Canon L lenses - equal sharpness and quality?

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L IS USM

11/23/2006 08:10:41 AM · #1

An L is an L is an L ... or is it?

I have heard that "the 70-200 F/4L is a sharp lens"

Does this mean it is sharper than other L lenses, like a 70-300, 100-400 or even the 70-200 F/2.8L?

I have had my eyes set on this new 70-200 F/4 IS for a while, and would have bought one if I had found one in a store. Often without a tripod, the alleged 4 stops does mean a lot to me, although I know it is not going to make much difference for moving objects.

Also, does anyone know what countries are cheapest for buying Canon gear - my impression is that the US and Hong Kong are the best places to buy (with a currently relatively weak dollar)

idnic

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

11/23/2006 10:05:14 AM · #2

I have the 70-200 F4 and it IS one sharp lens, but so is my 50 F1.4 and my 100 F2.8 neither of which are Ls. L lenses are built better, no doubt and are very sharp, but I wouldn't say that they are across the board sharper than other Canon lenses, though certainly sharper than some.
For what its worth, if you can afford the 70-200 F2.8, get it. Its worth the extra money to get those extra stops! (next lens on my list).

Beagleboy

Canon EOS-30D

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

11/23/2006 10:09:10 AM · #3

My Canon 70-200mm F/4 L is sharp but it's soft as a baby's patookus when compared to my Canon 300mm F/4 L IS.

I also find that my Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 is very sharp. Best bang for buck and versatility, fer shure.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/23/2006 10:20:23 AM · #4

Send the 70-200 in to get adjusted if its that bad. Mine is sharp as a tack. Only lense I have that are sharper are 50 and 85mm primes. My 24-105L is slightly less harp than the 70-200 but not enough to complain about really.

kyebosh

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

11/23/2006 10:21:24 AM · #5

not all L lenses are created equal.

Beagleboy

Canon EOS-30D

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

11/23/2006 10:31:54 AM · #6

Originally posted by routerguy666:

The 70-200 f4 L is sharp, but it doesn't hold a candle to the 300mm f4 L IS, although the IS may be helping me by reducing blur caused by my movement.

scarbrd

Leica M10

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

11/23/2006 10:42:32 AM · #7

Originally posted by Beagleboy:

Originally posted by routerguy666:
Send the 70-200 in to get adjusted if its that bad. Mine is sharp as a tack. Only lense I have that are sharper are 50 and 85mm primes. My 24-105L is slightly less harp than the 70-200 but not enough to complain about really.

The 70-200 f4 L is sharp, but it doesn't hold a candle to the 300mm f4 L IS, although the IS may be helping me by reducing blur caused by my movement.

A prime lens should be sharper than a zoom lens. However, I don't know how you can tell the difference between these 2 lenses.

I posted a forum thread about the 70-200 f4L.

Look at the original post and check out the extreme crop on 2 of the images. I don't have both the F4 and F2.8 versions but a k now poeple who do. They say the 4.0L is noticably sharper than the 2.8L (Non-IS in all cases).

To me the considerations for buying the 4.0L over the 2.8L was price, performance, weight. The 70-200 2.8L is an anchor to carry around. But if you need the extra stop of light, there isn't much else to do. IS versions are nice for hand holding, but they don't stop action of a moving subject.

You can't go wrong with any L lens.

Good luck!

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

11/23/2006 11:01:46 AM · #8

Positives about the 70-200 F4.0L, Clear, crisp, clean, I love this lens.
Negative, You just purchased a L series lens for $600-700, the rest of them will cost $1000-$5000 each.

NstiG8tr

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

11/23/2006 11:05:14 AM · #9

What's the negative about purchasing a "L' lens for $600-$700. I don't understand this.

Message edited by author 2006-11-23 11:05:25.

Ubersteiny

Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM for Canon

11/23/2006 11:12:36 AM · #10

in the 70-200 L series lenses the 2.8 nonIS is the sharpest

Man_Called_Horse

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

11/23/2006 11:12:49 AM · #11

First of all, "L" stands for Luxury, and Canon means it.

The L classifacation is because the elements in the barrel, I'm not sure how many if not all of them, are made from Flouridic crystals.

Normal glass elements, no matter how pure they are still have impurities in the chemical makeup that makes a lens slow.

Flouridic crystals don't have impurities, therefore make for a better lens.

11/23/2006 11:14:38 AM · #12

The next lense I want is $4000,

B74A

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L IS USM

11/24/2006 05:42:37 AM · #13

This is good enough for me, everyone, thanks, I will order the new 70-200 F/4, the one that has IS. I hope it is as sharp as the non-IS version.

Can't wait, Lord give me patience, but now I need it YESTERDAY!

B74A

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L IS USM

11/24/2006 05:43:45 AM · #14

Originally posted by NstiG8tr:

What's the negative about purchasing a "L' lens for $600-$700. I don't understand this.

I think Alan means that from your first lens, the rest will be L, meaning a well ventilated wallet ...

Ubersteiny

Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM for Canon

11/24/2006 09:57:06 AM · #15

Originally posted by B74A:

nooo pay the extra and get the 2.8 dont cheap out!

fotomann_forever

11/24/2006 10:27:43 AM · #16

Originally posted by alans_world:

The next lense I want is $4000,

Which one?

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/24/2006 11:13:28 AM · #17

Canon EF 200mm f1.8L Discontinued but can buy a good used one for about $4000 add a 1.4 and 2x TC and you also have a 280mm at f 2.8 and a 400mm at f3.8 not bad. I shoot mostly outdoor events at the 200mm range I want the low light and faster shutter speed 1.8 will provide, the Xti has shutter speeds up to 1/4000.

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

11/24/2006 11:17:46 AM · #18

Originally posted by alans_world:

My guess is ... if you do get that lens, you'll want a bigger body on the back of it just to help stabilize it and give you something more to hold onto. I'd recommend the Canon 30D with it's faster frame rate. But then again, if you're willing to spend $4000 on a lens, you really ought to be looking at the Canon EOS 1D Mark IIn which will give you a frame rate of nearly 9 frames per second with a burst rate of up to 48 frames. Now *that* is a sports shooter camera! :-)

11/24/2006 11:40:34 AM · #19

LOL, one thing at a time, Right now I like how the XTi works, the ease of the setting controls, how it fits. I usually own cameras about 2 years before I get bored with capabilities and start look for advancements. I am after 2 canon cameras a devoted fan, and you know what they say about glass, and the 200 f1.8L no longer produced wonâ��t be around forever.

PhantomEWO