DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Okay...Let´s be honest about L-glass (Canon)
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 103, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 02/22/2007 12:41:04 AM · #26
Originally posted by noisemaker:
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


I have one L, it's awesome. I'd have more if money were no object or I was making enough money on photography to justify it.

Some people that have all or mostly "L" lenses seem to have the attitude that "If it ain't L, it ain't $hi+." and develop a habit of condescending behavior towards those people unable or unwilling to drop mega bux on "L" lenses.

In the hands of a good photographer, they can be a tool used to help work magic. In the hands of a hack, they're little better than a chunk of bottle glass on the end of a toilet paper roll.


02/22/2007 01:46:36 AM · #27
I don̢۪t know anything about 3rd party lenses, because I don't own one.

I do own an EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM and an EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM. My L lens is a lot better when it comes to comparing images side by side between a consumer and an L. Sharpness (much sharper when wide opened) and contrast are the two most noticeable ones, and because my L is sharper I also feel that images taken with high ISO level are much better compares to my other lens (this is just me)

I'm sure you would have known by now that you don't actually pay only for the image quality in L lenses, but you also pay for better construction, fix & large aperture, weather resistance and of course the pride of owning an L lens. (Both a Corolla and a Lexus will get you to your destination, but a Lexus will offer you a more safe and pleasant ride and both cars are made by Toyota).

Message edited by author 2007-02-25 03:26:08.
 02/22/2007 03:26:11 AM · #28
It´s not that I won´t be buying more L glass or anything. I DO trust Canon (and you guys :) ), that L lenses have better glass and build. I too like the look, and the rugidness of the lens. I know they´ll outlast the plastic lenses. That´s why I will mostly save my money for L lenses from now on. But the post was more meant to be a "Im-not-´floored´-by-the-L-lens-is-something-wrong-with-me"-post :)

I am a newbie, but I can see the difference in L lenses when the reviews-mags zoom all the way inn and compare sharpness. But I can not tell from a picture (normal-looking-distance) that it has been shot by an L.
 02/22/2007 03:34:53 AM · #29
Being an evil Nikon user, I will just say this.

Canon's Marketing is superb, the whole "L" lens thing is probably one of the best ideas ever to come out. I know people who buy the 24-105 L and the 200 f4 just because it is an "L" lens. It is a great seller.

Now with that, I think Canon has been over using the term a bit lately. Some of the new "L" glass isn't environmental sealed. The 80-400 seems to be a little of a stretch. Then you have lenses starting around $500. Then you have the superb 10-22 and 17-55 which are NOT considered "L" (I guess because of the EF-S factor). It just seems a little strange to me.

But overall, it is good stuff from what I hear. Usually you are paying for all the bells and whistles in addition the superior build quality.

Message edited by author 2007-02-22 03:37:45.
 02/22/2007 05:23:46 AM · #30
As marksimms said - I really notice the faults of non-L glass in tough situations. Chromatic aberration, corner sharpness, fully open sharpness etc etc. I think of it more as a large number of improvements, each of which might be minor, but collectively they add up to a significant whole.

Until you have spent a while shooting with consumer glass, and had the experience/knowledge to be frustrated with aspects of it, then you may not appreciate all the little things that L glass tends to do "right".
 02/22/2007 05:35:08 AM · #31
Originally posted by Siinji:
I am a newbie, but I can see the difference in L lenses when the reviews-mags zoom all the way inn and compare sharpness. But I can not tell from a picture (normal-looking-distance) that it has been shot by an L.


Its not just you!

Most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference, (even those who think they can), unless examining a 100% crop.

bazz.
 02/22/2007 05:59:32 AM · #32
A question
Does Nikon make weather sealed glass ? I know their quality (of some) is very high but do they weather seal any of their lenses.
I personally see this as a great selling point. After shooting film around Asia for a number of years - I lost a number of lenses (4 to be exact) to moisture - fungus growth in the lenses. I assume that weather sealing would stop this.
Anyone know ?
 02/22/2007 06:20:07 AM · #33
I don't have a particular "penchant" for L-glass, but do own the 70-200L f2.8 IS, and love it.

