L glass photo and regular glass photo comparison

[alemar_calambro]

<p>I have been reading the forum about L glass, how sharp it is, better build and other things. In any poast I don't see any comparision of photo's using a l glass and a regular glass. I even googgle the comparision they show me images in diffrent area of the picture but I want to see the whole picture. I have two glass that give me good pictures but I am thinking of getting a EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM as my standard glass. Any upload phots are welcome are or any website. I haven't found a good one to compare to two.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>www.slrgear.com</p>

[chrisjb]

<p>So I grab a 5d and takes some shots on the veranda, 24 105 wide open f4 at 28mm, then a 28 135 at 28mm f4, AV not straight but rush shots like a lot of folks may do, these as shot not touched just resized :) </p><div></div>

[chrisjb]

<p>Still can`t get 2 images in 1 post</p><div></div>

[j_smith6]

<p>The exposure difference between these two is 2,5 stops. That's pretty weird. Your AF must have used different focus points. It would be better if you used manual mode or only one (e.g. center) AF point.</p>

[jake_cole]

<p>Well usually they show portions of the picture because it is at these locations where the difference is most noticeable. <br>

It should be noted L is a Lens designation "Luxury", and not a glass designation. It is true that most L lenses have one or more exotic glass lenses in them, but that is not what the L designation is identifying. It identifies the complete lens that is a combination of many pieces.<br>

The difference would depend on the focal length, aperture, fixed/zoom, auto-focus, etc.<br>

So any meaningful comparison can only exist between specific lenses, not between "L" and "non L". And to be precise, a real practical comparison has to address the actual usage scenario, since it hardly makes a difference if the lens is not used where it's strengths are noticeable.<br>

Catch The Light,<br />Jake</p>

[rainer_t]

<p>Nice to read ...</p>

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

[rickvandenberg]

<p>Take a long look at <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/</a> <br>

There are honest reviews, sample photographs, and a very nice tool that lets you see ISO 12233 crops (these are test targets), as well as vignetting.<br>

This is my go-to web site prior to making any lens acquistion, and it's never failed me.</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>The L designation, meaning Luxury, is a marketing tool as much as it's anything else. Not that the L lenses are bad. I have two, and I love them. But I also have the awesome 85/1.8, which isn't an L lens, though it isn't inferior to them in any way I can detect. It is, however, much less expensive.<br /> <br /> To the extent L means anything, it means that they were willing to spend more money than might strictly be necessary in the making of the lens. The extra money spent leads to extra cost, as well as an assortment of little features that lower-cost lenses lack. For your L-grade cash, you will get<br /> <br /> - Generally excellent image quality<br /> - Generally excellent build quality<br /> - More expensive lens designs, using more exotic elements, sometimes with all-internal focus and zoom (like in all the 70-200Ls)<br /> - Often a weather-sealed lens<br /> - Often an image stabilizer<br /> - Nine-blade apertures with excellent bokah<br /> - Very fast and quiet ring USM focussing<br /> - Full-time manual focussing, a very handy feature<br /> - A really cool red stripe<br /> <br /> ...All of those features, excepting the red stripe, are also available in some non-L lenses. The 85/1.8 and 85/1.2L lenses, as discussed in Rainer's link above, are the poster children for the ambiguity the L designation sometimes carries. While the 1.2L is "better" in that it has a wider aperture, it's also much heavier and focusses slower than the excellent and feature-laden 85/1.8-non-L.<br /> <br /> Probably the reason you're not finding many small full-image comparisons is that none of those things are going to matter in a 600x400-pixel image. If that's what your end product will be, you don't need L glass. Almost any lens, L or not, will produce fine prints up to 8x10 inch.<br /> <br /> But also keep in mind that some of the luxury items, like full-time-manual focus, aren't about image quality at all. It's about being able to quickly correct a small focus error. When shooting candids, it's incredibly useful, and will sometimes mean you catch an image that you otherwise would have missed. Of course, this bites both ways: The high build quality of L glass leads to higher weight, and you might decide not to carry those heavy L lenses on an all-day hike. So that day, non-L lenses will take images your L lenses miss.<br>

It's all about tradeoffs - money, weight, quality, features, with lots of marketing hype spread throughout. Your best bet is to read a lot and make purchase decisions based on real knowledge of the lenses. Richard's link, the-digital-picture.com, is an excellent place to start.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Go to <a href="http://www.slrgear.com">www.slrgear.com</a> to compare the resolution, CA, vignetting, and distortion of a number of popular lenses. You won't see sample images, though.</p>

