How much better are the L Lenses ?

[timages]

<p>Iv never used an L Lens, at present I have a 20-35 EF USM, a 28-105 USM Macro, (the better one) and the 100-300 USM, also the older non-usm 28-70 EF Lens, which some people say is comparable in image quality to the L equivelent. I did have some prime Lenses, but sold them as I found I hardly used them. Im considering getting the 24-105 L Lens, which would cost around £700 New, or maybe the 24-70 f2.8 L, but would I see a significant improvement in image quality, considering the cost? Iv had pretty good results with the 28-105, and even the 20-35 is pretty sharp when stopped down to f8. I did consider the Sigma 24-70 EX f2.8 as a cheaper altenative to the L, but I did some research and people say its very soft wide open, which defeats the object of having the wider apertures, I was also concerned about the reliability/durability of the Sigma. The Bodies I use are a 1N, 3 and 50E/Elan IIE. I would be gratefull for any opinions/advice regarding this. Many Thanks, Tim.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>How much better depends on the L optic and what you're comparing it to. The one thing for sure is all current product L optics are made to withstand professional use. So they tend to use heavier barrels, more metal, seals, and beefy motors and switches. Oh, and they ship with a lens hood and case or pouch. Those are about the only generalizations you can make about L optics. Now if you have a particular lens in mind...</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>L lenses are addictive. ;-)<br>

I've enjoyed my L lenses (both of them) very much, and my next acquisition (any day now) will be another L, giving me f/4 coverage from 17 through 200 with the obvious culprits. What you get with an L is solid build, higher quality control, excellent optical design, better coatings, great ergonomics, and weather sealing. There are a number of non-L lenses that are up-to-snuff in their own right. For instance I've been agonizing between the 70-300 IS and the 70-200 f/4L IS. The 70-300 is very impressive optically, but it lacks full-time manual focus, and I've come to hate the lack of this feature on my 75-300 IS. This alone was enough to sway me towards the more expensive 70-200. I'll suffer the lack of the last 100mm and the larger size, in favor of the better build and better ergonomics. This is only by way of example, of course.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>If you're not printing at 11x14 and up, and you're not shooting at wide apertures, it's not likely that an "L" lens will give you a significant improvement in print quality.</p>

<p>It's much like driving a Toyota Camry and a BMW M3. If all you do is cruise at 55mph or go grocery shopping, the difference is quite small. If you're on a race track, it's a different story.</p>

[colin_james]

<p>I think that a lot of people misunderstand what L-Series lenses are all about; there seems to be a popular misconception that "since they cost 10 times as much then (conceptually) they should deliver an image that's 10 times as good", but since comparitive image quality is impossible to quantify, it just doesn't work that way.</p>

<p>So what are the advantages of L-Series lenses? As a general rule ...</p>

 

<ul>

<li>They may contain different types of glass (eg flourite) that can give you a higher quality image, especially under severe conditions.</li>

</ul>

 

<ul>

<li>They're constructedly far more robustly - built for everyday use by working professionals. Solid construction that's not unduly bothered by rough handling.</li>

</ul>

 

<ul>

<li>Most new L-Series lenses are fully weather sealed.</li>

</ul>

 

<ul>

<li>There is a tendency for them to have wider apertures over many non-L series counterparts.</li>

</ul>

 

<ul>

<li>As a rule, image quality will be better than many non-L series counterparts (many, not all - although (and some will debate this)), there are no non-L series lenses that produce significantly higher quality images than their L-Series counterparts.</li>

</ul>

<p>I'm trying to think of a real-world comparison - parhaps it's a bit like a 4 wheel drive Suzuki verses a V8 twin turbo Toyota Landcruiser; both are 4 wheel drives, but the latter is "bigger / better / stronger / faster" (someone will now invariably now chip in and challenge the "better" bit).</p>

<p>Best thing I can suggest is try one out for yourself. Poor lens quality has been the cause of much heartbreak for me, so now I use only L-Series lenses, and have no regrets what-so-ever.</p>

<p>Hope this helps,</p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>Colin</p>

<p> </p>

[nhut-nguyen]

<p>L lenses are better than consumer lenses in many ways, not just sharpness alone.<br>

L lenses have/are</p>

<ol>

<li>sharper (even wide opened)</li>

<li>higher in contrast</li>

<li>less distortion</li>

<li>less vignette</li>

<li>constant aperture</li>

<li>better built</li>

<li>faster AF (exclude the 85 f/1.2L)</li>

</ol>

<p>In a nutshell, when you get an L lens, you'll get the whole package, you don't just get one thing. <br /></p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>In general, while the L lenses are usually very fine optically, it is unwise to become fixated on the "L" designation to the extent that you presume that an L is automatically the "best" lens for a give use, or that non-L lenses are inferior.</p>

