DPP to convert , using standard pic style and NO further post processing. You can DL em full size by hitting the full size button and can get info on each image by hitting the image info button below the pics. The consumer zoom was bought in a pawnshop for $80 , the L lens cost me round $2000.

http://yendor.fotopic.net/c924165.html

[digitmstr]

In every instance an L prime or zoom will be superior to its **consumer counterpart** (ex. 135mm f/2.8 VS 135 f/2L, 35mm f/2 VS 35mm f/1.4L, etc...).

 

However, some "consumer" primes are very, very good indeed. The 50s are ALL excellent as well. There are also very good consumer zooms, some better than others.

 

Because the "L" line doesn't really have a counterpart in the consumer line for each and every lens (in fact, very few) the choice is also about focal lenght, etc... For example: Canon offers a 50, 100 and 180L MACROs in the EF line (I don't talk about EF-S lenses here). I don't think the difference in picture quality would be so much a factor as the working distance would be when choosing between them.

 

The MACROS are all excellent and *I don't really consider them "consumer"* because MACRO is a specialized field and a lens with a TRUE MACRO designation will be optically excellent, usually. Though Canon does offer ONE macro in the "L" line.

 

Canon's T/S lenses are in fact non-L, except for one. So, that's another example of essentially equally excellent glass in both the "L" and "non-L" line. Though, I would hardly consider the EF 90mm T/S lens a "consumer" lens :)

 

So, in short one could safely say that it's impossible to find a "consumer" EF lense that is better than its "L" counterpart but, there are NON-L lenses which are capable of producing excellent image quality.

 

In the "consumer" line I like the 50s, the 85, 135 and 28-135 IS zoom.

[mark_james]

Something I didn't see above is that the two cameras you mentioned place somewhat

different demands on the leses used. The 30D has smaller pixels, and thus needs sharper

glass to maximize image quality. But, when using lenses designed for full frame it uses

the

center of the frame, so it uses the "sweet spot" of the lens. This generally gives better

uniformity across the resulting image. The 5D has larger pixels than the 30D, but they are

spread out over a larger area, which really taxes lenses at the edge of the frame. All of

this

is dependent on how you use the camera and lenses. I suspect you already know that if

the lenses are used at

f22, then sharpness will be about equally bad for any lens because of diffraction.

[bellavance]

One thing I like about L series lenses is that they give good results when used wide open. This gives me control over depth of field, and even more now that I've upgraded my 20D to the 5D.

 

Non-L primes (such as my 50/1.4) will give similar results, but I prefer zooms.

 

Pierre

[jim_b5]

Hi, Mike.

 

You said, "Truly how noticeable is the difference between the two?"

 

It depends on where your head is, Mike. By way of example. If you saw me take a challenging onramp in my eight year old Ford would you notice my smooth braking, quality of line and high exit speed? Or would you only have eyes for a recent vintage BMW or Lexus attempting to match my prowess :) ?

 

Like most people on this site, I love good hardware and I always buy quality. However, once you get past the hardware, the challenge in photography is subject, lighting, composition and trying to breathe some life, novelty and interest into the mundane.

 

If I correctly read the subtext of what you said, then I think you're a little skeptical of how much more the "best" will give you. I am too, but I also truly enjoy quality hardware. So, buy the good stuff and your corners may be sharper, but be aware that there may be a point-and-shoot trying to pass you on the outside :)

[igord]

I was sceptical about L lenses until I used 85/1,2L. I can compare it to regular fixed EF lenses. The clarity of image, colour and general "impression" from viewing the image is simply tops. No need to turn up the contrast in PS for that juicy look. It is already there!

[daniel_taylor]

"In every instance an L prime or zoom will be superior to its **consumer counterpart** (ex. 135mm f/2.8 VS 135 f/2L, 35mm f/2 VS 35mm f/1.4L, etc...)."

 

As someone else pointed out, do not make generalizations. Lenses are complex and can be measured and compared in numerous ways (lpmm, MTF, color rendition, bokeh, max aperture, vignetting, center vs. corner performance, build quality, AF speed, weather sealing, etc, etc). It's best to find the lenses at the focal length you want, and compare individual lenses. There are plenty of tests on the Internet for most lenses, though some tests will reveal aspects others will not.

 

To make an example of your generalization: the two non-L 50's are sharper than the 50 f/1.0L. The 85 f/1.8 also tests slightly sharper with higher 50% MTF than the 85 f/1.2L. But in both cases the L version may help you capture a shot the non-L would not due to wider aperture. Which is superior? Depends on what you're talking about.

 

AFAIK L lenses are "L" simply due to the use of one or more exotic elements. Aside from that there is no guarantee of performance, build, etc. Yes they tend to perform well and be built well. Canon is not likely to throw an expensive flourite element into a plastic zoom alongside consumer grade elements. But you still have to compare individual lenses.

[gary_ferguson1]

A few years ago I jumped ship from Nikon to Canon when the 1Ds was released. Without putting too much thought into the process (Nikon doesn't have a range within a range like the Canon "L" series) I just bought the focal lengths I regularly used in L designation. I've since had the opportunity to shoot in company with other photographers and I've seen the results from the 35mm 2.0 versus my 35 1.4L, and the 85 1.8 versus my 85 1.2L. Looking at the reults I can assure you these two lenses at least are giving away little if anything to L glass.

[digitmstr]

>>do not make generalizations.<<

 

I did not, I stated a fact.