[fotograf]

<p>"Luxury" is purely a made up name for the L designation, by consumers. I called Canon years ago and they said their company never has used "luxury" for the "L" lenses. If anything- I'd imagine "L" could possibly stand for Low-Dispersion, since that is the type of glass used in their lenses- UD glass(Ultra Low Dispersion).</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>My reference is<br /> <br /> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-L-Lens-Series.aspx<br /> <br /> Regarding what the L means, he writes<br /> <br /> <em>...many answers exist, but it is Canon's professional line (though used extensively by non-professionals) of EOS EF autofocus 35mm SLR and DSLR still camera lenses. Some say L stands for "Low Distortion" - achieved by the UD lens elements found in these lenses. But, the true answer is probably the one in Canon's Lens Work III Book - "L" is for "Luxury".<br /> </em> <br /> I do not have a copy of the book in question, so I can't verify his reference. But I believe him and it is from Canon.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>Don't buy into Canon's marketing totally. Their L series tend to be better quality, for various reasons, but there are plenty of good quality non-L lens, and you have to appraise each lens on it's own merits.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Sarah wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Go to <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.slrgear.com/" target="_blank">www.slrgear.com</a> to compare the resolution, CA, vignetting, and distortion of a number of popular lenses. You won't see sample images, though.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is one of my favorite sources for lens test comparisons. I especially like the 3D interactive blur charts - there is a ton of information in those displays. Even better, open two of them in separate windows on your screen, one for each of two lenses you wish to compare, and see how they stack up at various focal lengths and apertures.<br>

I'll agree that no test is the be all and end all of lens knowledge, but there is a lot to be learned from them. A few good ones to look at include comparisons the following groups:</p>

<ul>

<li>EF 16-35 f/2.8 L, EF 17-40mm f/4 L, EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS</li>

<li>Various groups of 35mm , 50mm lenses, and 85mm primes - especially comparisons between non-L and L versions.</li>

</ul>

<p>Dan</p>

[chrisjb]

<p>As noted you problably see no difference with those 2 images, even if adjusted in PS cause full size images downsized has too much detail removed, and yeah what happens when you use a dslr as a p&s.</p>

<p> I`m no expert about optics and there are some on PN, but I know that to make faster lenses there are many obstacles to get over. A good lens will give you an image that is close to what your eyes see. Understanding some of those obstacles can help tp appreciate what goes into makin the lens and why so pricey. Most folks do ok with good consumer lenses, heck one award winning pro here gets more work than some of us round here, charges 4~6 times as much and uses a 350d and one lens 18 55 kit, knocked back a good priced new 5d cause the lens would not fit. This page from canon may help and promped further reseach..HTH :)<br>

<a href="http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=GlossaryAct&fcategoryid=216">http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=GlossaryAct&fcategoryid=216</a></p>

 

[yakim_peled1]

<blockquote>

<p>Don't buy into Canon's marketing totally. Their L series tend to be better quality, for various reasons, but there are plenty of good quality non-L lens, and you have to appraise each lens on it's own merits.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>

<p>Exactly. I traded two L lenses (17-40 and 24-105) for two EF-S ones (10-22 and 17-55) and am selling another L (35/1.4) as it became redundant by the latter EF-S.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Yakim, the L lenses are of course all EF and are therefore optimized for a larger image circle. In general, the EFS lenses do have an advantage over EF lenses for crop bodies, as they are better optimized for that format. If they had such a thing as an EFS-L, then I think you'd have something even more exciting. But if you're married to the crop format, the EF-S lenses are probably the way to go.</p>

<p>Happy shooting back, and Happy New Year! :-)</p>

[fotograf]

<p>what are you asking for the 35 f/1.4?</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<blockquote>

<p>If they had such a thing as an EFS-L, then I think you'd have something even more exciting.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>

<p>That is what I exactly was trying to say. IQ wise these lenses <strong>are</strong> EFS-L.<br>

 

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>what are you asking for the 35 f/1.4?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>

 

<br>

 

<p>Please E-mail me to: yakim [dot] peled [at] orange [dot] co [dot] il</p>

 

</p>

 

<p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

<p> </p>