L-series quality without the price?

[vance_kerslake__london__en]

In the March 2002 edition of EOS Magazine they write:

 

"Don't assume that only an L-series lens will give top-quality

images. Results from lenses such as the EF 50mm f1.8 II, EF 85mm

f1.8 USM and EF 100mm f2 USM are equally good, even though they don't

have the features which place them in the professional category"

 

I tend to take things in EOS Magazine with a pinch of salt. What is

the opinion of others? I see these lenses have good reviews in the

equipment section here. Are the optics really as good as L-series?

 

The reason I ask is because like most people I'd like to be using the

best glass, but L-series is beyond my price range at the moment

whereas these lenses are not.

 

Thanks

[tom_menegatos]

The "L" stands for luxury not professional. L lenses are generally built tougher and may have other special features such as better coatings and flourite elements.

 

Flourite helps correct chromatic abberations. This is more pronounced in telelphoto and especially telephoto zoom lenses. With prime lenses at relatively short telephoto lengths it isn't as big of a problem. It is easier and more affordable to construct a good prime than a zoom lens. If you notice the only L series primes have other special features such as a very large maxiumum aperture, are very long or are tilt/shift lenses.

 

Some of these primes are as sharp or sharper than some of the L-series lenses but you'll lose the convenience of a zoom lens.

[jackflesher]

Non-L lenses I own or have owned: 20mm f2.8, 24mm f2.8, 28mm f1.8, 35mm f2, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.8.

 

Non-L lenses I think give L-class performance: 24/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8. ALL of these lenses improve significantly if stopped down one stop, and the 28 comes up to snuff at f4.

 

Hope this helps,

[bill_goldman]

One common element of all L lenses is that they feature one or more of the premium optical technologies such as synthetic Fluorite, aspherical elements, and UD or Super UD glass. In addition, they are built to Canon's highest standards for long service life with a tough exterior and solid construction and are intended for professional use. They are also generally Canon's fastest lenses in each focal length or zoom range and have premium features such as internal or rear focusing and/or zooming and are supplied with dedicated lens hood, lens case or pouch, and tripod collar (for long lenses or telephoto zooms). Newest L lenses feature seals and gaskets for added weather protection.

 

Many of the non-L lenses stand up very well against L lenses in performance comparisons. My EF50mm f/1.4 USM is on a par, performance wise, with most L lenses but is not built to the same standards and does not include aspheric elements or UD glass.

 

So what this boils down to is that those who need the best and can afford the best will probably opt for L lenses. But you don't need the best to take great pictures. Most of Canon's mid-price lenses are very good. It all depends on what satisfies your expectations.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>All of the lenses you mention are reviewed in the equipment reviews here. The reviews of all of them state that they are of high optical standards.</p>

[carl smith]

Canon L lenses are professional lenses by design, and typically by cost. However that's not to say that the non-L primes are not of pro quality. They just aren't usually as sturdy and sometimes a little slower. There's a 50mm 1.4 and 1.8, but the 50mm 1.0 is an L lens. Or the 85mm 1.4L. The slower primes are excellent, and much more economically feasible for most people.

[preston_merchant]

You'll notice that the article doesn't suggest that any of the non-L zooms are comparable to the L zooms.

 

As has been observed, many non-L primes compete well with L primes, and other threads have noted that many non-L primes surpass the image quality of L zooms.

 

But most users don't think the non-L zooms are up to standard. So if you are looking for a zoom, you might want to consider saving up for the L.

[yakim_peled1]

I'd vow for the 50/1.8 II anytime. I have this humble lens for more than 10 years and my own experience - contrary to others' experience, I know - is that wide open, it is better than the 70-200/4 USM L.

[peter_phan]

I own the Canon 35/2, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8. I concur that these lenses do deliver "L-quality" optical performance. The primary advantages of the Canon 35/1.4L, 50/1.0L, and 85/1.2L are faster apertures, more robust construction, and the coveted red ring. If you don't absolutely need the extra wide apertures, save yourself a ton of money and a good deal of weight by going non-L.

[bobatkins]

All the EF prime lenses are capable of yielding excellent results, especially if stopped down slightly. There's no such thing as "L series performance", only good performance and most prime lenses have it.

 

For example the 50/1.0L performance at f1.0 is, in fact, despite being an "L" Lens, not all that great (but it is FAST!).

[bob stewart jacksonville]

It's really not an apples to apples comparison. Some non L primes lenses are sharper than L zooms. For example the 50 1.8 has better MTF scores at 50mm and 2.8, than the 28-70 has at 40mm and 2.8 (the closest focal length to 50mm for which I could find data.) Does this mean the 50 1.8 is a "better" lens than the 28-70L? I don't think so. Does this mean that there are non L lenses that are extremely sharp and may be good options, particularly for people on a budget, and who are willing to forgo the convenience of a zoom? Absolutely.

[pphaneuf]

I own the 50mm/f1.8 Mk II and the 100mm/f2.0 USM, and I find them both excellent, with the 100/f2 possibly being of ohmygod class.