The most telling indication I've had of the reason to love this lens was months ago when my husband and I were shooting at the Horse Shows In The Sun Grand Prix -

he was shooting with the 75-300 IS, and kept saying something was wrong with the lens, so I just quickly swapped cameras with him so he could get his shot. I wish you could have seen his face when he started firing off shots with the 70-200. He looked at me and said Holy Crap, there's no comparison.

Yep, he's right. And there was nothing wrong with the 75-300, it just can't keep up with the L.
 02/22/2007 06:25:47 AM · #34
I bought a 24-70 F2.8L recently, and while it's an exceptional lens, i wouldn't say i've been blown away with it so far, apart from the weight, that blew me away.

It's very sharp, the USM is awesome.
I haven't really put it through much yet though.
It's definately everything i wanted though, its brilliant.
 02/22/2007 06:58:24 AM · #35
I have owned:
Sigma EX 17-35 F2.8
Tamron 17-40
Canon 17-40L

Loved the Sigma for the speed but was really not happy with the CA. It was built very solidly but was sometimes soft, particularly at the edges.
The Tamron was okay but was really slow to focus and was not solidly built. Had some CA issues but it was pretty sharp.
The Canon is fast focusing, very sharp, and doesn't have the CA problems. Its rugged (those who know me know I need solid built lenses). The focus is even across the frame, unlike the Sigma.
The Tamron was around $450, the Sigma around $550, the Canon around $650. Worth the extra $200? You bet! Greater reliability, more usable shots, more rugged. You get what you pay for.
 02/22/2007 07:06:11 AM · #36
What is the difference between "water & dust proof construction" and "water & dust resistant construction"? Some Ls are quoted as having one type of construction and some the other.

Anyone ever drop an L in a puddle by accident and get water in it? How about mold or moisture (humidity) inside the lense?

I do not own any Ls, but this is an atractive feature to someone who shoots out in the elements quite often, so I am curious.
 02/22/2007 07:17:33 AM · #37
Supposedly, the EX line of Sigma is: "The exterior of this lens is EX-finished to denote the superior build and optical quality, and to enhance its appearance." (from their website)

Mine died one day after shooting in a mist. The motor of the HSM froze up and it never worked again. Not sure how the other brands would deal with this, but I've used my 17-40 in the rain (you think I would learn, right?) and it still works. Wasn't a driving rain but it wasn't a mist either.
 02/22/2007 07:23:47 AM · #38
I̢۪ve no doubt about buying L-Glass lens:

- If you̢۪ve enough $$$, buy the 4.0L series
- If you̢۪ve extra $$$, buy the 2.8L series
- If money is not a problem, buy L-primes

There is only 3 non-L Lens with the quality near to L-Lens that you can buy for a few $$$:
- 50 1.8
- 50 1.4
- 85 1.8

Wide open, L-Lens are sharper than the others
L-Lens has better colour and contrast
L-Lens has better built quality

But the most important, L-Lens doesn̢۪t make you a better photographer;
It only lets you catch nicer images.
02/22/2007 07:50:17 AM · #39
Most lens designs are a result of a wide variety of compromises to keep the costs down. The luxury series of Canon lenses just have fewer of those compromises made, so the resulting image quality (contrast, flare control, build quality, AF speed etc) is consistently better.

If you use pretty much any lens in its sweet spot you can get great results, the L lenses just have a larger sweet spot.

Same way if you compare the very good 50 1.8 to the even better 50 1.4 - the quality jumps up.
 02/22/2007 08:12:28 AM · #40
You know what? I happen to completely agree with the OP about L glass, in that they are overrated up to a point. When you are in good conditions, strong sunlight or in a studio setting with powerful lights and you can stop down your lens, preferrably have a good tripod and like I said, you are in GOOD lighting conditions, I personally have a very very hard time telling the difference from a 24-70L, 50 1.4, 85 1.2 or a EF-S 18-55.

However, try shooting a 2.8 70mm shot on the 18-55. Try shooting wide open with the 18-55 and then the 17-40L. I am just a sucker for using very big apertures, most of my photos are taken from 2.0-5.6 apertures.