<p>Lots of people who use L lenses also use and rely on non-L lenses. This is especially true when it comes to certain primes that produce really outstanding image quality. It can also be true with some of the EFS lenses, especially the 10-22 and the 17-55. In fact, some of Canon's "professional" lenses do not get the L designation - some macro lenses, two of the three tilt/shift lenses, the DO lenses, etc.</p>

<p>One of may favorite examples of a situation in which a L lens is arguably not likely to be the best choice is in regards to a "normal wide zoom" for a cropped sensor body. While the 17-40mm f/4 L and the 16-35mm f/2.8 are really fine lenses (though best suited to somewhat differing uses) on full frame, the EFS 17-55mm f2.8 IS likely provides more utility and as good or better IQ on the cropped sensor bodies.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[gregf]

<p>I'll echo what everybody else has said an add a couple of additional points.<br>

1) L-Series lenses hold their re-sale value. If, in the future, you were to give up photography, the re-sale value percentage of the L-Series sens is pretty good (The 24-70 usualls sells on ebay for $1,000). I think you would be hard pressed to find an non L-Series lens that holds it value so well.<br>

2) Some people are put off by the weight, but I like the bulk that the lens provides (however, walking around town with a couple of L-Series lenses can be straining).<br>

3) If you can afford it, it's definately the way to go if you are serious about your photos. If your just taking family snapshots, your money would be better spent elsewhere; however, if you love photography, go for it.</p>

[bobatkins]

<blockquote>

<p>L lenses are better than consumer lenses in many ways, not just sharpness alone. L lenses have/are</p>

<ol>

<li>sharper (even wide opened) </li>

<li>higher in contrast </li>

<li>less distortion </li>

<li>less vignette </li>

<li>constant aperture </li>

<li>better built </li>

<li>faster AF (exclude the 85 f/1.2L) </li>

</ol></blockquote>

<p>Look at vignetting and distortion with the 24-105/4L at 24mm. Neither are exactly low. Look at the non-contstant aperture range of the 100-400/4.5-5.6L or the 28-300/3.5-5.6. Sharpness and contrast are somewhat subjective. Some non-L lenses are just as good. Lenses like the EF-S 10-22 and EF-S 17-55 have very fast AF.</p>

 

[timages]

<p>Many Thanks, Im going to look into renting/borrowing one to try out for myself, and do some comparitve tests before spending a lot of cash. Best wishes to all, Tim.</p>

[ed_k__north_carolina_]

<p>Consider the lower end L Seires; 17-40 F4 L, 70-200 F4 L or even the 200mm F2.8 L.<br>

Any of these will not break the bank are highly useful and are prefectly able to give experience with L Seires build quailty (which I happrn to think makes more of a differnece than the Image Quality) and the contrast and sharpness.<br>

Remember, you can always get a lemon or a gem so treat each lens on it's own until you establish the baseline.<br>

I curretly own the 17-40 and the 200 and had owned the 70-200, the difference is noticable from the non L seires, but not night and day.<br>

Ed</p>

[nhut-nguyen]

<blockquote>

<p>Look at vignetting and distortion with the 24-105/4L at 24mm. Neither are exactly low. Look at the non-contstant aperture range of the 100-400/4.5-5.6L or the 28-300/3.5-5.6. Sharpness and contrast are somewhat subjective. Some non-L lenses are just as good. Lenses like the EF-S 10-22 and EF-S 17-55 have very fast AF.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps I should've put "L lenses <strong>generally</strong> have/are"</p>

[matthias_meixner2]

<p>I have the first three lenses of your list and the 24-105 and the 70-200 f/4 IS.<br>

While the 28-105 and 100-300 has to be stopped down to deliver sharp images, the 24-105 and 70-200 gives sharp results wide open. Furthermore IS really helps with low light. Especially the 100-300 needs bright sunshine to obtain best results. However, if you want to go lightweight, keep your old set of lenses ....<br>

For me the switch to the two "L" lenses was worth it.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>I have a 24-105 and a 70-200 2.8 both are excellent but the 70-200 is simply amazing. The one thing is they are big and heavy but they are built to last. Its really all you can hope for in a lens. good build, accurate color, sharp ( even wide open ) Try one out and you wont look back. </p>

[bueh]

<p>L prime lenses are virtually always better than non-L zooms. It is an observeable difference. For example, the EF 200mm f/2.8 L USM at f/2.8 is much better than any of them 70-200mm L zooms wide open, and these are noticeably better than non-L telephotos. Unfortunately, no Canon prime lens (L or non-L) except the more expensive long telephotos has IS.</p>