 

Take the 135 f/2L VS the 135 f/2.8 SF lens.

 

The "L" lens is better built, has better & faster AF, better glass, better performance wide open and it's faster. That makes it "superior" to its counterpart. Which is NOT to say, as I have stated in my previous post, that the "consumer" primes are bad. Quite the contrary. It's not ONLY a matter of lpm, it's a matter of built, AF performance, glass type, wide open performance, etc... All of which make the "L" lenses "superior" to their consumer counterparts and of course, more expensive.

[daniel_taylor]

"I did not, I stated a fact."

 

sigh...you want to dissect this? Fine. You said in your earlier post: "In every instance an L prime or zoom will be superior to its **consumer counterpart**"

 

For me to disprove that statement, I only need to reference one L lens that is not superior to its consumer counterpart. I listed *two*.

 

Therefore you did not state a fact, you stated a generalization which is demonstratably false. I demonstrated it false.

 

Happy now, or do I need to get in an even more abrasive mood and spell it for you?

 

"Take the 135 f/2L VS the 135 f/2.8 SF lens.

 

The "L" lens is better built, has better & faster AF, better glass, better performance wide open and it's faster. That makes it "superior" to its counterpart."

 

Take the 50 f/1.0L vs. the 50 f/1.4.

 

The non-L lens has equal build, better and faster AF, better glass, much better performance wide open, and is lighter. Yes the 50 f/1.0L is faster, but otherwise is inferior to its consumer counterpart.

 

Take the 85 f/1.2L vs. the 85 f/1.8.

 

The non-L lens has equal build, better and faster AF, better glass, better performance wide open, and is lighter. Yes the 85 f/1.2 is faster, but otherwise is inferior to its consumer counterpart.

 

Ergo, L lenses are not superior to their consumer counterparts *in every instance*.

 

Generalizations do not work well for things as complex as camera lenses. "Primes are always better than zooms", "L is always superior to non-L", "Canon/Nikon is always better than Sigma/Tamron/Tokina". These statements are passed around as common wisdom yet none are true.

 

Which is why I always say, when generalizations come up, not to make them.

[digitmstr]

If you are objective you'll have to agree that the 50 f/1.0 (no longer made!) and the 85 f/1.2 are in fact superior to their counterparts.

 

Even *if* all other factors where equal (and they are NOT) the extra light is in favor of one lens over the other. Same for bokeh.

 

Now, that doesn't mean that one would prefer one over other every time. Nor does it mean that the xtra cost is justified by ALL users. Many don't justify it and opt for "cosumer" glass. I did with the 85mm and the 50mm but, if I could have bought the "L" versions for the same price I would have bought them :)

[digitmstr]

BTW, the poster is looking to buy lenses now and I am talking about lenses **currently** in productions.

 

The ones with same focal length in both "consumer" and "L" lines are, as far as I know:

 

135mm

 

85mm

 

35mm

 

24mm

 

And in the zoom line the closest would be the 24-70L vs the 24-85 but, there is really no exact counterpart in zoom range. Of course, the 24-70L is also superior to the 24-85 (which is not a bad zoom).

[terry_smith2]

<<Canon will not likely throw an expensive flourite element into a plastic zoom alongside consumer grade elements.>>

 

Canon did exactly that around to the dawn of the EOS Age with the 50-200/3.5-4.5 and the 100-300/5.6 zooms. Both were available as consumer and L zooms side by side in the catalog. If I remember correctly, Canon had to change two elements in each lens to bring them up to L standards. I also don't remember if they were flourite or some other high performance glass, but the transformation really worked. Granted, Canon's consumer zooms were built to a higher standard back then compared to today's all-plastic marvels. The 50-200 was dropped in both versions a couple of years later and so was the consumer version of the 100-300. The 100-300 L version stayed in production for quite a few years afterwards. I have a 50-200/3.5-4.5 L alongside of my 70-200/2.8 L. I use the former when speed isn't the issue or I don't want to stand out in the crowd. It's an excellent lens optically and mechanically, but the rest of it is behind the times.

[lovcom_photo]

Daniel,

 

You're wrong.

 

The 50L does in fact have better build then the 50mm F1.4.

 

The 85L does in fact have better build then the 85mm F1.8.

 

I think that if you look at recent primes, L vs non-L's, the L glass will ALWAYS provide better image quality. This is true even if the 85L focuses much slower then the 85mm F1.8...we're talking image quality here nothing else.

 

I don't often agree with Giampi, but I do with his generalization that L glass ALWAYS provides better image quality then non-L at a given focal length.

 

I know...I had them all.

[kelly_flanigan1]

More than 3 decades I afitted a 300mm F2.8 Canon FL-F SSC lens to a 16mm movie camera for some movie work. It was radically better than anything else at the time. The lens cost then more than a new econobox car; say equal to 6000 gallons of gasoline. At the same time one could also buy a used preset no name 300mm lens for 20 bucks.

[daniel_taylor]

"I think that if you look at recent primes, L vs non-L's, the L glass will ALWAYS provide better image quality. This is true even if the 85L focuses much slower then the 85mm F1.8...we're talking image quality here nothing else."

 

I think you better take a second look. The 50 f/1.0 most definetly did not produce better image quality than the 50 f/1.4. And the 85 f/1.2, while very close, tests with lower image quality than the 85 f/1.8.

 

But why actually do some work comparing things when one can generalize and feel better about the letter "L".