| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/21/2007 07:57:42 PM · #1 |
Well...I´ve been hearing at reading reviews about Canon L lenses being absolutely fab and all.
I just bought a L lens (70-200/2.8 without IS). Before this one I already had a standard Canon wide-zoom lens + 50 mm/1.8 plastic lens and the 10-22/4.5-5.8 EF-S lens.
To tell the truth I can´t see THAT much a difference in L glass. It´s not a bad lens or anything, but I was just not ´blazed´ away by the quality, sharpness and vivid colors. For me it´s just....ok. Just cool to be able to zoom from 70 to 200 mm. And the construction feels thight and robust.
I think I´ve just found out that I´m really just not a lens-spec-type-of-guy. I´m much more ´blazed´ by good shots with good contrast and framing. I think the L-thing is WAAAYYY overrated.
Why am I not seeing these ´vivid-colors´ and ´super-sharpness´ that everyone is talking about? Am I alone here, or does anyone agree?
Maybe I´m just looking in the wrong places, when I´m percieving a photo.
PS.
Am I getting flamed for this? :) |
|
|
|
02/21/2007 07:59:37 PM · #2 |
Ive seen that there was IS and Non IS. I saw a review on the IS versus non IS and saw a good difference in the IS. But I myself am confused whats L glass. But the canon L Lenses with IS seemed to put out very clear hand held shots.
Maybe its just the IS version thats the REAL rage?
EDIT - As they sharper images come from stabilized shots use ur tripod use IS!
Message edited by author 2007-02-21 20:00:12. |
|
|
|
02/21/2007 07:59:53 PM · #3 |
You really nned to compare it to a non-L telephoto zoom.
I had the 75-300 regular Canon zoom, the 70-200 F4L (non-IS) is waaaaay sharper.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2007 08:00:15 PM · #4 |
| It's more the carpenter than the hammer, so to speak. That said, that's a great lense and most people's experience (who actually own them) do see some extra bang for your buck in the L series. |
|
|
|
02/21/2007 08:01:51 PM · #5 |
take a shot with your 50mm at f/1.8. You'll see a big difference.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2007 08:02:13 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Siinji:
PS.
Am I getting flamed for this? :) |
I don't think you should. FWIW, you are comparing it to a 50mm 1.8 prime, which in itself is a damn great lens.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2007 08:16:12 PM · #7 |
FWIW, the IS version is noway as sharp as the non-IS version. I have used both (own the IS version) and I can state the non-IS was noticably sharper, but then again the light wasn't going through half as much glass..
But I wouldnt swap it for my IS version.. uh uh. no way. |
|
|
|
02/21/2007 08:20:44 PM · #8 |
haha, I laughed when I saw the original post, as I've been saying the same thing myself.
L-glass is totally overrated. Period. Now, it's certainly better than, for example, the 75-300, 18-55, etc. But for half the price you can buy Tamron, Tokina, and Sigma glass that is just as good as L-glass. When you buy Canon L, you're not paying for some be-all-end-all super glass, you're paying for the name. Just like anything else.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2007 08:33:14 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by OdysseyF22:
haha, I laughed when I saw the original post, as I've been saying the same thing myself.
L-glass is totally overrated. Period. Now, it's certainly better than, for example, the 75-300, 18-55, etc. But for half the price you can buy Tamron, Tokina, and Sigma glass that is just as good as L-glass. When you buy Canon L, you're not paying for some be-all-end-all super glass, you're paying for the name. Just like anything else. |
Did you have L-glass and then sell it? I don't see any on your profile.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2007 08:38:11 PM · #10 |
I have the 17-85 ef-s and the 17-40L and while i like the 17-85 the 17-40L is MUCH better. in more things than sharpness. Now if i could just get my wife to stop using it:) Also the 70-200 f4L we have is much better than the cheaper telezoom we had before.
I am sure that there are some great 3rd party lenses for less but compare everything when comparing and that includes build quality.
Message edited by author 2007-02-21 20:38:45. |
|
|
|
02/21/2007 08:59:10 PM · #11 |
Well I am going to offer my 2 cents. I have owned Tamron, SIgma, and regular Canon lens. There is a HUGE difference between IQ, color, saturation, Contrast, sharpness and focus speed between them and non-L canon or 3rd party lens. However if your not pushing your equipment to the limits you may never notice any of it. But when you need it and it does fail you(third party stuff)then you will wish you had the L back. YMMV
MattO
|
|
|
|
02/21/2007 08:59:15 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
It's more the carpenter than the hammer, so to speak. That said, that's a great lense and most people's experience (who actually own them) do see some extra bang for your buck in the L series. |
That's a pretty accurate description. Check out the top rated photos, though. Just look what those great carpenters can do!
Arnit, Laurus, EddyG, gaurawa, Rando300, Skip....did I miss anyone?
I like mine. A lot! I usually try to shoot too shallow and give myself no room for error. When I nail it, though, it's excellent. I like the feel of it compared to my 170-500 Sigma which is very flimsy.
Also, it looks very cool...my own personal opinion, of course. ;)
Oh, I was referring to the IS version.
Message edited by author 2007-02-21 21:00:41. |
|
|
|
02/21/2007 09:05:11 PM · #13 |
There's a lot of Photo Geek peer pressure too:
|
|
|
|
02/21/2007 09:18:03 PM · #14 |
| the 10-22 and 50 1.8 are both very sharp lenses. Probably some of the best non-L lenses canon makes. Infact I'd say they're probably better than some of the L's glass. |
|
|
|
02/21/2007 10:07:11 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
the 10-22 and 50 1.8 are both very sharp lenses. Probably some of the best non-L lenses canon makes. Infact I'd say they're probably better than some of the L's glass. |
...in terms of optics. |
|
|
|
02/21/2007 10:17:27 PM · #16 |
I love the L glass I have. Beautifully crafted, tough as hell, superb optics.