<p>All of the L lenses are pretty uselable wide open and don't need to be stopped as much to get the best image quality. The primes are especially good in this regard and give much better image quality at comperable apertures than the zoom lenses. So if you are used to stopping down to f/8 and don't need faster lenses, L glass will probably not improve your pictures much.</p>

[j_smith6]

<blockquote>

<p>It's much like driving a Toyota Camry and a BMW M3. If all you do is cruise at 55mph or go grocery shopping, the difference is quite small.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Someone likes cars in here... ;P but if you had an accident while going grocery shopping you'd rather be in the BMW, wouldn't you? :)</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>As we have seen some L lenses are better than others too. Specifically the 24-105/4 L IS that you are considering is not considered one of the best. The money that was spent adding IS to this lens was spent on making the glass better in the 24-70/2.8 L. and the money spent on the greater range of the 24-105 was spent on the faster aperture of the 24-70/2.8 L. With any lens there is always tradeoffs.</p>

<p>Since you are using film it is worth mentioning that the types of film you use greatly affect image quality as well. When I shot film it was primarily Velvia 50, Ektachrome E100VS and the best 100 ISO print film available. Although exceptional glass will help every film these films in particular really show off what good glass can do. If you find yourself using a lot of 200 and 400 ISO film then the glass becomes less important unless of course your film selection is being limited by slower lens apertures.</p>

[christopher hartt dallas]

<p>Of course Bob A. is "THE man with the generally correct answers"...and I don't disagree with him. I'd set the bar slightly lower for the non "L" lenses though - more like speeds in excess of 45mph and prints 8x10 or larger. As the trend toward resolution climbs upward, the limitations of lenses become more apparent. Certainly a buy with the future in mind is likely an "L" lens.<br /> <br /> A few reasons I like "L" lenses - better bokeh (I've only compared the 35L, 50L and 85L), generally less lens flare (same lenses mentioned) and "L" lenses tend to hold their re-sale value much better than the non-"L" lenses. No matter how much you love a lens at first, if you use it a lot there will likely come a day when you'll want to trade it in for a newer version of the lens, or just a new copy of the same lens.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Once you move to L series lens you will not want to use most of the non-L lenses. there are a few "near L" lenses that are still very good. They are (in my opinion) all primes. For example the 85 F1.8, 35 F2, 50 F1.4 and 100 F2 all produce great results (better than the 24-70 F2.8L zoom) but lack L series prices and construction. The F2.8 L series zooms are all great lenses but heavy and expensive.</p>

[christopher hartt dallas]

<p>Btw, I'm a bit cynical about mfrs and marketing. I suspect that if a non "L" lens were really just as good as an L, that the mfr would be putting a red band on it and charging more.</p>

[christopher hartt dallas]

<p>Btw, I'm a bit cynical about mfrs and marketing. I suspect that if a non "L" lens were really just as good as an L, that the mfr would be putting a red band on it and charging more.</p>

[gregf]

<p>Look, I'll be honest, I'm an L-Series Bigot. My only non L-Series is the 45 TS-E. However, I have borrowed a friends 28-135, and much to my surpise, when enlarged to 8x12, I could really notice the lack of sharpness and contrast.<br>

For family snapshots, there may not be that much of a difference, but for larger prints, the L-Series makes a huge difference.<br>

Also, on Maui, on Red Sand beach, I dropped the old 28-70 into the ocean. When I pulled it out and let it dry, it worked like new. You would be hard pressed to find a non L-Series lens that has thay type of durability.</p>

[douglas_vitello]

<p>If you are not earning a living from photography and are not rich save your money and purchase a sturdy tripod instead.Use it often and it will do wonders for the quality of your shots.Your 28 - 105 USM is one of the best picks for a film camera that Canon has to offer considering bang for the buck.Another great lens is the 70 - 300 IS (the latest version).A 'Pro" is someone that makes a living off of photography not someone who owns a lot of pro equipment.</p>

[bueh]

<blockquote>

<p>I suspect that if a non "L" lens were really just as good as an L, that the mfr would be putting a red band on it and charging more.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not true. Else the EF 100mm f/2.8 USM macro or several outstanding EF-S zooms (10-22mm, 17-55mm) would sport the red band.</p>

[christopher hartt dallas]

<p>Bueh B, I counter your "Not True" with an "Uh-Huh".<br /> <br /> You mentioned the 10-22 and 17-55 lenses. They're crop frame only. When you eliminate the outer 40% of the lens performance and consider only the center, the comparison isn't even apples to apples.<br /> <br /> The 100 macro is a good lens, but it is a "macro" (specialty) lens. Like the TS lenses, it's not a lens that one would likely choose without having a unique need for it.</p>