In short, good glass will only start to "shine" when you are in poor lighting conditions or in less than optimal conditions. Also much better built and designed to last, this is professional gear and intended to take hundreds of thousands or even millions of photographs before breaking down or needing repair.
 02/22/2007 08:23:26 AM · #41
One thing that I'm surprised hasn't been mentioned on here yet is that L glass is designed for full-frame use, and thus to minimise the CA and barrel/pincushion distortions all the way to the edge of the lens - something that's of less concern when used on an APS-C sensor, since the edges aren't used due to the crop factor. Therefore your 3rd party lenses may be as good as L in the centre, but much worse at the edges, which you wouldn't notice unless on a 5D or 1Ds...
 02/22/2007 08:35:03 AM · #42
Originally posted by Larus:
However, try shooting a 2.8 70mm shot on the 18-55.


I would note that you could not take a 70mm shot on an 85mm 1.2L, either.
 02/22/2007 08:52:07 AM · #43
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Larus:
However, try shooting a 2.8 70mm shot on the 18-55.


I would note that you could not take a 70mm shot on an 85mm 1.2L, either.


Smart ass replies like this is why I am gradually getting very weary of the forums here at DPC. Yay, I made a typo, whooptidoo!

Got anything else useful to add to this thread?
 02/22/2007 09:28:40 AM · #44
Shoot this with your kit lens and then get back to me. :-)

MattO
 02/22/2007 09:34:58 AM · #45
Originally posted by Larus:
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Larus:
However, try shooting a 2.8 70mm shot on the 18-55.


I would note that you could not take a 70mm shot on an 85mm 1.2L, either.


Smart ass replies like this is why I am gradually getting very weary of the forums here at DPC. Yay, I made a typo, whooptidoo!

Got anything else useful to add to this thread?


Sorry - it was meant as a joke. I made a non-smart ass reply to the OP earlier on in the thread.
 02/22/2007 09:36:27 AM · #46
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Larus:
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Larus:
However, try shooting a 2.8 70mm shot on the 18-55.


I would note that you could not take a 70mm shot on an 85mm 1.2L, either.


Smart ass replies like this is why I am gradually getting very weary of the forums here at DPC. Yay, I made a typo, whooptidoo!

Got anything else useful to add to this thread?


Sorry - it was meant as a joke. I made a non-smart ass reply to the OP earlier on in the thread.


Allright, no problem, apology accepted :)
 02/22/2007 09:49:08 AM · #47
I used to be an "L skeptic" too. Then I got my 70-200 f4. Wow. Then I got my 400mm prime. WOW.

It's still mostly the photographer, not the equipment, but it's nice to know when I go to take a shot with either of those lenses, that any crap that results is not the fault of my equipment, it's purely my own lack of skill or vision. These lenses are top performers, and those who can afford them gladly pay the premium to have excellent equipment.
 02/22/2007 09:56:14 AM · #48
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:
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!


I wasnt too sure what was meant by the EDIT at the end of the post but something to think about is that the manual on the Canon EF75-300mm f4-5.6 IS Ultrasonic lens is that the IS should be set to O (off) if the camera is mounted on a tripod as it may manfunction if you leave the IS on.

I use mainly Tokina lenses and the Canon IS 75-300 and have had great results from all of the Tokinas. Hey if Alamy will accept shots from them then you know they are okay, Alamy can be pretty picky about what they accept LOL.


02/22/2007 10:01:32 AM · #49
I just bought a canon 70-200 f/2.7 IS L and it was full of large dust particles. Not too happy. It takes great photos. I also have the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG Macro and love it. I would not replace it for the same Canon L lens. I compared both in a bunch of different shots and I felt the Sigma actually produced better shots about 75% of the time. So the key is a quality lens not just an expensive lens.
 02/22/2007 10:49:40 AM · #50
What I love about my L lenses are the speed and accuracy of the autofocus, especially in low light. It seems almost instantaneous to find the target and lock on, no hunting or going back and forth to find the right spot like on some other lenses I've owned. Most lenses will have a sweet spot where they will give good images, but like Larus said under ideal conditions. I wouldn't say L lenses have just a sweet spot, but a broad range where they perform exceptionally well and that makes a big difference. I'm only speaking for the 70-200 2.8L IS and the 24-70 2.8L though, I don't have other L lenses, yet.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/06/2025 04:52:57 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 09/06/2025 04:52:57 AM EDT.