How much better are the L Lenses ?

[philip_wilson]

<p>Mark, thanks for mentioning the 80-200 F4L FD zoom. I had always had an unhappy time with FD zooms (except perhaps the 35-105 F3.5 another almost L FD lens) but I bought the 80-200 F4L after comments on thsi forum and have been very pleased with it. On the subject of the L series prices I can only say that based on my years of experience lenses are worth the extra as they last so well. I still regularly use a large selection of L and near L FD glass - most of which was made between 1980 (300 F2.8L) and 1993 (80-200 F4L). If you get 25-30 years out of a lens it is good value and the extra few hundred dollars starts to appear less material. Given the cost and life of digital bodies I would suggest that the L series lenses are a better buy that the bodies. For example in 1986 an F1N body cost $810 and the 300F2.8L cost $3500 - over 4 times as much. Both my F1N bodies and all of my L series lenses are still going strong today. However look how the equation has changed. Adorama list the latest 300 F2.8L IS for $3,728 but the 1DsIII body is $6500 - almsot twice as much as the lens. Now the electronics and complexity mean that the lens is unlikely to last as well as the FD version but the body will be obsolete in two years. If anything makes a compelling case for spending money on glass the relative price of lenses and bodies does. Even in EF fit an L series lens should last at least 10 years, compared to perhaps 5 for a body. If you look at a 5DII it costs $2700 for which price you can but the 17-40 F4L, the 24-70 F2.8 and almost add the 70 - 200 F2.8 (non-IS). All of these lenses are world class as I have owned them all - albeit I recently sold the 17-40 F4L to get the 16-35 F2.8 II</p>

[m._scott_clay1]

<p>Wow, that's a lot of posts. Most with good points.</p>

<p>Bottom line: Weather seals, better built and yes (in most cases) better optically than it's non-L counterpart.</p>

<p>I saw the comparison chart for the 24-105L VS 28-135. It showed the 28-135 winning in most of the tests. I found that hard to believe so I did my own tests using two different patterns. It was not "controlled" because I don't normally shoot in a controlled environment out in the field. I wanted a test that showed the two lenses the way I shoot. I wanted a fair test of the lenses so I put the test patterns on the wall and shot hand held with IS on, with the same ISO, F stop and lighting with the camera choosing the shutter speed at 70mm on the 5d and 50mm on the 40d (ok, that's a little controlled, but not on a tripod). 1st test was on a 5d with room light. 2nd test was on a 40d with flash.</p>

<p>In the 5d test they were both about the same in the center, but the 24-105L was noticeably sharper in the corners. On the 40d test the 24-105L was noticeably sharper in all aspects. It's possible I have a bad copy of the 28-135 and a really good copy of the 24-105L, but I don't think so.</p>

<p>Has anyone had similar results in tests between the two?</p>

<p>Happy New Year!</p>

<p>Scott</p>

[james_glucksman1]

<p>I suppose there is not much sense in my responding, since nothing I'm about to write has not been written before, I'm sure, but I like the sound of my own voice...<br>

I switched to L lenses when I migrated to the 5D, since I was led to understand that the L lenses would give better results with the full frame camera. I initially had the f/4 range (17-40, 24-105, and 70-200) but have since moved up to the f/2.8s (16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 IS), and as one earlier poster said, they are a bit addictive. Now, having filled up my range of L zooms, I am now pining for an L prime...</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Scott wrote: "Has anyone had similar results in tests between the two?"</p>

<p>My own 24-105 admittedly has better IQ than many of the test images I've seen on the Internet. My 28-135 is probably about average for that lens. Based on my own experiences...</p>

<p>My 28-135 is an uncommonly good lens for the price and has produced some really great images for me. However, it is not consistently good across all focal lengths and apertures, and it sometimes produces marked CA that requires tedious editing. Its build is sturdy but clunky. The barrels are wobbly, so much so that I get my best images when I hold the lens by the barrels, not by the zoom ring. The controls are stiff and imprecise. Focus is less precise than the 24-105. The early-generation IS is quite good -- maybe not quite as good as the 24-105's, but still quite good.</p>

<p>By comparison, the 24-105 is amazingly consistent across all focal lengths and apertures (below diffraction limits, of course). The only shortcoming is the vignetting at 24mm -- not a horrible thing, really. Build is sturdy. Controls are solid. Precise focus. No floppy nested barrels. Edge/corner sharpness is superb. CA is marvelously absent. The best thing I can say about this lens is that it is predictable, intuitive, and consistent.</p>

<p>Another valid comparison might be with regard to how I use these two lenses. My 24-105 is my primary lens, and I use it when:</p>

<ul>

<li>I anticipate no unusual hazard to the lens</li>

<li>I need consistent and predictable results, e.g. when I'm shooting on the clock for a client and don't have the luxury of time to think out where the sweet-spots are in the lens (because the entire lens is sweet)</li>

<li>I anticipate high-contrast edges, such as with sky against tree branches</li>

</ul>

<p>I use my 28-135 when:</p>

<ul>

<li>I'm out on the Chesapeake Bay and don't want to expose my 24-105 to salt air</li>

<li>I anticipate unusual shooting hazards</li>

<li>There is a theft risk</li>

</ul>

<p>Both lenses can produce excellent images, and I still shoot some of my artwork with the 28-135, even after having acquired the 24-105.</p>

<p>I definitely think the 28-135 is the better deal, particularly when purchased used, and I often recommend the lens to others. However, the 24-105 is such a wonderful lens that I think it is well worth the extra cost either for a pro or for anyone else who must "depend" on their equipment.</p>

[liuap]

<p>If you want to compare optical performance of L lenses with non-L lenses, visit slrgear.com. The website shows their performance using quantative numbers. I found the charts measured by the company are very helpful for my decision making.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I'm also a big fan of the slrgear.com reports and 3D interactive displays. I recommend the site highly. My only caveat is that is some cases their results seem very different from the consensus of other test sites. That is not meant as a "warning" against slrgear.com - not at all - but it is a good idea to include a few of the other test sites for perspective.</p>

<p>(I'd love to see them test a second copy of certain lenses where there results seem to be quite different from what others report.)</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[chris_clarke3]

<p>Dan, I think you take extremely professional and well composed 'happy snaps'. <br>

I'm even fooled into thinking you are quite good.<br>

<br>

Hope you have a good New Year mate<br>

<br>

Chris Clarke AKA Eyebrock.</p>

<p > </p>

 

[dezi_cardenas]

<p>Hi ,<br>

I just won on Ebay ($710.00) a used / near new in box Canon 24-105mm f/4 L lens for my daughters brand new Canon 450D Rebel Xsi body. Did I do ok on the price?</p>

<p>Thanks<br>

DC</p>

 

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Chris... Thanks! :-)</p>

<p>Off to make some more "happy snaps!"</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[m._scott_clay1]

<p>Dezi,</p>

<p>Yes, that's a good price. Enjoy!</p>

<p>Scott</p>