But you could go on and on and on about it when the best thing would be just to shutter up and take some pictures.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2007 10:29:04 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Marjo:
That's a pretty accurate description. Check out the top rated photos, though. Just look what those great carpenters can do!
Arnit, Laurus, EddyG, gaurawa, Rando300, Skip....did I miss anyone?
|
The three top rated photos on this site were taken with point and shoots. That suggests that you don't need L lenses or a dslr to take a great shot which to my mind is pretty accurate.
It's fairly obvious that Canon users love their L glass but its probably just as much because a lot Canon consumer glass is only pedestrian in quality and performance.
bazz. |
|
|
|
02/21/2007 10:35:41 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
the 10-22 and 50 1.8 are both very sharp lenses. Probably some of the best non-L lenses canon makes. Infact I'd say they're probably better than some of the L's glass. |
The 50/1.8 is a great lens, but it easily has its weaknesses. You cannot use it wide open without losing quite a bit of sharpness. The joy of L-glass is they are so consistent across the spectrum of their aperture and/or zoom. It also is very, very slow to focus. Once you are used to USM, you will wonder how in the world you could have used a geared AF lens.
Hey, it's another Bazz sighting. One thing I'll mention about his comment is that on DPC you can easily take a 8+ picture with a P&S. However, in the DPC world the canvas is 640x640. In the real world, as soon as you start enlarging, you will quickly differentiate P&S from dSLR and consumer glass from professional glass.
Message edited by author 2007-02-21 22:37:03.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2007 10:35:46 PM · #19 |
"pedestrian in quality and performance"
I'm not sure that I understand your meaning on that phrase. ? |
|
|
|
02/21/2007 10:39:10 PM · #20 |
I read somewhere that the L glass is made from Flouridic crystals, as opposed to ?sand?, is this correct?
If so, then it would make sense why the lenses are so damn expensive.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2007 10:42:35 PM · #21 |
Just because you don't need "L" glass to win a ribbon on DPC, doesn't mean it isn't better than non-"L" (and most Canon prime" lenes out there. It is. Although even within Canon, not every single one of their "L" lenses is great, a good majority of them are. But you have to know what you are looking for and you have to do your part in getting proper exposure and proper focus. The best lens in the world is worthless if you can't focus, can't expose, can't hold your camera still or shoot with a poor quality camera. The only thing you can hope for in cases like this is that your lousy shot will be a better quality lousy shot. ;)
The "L" lenses have better contrast, better sharpness (crispness) and better color throughout their whole range, from smallest fstop to largest and from closest zoom to furtherest zoom and minimum focus to infinity. Most lenses have a sweet spot where all the manufacter got the glass exactly right. This is how some of the off brands can say they are "just as good" as the Canon "L" lenses. But if you use them across their whole range, you are going to see where they fall flat. Also, build quality is the best that Canon can do in their "L" lenses. Most are sealed and have better and faster/quieter focusing motors.
It really comes down to what you use your lens for and how you use it. If you want the very sharpest, crispest, most accurate color you can get from a lens and you want it through out it's whole range, then you want a "L" lens or a Canon prime lens. Some of Canon's prime lenses are the only thing available that you can compare a Canon "L" lens too. Many say they can, but very few other lens brands can match them.
I own the 70-200 4.0L, 70-200 2.8L IS, 100-400 4.5/5.6L and 17-40 4.0L and I've spend the money on those because I have been convinced it's worth it.
Mike
|
|
|
|
02/21/2007 10:47:49 PM · #22 |
| The best lenses as far as clarity & colours out of the box that I own are the 85f1.8 and the 70-200f4 - One L and 1 not (so it's a prime) so dunno. I can pick the images from either of these against the other couple of lenses. I suspect it's more to do with the photg :grin: |
|
|
|
02/21/2007 10:55:03 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Hey, it's another Bazz sighting. One thing I'll mention about his comment is that on DPC you can easily take a 8+ picture with a P&S. However, in the DPC world the canvas is 640x640. In the real world, as soon as you start enlarging, you will quickly differentiate P&S from dSLR and consumer glass from professional glass. |
Yarrr thats true doc.
The understanding of the relationship between tool selection and desired output is more often learned post purchase instead of pre-purchase.
Although having said that, the limiting factor in the majority of DSLR's,( in terms of resolution anyway), is the sensor rather than the glass. As mpixels increase the dependency on good glass become more important and it wouldn't surprise if down the track we see a another shift towards primes being the most popular choice of lens.
Originally posted by Marjo:
"pedestrian in quality and performance"
I'm not sure that I understand your meaning on that phrase. ? |
Don't try and read too much into it. :)
Just my way of saying that consumer lenses are a step down from pro lenses.
bazz. |
|
|
|
02/22/2007 12:09:33 AM · #24 |
| Not trying to offend anyone here butttt, it always seems like the people who complain about L series lenses being overrated and all are generally someone who cant nessicarly afford the lens or cant justify buying it so they say it so much that they kid thereselves into beliving there not as great as they really are |
|
|
|
02/22/2007 12:31:53 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by American_Horse:
I read somewhere that the L glass is made from Flouridic crystals, as opposed to ?sand?, is this correct?
If so, then it would make sense why the lenses are so damn expensive. |
Flourite elements. Every L has at least one. They also used to have elements containing lead and arsenic, but they stopped using those in their optical elements a while ago over environmental concerns. That's why the Canon 200mm f1.8 is no longer manufactured even though it's still regarded as one of the best Canon L lenses.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/05/2025 10:27:49 PM EDT.
