L lenses vs the rest

[john_valjean]

<p>good morning, I know the L lenses topics are all over the place, but I like to ask a question from a "regular" user perspective. I don't own any L lenses but I had the chance to use couple of them for couple of days, I used the 24-105IS and the 70-200F4. Currently I have the 18-135IS on my SLR body and I always have my 70-300IS. I compared visually (not using any tools and no technical analysis), I did not see a difference between the pictures taken from all 4 lenses. Some pictures of course are better looking than others but that is due to the content of the picture. So my question is this, if I only look at pictures on my PC screen and I print 4x6, are there really this major differences between the L lenses and the cheaper one? again, please understand that this question is from a novice photographer that almost exclusively takes pictures of his kids running around ....</p>

[saskphotog]

<p>If that is all you do with your pictures, you will not see much difference - in some circumstances. If your comparison was made at say, f8 for all lenses, and the images were of the same thing, taken at the same distance, in good light, with the same shutter speed, and hand held, you may not notice much difference if you don't check the edges or enlarge things very much. But if you can't see the difference between the image quality of the 70-200 f4 and the 70-300IS, you are not trying properly.</p>

<p>In ideal circumstances, viewing small image sizes, there may not be much to see. If you do a valid test, and you view the images at even modest sizes, there are obvious image quality differences. The fact that you can't see any difference may well prove that, for your photography, there is no point in paying the money for high quality glass. If you ever change your methods, the differences may well become important.</p>

[paddler4]

<p>Images on the computer are both small and low resolution. Under those circumstances, you are not going to see differences in lenses unless they are quite large.</p>

<p>I print mostly 8*10, occasionally 11*14. I notice the difference between lousy lenses and fairly good ones. The differences between fairly good and excellent are harder to find. E.g., I have two macro lenses, the EF-S 60mm (which is very good, but not L) and the EF 100mm L. Never once has any one looked at a print and said, "hmm, that one must have been taken with your L." The honest fact is that I can't generally tell either. The difference in lens quality is swamped by differences 10 cm behind the viewfinder: how well I exposed, the quality of my post-processing, etc. In practice, I choose between the two solely based on FL and other features (e.g., weight, IS), not by L/ non-L.</p>

<p>There are some cases (IMHO, 70-200 is one case) where the gap between the L and middling lenses is fairly large, and I do own an L, but the fact is that the differences would be harder to spot on a computer screen.</p>

[jeff_higdon]

<p>You are probably fine with what you have. On the 70-200 question, I have used extensively the 70-200 f/2.8 (IS and non-IS), the 55-250 ( a small and lighter alternative to your 70-300 IS), and the 70-300 IS.<br>

OK, I am a bit biased toward the L versions of the 70-200. I find the focus a bit faster, the color a bit better and, currently, I need the f/2.8 for the low light work I do. I have not used the 70-200 f/4 versions but I am guessing the same comments would favor them over their non-L counterparts. (I am aware there is a never ending internet debate on whether the 70-200 f/4 really is "better" than the 70-300 IS but I am not going there. I will say I loved my 70-300IS and often miss it!)<br>

There are drawbacks to the L lenses: they are more expensive, generally heavier, they are white and therefore attract more attention, the filters are larger and more expensive, many of the L lenses might not easily fit in your camera bag.<br>

For your purposes, and if computer viewing and 4x6 or 5x7 is all you are doing and you don't have trouble focusing and don't need a faster lens - you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference. So save your money or spend it on other accessories that might provide better photos instantly - like a good flash, a filter set, a tripod or monopod, a better camera body.</p>

<p> </p>

[tony_leinster]

<p>Yes, there are optical differences although some non L lenses (60mm Macro, 85 f1.8, 10-22 and and 70-300 are among these) where you will be hard pressed to see a difference. Probably right up to where you drop them or get them wet, then you might find why some people choose to spend the extra. There is more to L lenses than optical quality, whether you need to buy into them only you can judge. Personally I have a couple of L,s and a few non L,s mainly because of the focal lengths. You can't get for instance the 17-40 or 100-400 in non L and for me (on a 1D MkIII) these were must have lenses.</p>

[randallfarhy]

<p>As other's have noted, for small viewing of images captured in moderate to good light, you're not likely to see much of a difference. Technically, there will be contrast/tone, sharpness and aberration differences-but again when viewing small most of these can be compensated for in post processing. Printing large or for Magazines is another world altogether, and only a select few mid range lenses hold up really well here. (85 1.8 being one that I'm familiar with but there are others). These lenses are generally larger and heavier, have more element groups, and contain elements made from flourite (or synthetics) to control flare and chromatic abberations.</p>

<p>The main reasons pro's and advanced hobbyists generally choose "L" glass over their counterparts (provided one exists) are (random order): <br />Wider maximum apertures which allow for a greater depth of field for subject/background separation, and shooting in lower light. Separation is one characteristic that lesser grade lenses simply can't accomplish, and one reason that images taken with L glass tend to stand out, especially on the long end.</p>

<p>Weatherproofing-more of a necessity now than in the days of film as so many electronic components are incorporated into their build. High humidity, salt air, sand, splashing water and mud, dust, snow and rain are environments that can quickly destroy most lenses, even the "Prosumer" non weatherproofed L's.</p>

<p>Color and contrast- Generally speaking, L series glass tends to be "Snappier" for lack of a better term than other glass. Having more resolution allows for better color and contrast transmission which results in crisper images. Again, something that generally shows up when viewed larger.</p>

<p>Better IS-one of several reasons the next generation of L glass is so much more expensive.</p>

<p>Tripod collars for added stability in low light, especially on the long end.</p>

<p>Better materials and workmanship- L lenses are designed for longer life and work in tough envrionments. Constant handling from zooming in and out, changing lenses, banging and bumping on door frames, in the bag, etc etc can take a toll on light build lenses. L's will hold up far better and often outlive their service life by many years even under hard use.</p>

<p>I'm sure I've missed some points, but these are the main reasons I choose an L lens over it's counterpart.</p>

[randallfarhy]

<p>I tried to link this image as an example of what L glass can do. It was an afterthought but time expired. 225% crop taken from a normally processed image, global capture sharpening only. </p><div></div>

[philip_wilson]

For what you want to do I suspect you will only see a benefit from the faster apertures of L lenses. I have very few non

L lenses and I am happy with my choice as I am looking for performance and durability. The image quality difference

between lenses is actually a function of the individual lenses. For example I would be unlikely to see a difference in

image quality between my 85 F1.8 and my 100 F2.8 LIS but the 85 is possibly the best non L lens. On the other hand

I got a 18-135 with my 7D for a few extra dollars but I gave this lens to the kids as I found the image quality differed a

lot from my 16-35 F2.8 II and my 24-70. That said even here at 50mm and F8 the differences between the 18-135

and the 24-70 are not that great. Where you really see the difference is wide open at 18mm this link may help

 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?

Lens=678&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=412&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1

&APIComp=1

 

It is not a totally fair comparison as the 16-35 is on a full frame body because I could not find a crop body test.

Another point to bear in mind with L series lenses is that they are not actually much more expensive than consumer

lenses if you plan to use them a lot. While they may cost three times as much they are much more durable and hold

their value very well. Indeed my older L series lenses will actually sell for more than I paid for them new as they hold

their value better than the dollar!

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Most photographers working toward the types of output that you create (jpgs for on-screen viewing and small prints) will see no real image quality differences by means of getting L lenses. (There are some potential functional differences, but you'll have to decide whether they are worth the cost absent visible improvements in image quality.)</p>

<p>There are also so very excellent non-L lenses. It is not a sign of photographic sophistication, despite what some would have you believe, to assume that an L lens is always the best choice. For those who shoot cropped sensor cameras, for example, the EFS 10-22 and 17-55 lenses (to name a couple) are arguably better choices than the L alternatives, to the extent that alternatives even exist. There are a number of really fine non-L primes as well. </p>

<p>Dan</p>

[matt_needham]

<p>It doesn't matter what other photographers get out of them. All that matters is what you get out of them. I've done extensive comparisons between my Canon L zooms and Tamron and Sigma f/2.8 zooms: extreme pixel peeping through 20"x30" prints. While there are some differences it's not always the Ls that come out on top. I've also shown my results (unlabeled) to many experienced photographers, and they don't always pick the L prints/files as the best. In general they all seem to be capable of excellent image quality. Beyond the optics there are other differences in use. The Ls almost always have wonderful AF, but the others aren't particularly troublesome. The L build quality seems better, but the Sigmas and Tamrons seem to do fine for my shooting environments, and I consider the lighter weight to be a bonus. </p>

<p>With all the lens rental options out there now I rent and try before I buy. I've found that I'm usually thrilled with $500 lenses that match or come within a split hair of matching $1500 lenses, and somewhat disappointed with $1500 lenses that match or are only a split hair better than $500 lenses. </p>

[nick roberts]

<p>I've got all four of the lenses you mention - well, if the 70-200 f4 is the IS version, anyway. The 70-300 IS is actually a very decent lens for the money, not very far short of L class except at the long end, and the 18-135 is decent enough for what it is. If all you're ever going to do is print small and use pictures for onscreen viewing, then these lenses are more than good enough. If you want to print large or crop heavily, you will see an advantage with the L lenses.</p>

[geoffm]

<p>I have both a 70-300 and 100-400. Both are nice lenses. I use the 70-300 when travelling light and the 100-400 at other times.</p>

<p>A quick and unscientic comparison between the two is here: <a href="http://www.pbase.com/sandshoe/teletests">http://www.pbase.com/sandshoe/teletests</a><br>

Whether the difference is significant in an particular situation depends on a lot of factors other than lens quality!</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>“<strong><em>from a "regular" user perspective</em></strong>. . .I have the <strong><em>18-135IS</em></strong> [and] <strong><em>70-300IS</em></strong>. . . if I only look at pictures on my PC screen and I print 4x6, are there really this major differences between the L lenses and the cheaper one? . . . [i am]a novice photographer that <strong><em>almost exclusively takes pictures of his kids running around</em></strong> ....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Considering your OUTPUTS at the moment:</p>

<p>The main reason that you might consider an L lens, is not necessarily for the general image quality, but rather <strong><em>to allow you to take pictures, that you might not otherwise be able</em></strong>.<br />This has to do with the MAXIMUM APERTURE of the lens and to some extent, the (zoom ) lens being a constant maximum aperture across the zoom range. (Your two zoom lenses have a VARYING maximum aperture across the zoom range). And also the fact that the Canon AF system works better with faster lenses.</p>

<p>For example, let’s say you and I both have the same camera and you have your two zoom lenses and I have the EF70 to 200F/2.8L USM and an EF135F/2L USM and we are watching “kids running around” on the BBall court at the local School Gym and we need to use a lens at FL=135mm to get the shots we want.<br />School Gyms have notoriously poor light and we see that to get to a Tv (Shutter Speed) of about 1/400s (moderately “OK” for Kids BBall to freeze some movement) we need to pull:<br />F/2.8 @ 1/400s @ ISO1600.</p>

<p>So, by comparison, I am happy as a clam because I can use my 70 to 200/2.8 and mostly all DSLR’s can manage ISO1600 quite reasonably: in fact I can use my 135/2 and shoot at ISO800 if I wanted OR use my 135/2 and shoot at 1/800s at ISO1600 to ensure I get those good shots of two feet off the ground a bit sharper . . .<br />On the other hand, if you use your 18 to 135, you have only F/5.6 available to use: so you need to shoot at ISO6400 just to manage 1/400s; if you use your 70 to 300 lens you will be at around F/4.5 or maybe F/5 so there is not much advantage using that lens.</p>

<p>Now you might say that you have no interest in BBall - <strong><em>but the same rationale applies to any situation where the LIMIT of you MAXIMUM aperture of your Zoom lenses, begins to restrict your choice of ISO or Tv or the speed and efficiency of the AF, to make the shot.</em></strong></p>

<p>I have only mentioned your two ZOOM lenses, because those are the only lenses you mention.<br />You could solve the problem of slow maximum aperture with faster lenses which are NOT L series. For example using a PRIME lens.<br />Also, as you imply that you have a camera with an EF-S mount, you could get an F/2.8 ZOOM lens with the EF-S 17 to 55F/2.8 IS USM (or a third party similar lens) and these lenses are NOT L-Series either.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

[roland_gooday]

<p>Well my most expensive lens is still a non L series 70-300mm DO. However, it was also one of my first. Some time after this, I picked up the 'plastic fantastic' 50mm f1.8 prime lens and got hooked on prime lenses. As a direct result of this I went on to buy two of the cheaper and some would say best value L lenses, the new 100mm L macro and the 200mm f2.8. Immediate and obvious differences are: speed - brightness of the viewfinder, speed of focus (the 200mm is very quick). Sharpness - My copy of the 100mm on my camera (a 5d Mk1) is stupidly sharp. Colour and contrast - little correction in light room. Distortion - very little. Hit rate - much higher. Finally, and highly subjectively, I think there is something a little magic about some of the shots you can get with an L lens. I think it's because they go beyond what the human eye see in detail and in depth of field (apparently that's about f3 although of course you can get this in a non-L lens) and because the images are none the less remarkably undistorted. But that's not saying you can't do that with a 35mm Zeiss lens or anything (on my wish list). Anyway, if I could start again, I'd never have bought that first lens, never have bought that 500D (don't ask) and would have done my best to get the following lenses - 16-35L, 70-200 2.8L (or maybe stick with my 200mm prime) and the 100L. I'd be hoping to get the 85mm and 135mm too, but that would be starting to get a bit mad. That said, I wouldn't have bothered with the 50mm 1.2L because my 1.4 is very good. Did I mention weather-proofing, ruggedness and build quality?</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>L is just a designation - the real trick is to get the best lenses you can. In the old FD days the 135 F2 was not an L series lens (although it was priced like one). That said the FD 135 F2 and the FD 85 F1.2L are my favourite FD lenses and the 135 possibly has better IQ than the 85 (at least if you shoot test charts wide open the 135 F2 will beat the 85 F1.2).</p>