Whats so special about 'L' Lenses

Morlar

Ok this is not the smartest question your ever going to read but - hey sue me.

Been looking at lenses lately - and as anyone here who prices them knows the L series (canon talk here) - are VERY much more expensive than their non L series equivalents.

The question I had is - why exactly ?

I can understand why say a 50m 1.4 costing lots more than a 1.8 or whatever, or, if it has a super fast/silent zoom, or, if its pin sharp glass as opposed to being a bit muggy. Are they made at a different facility ? Different quality standards/designers or what ?

Generally speaking though is there any particular area where L series lenses blow the non L series out of the water ? Or is the price differential dependent on the particular model, ie the L 1-400m is pin sharp, the L 80-200m has a totally very very fast zoom action compared to the non L etc. Also wondering where do people buy their L lenses - the shops in dublin are silly prices, do any of the pros who post here get discounts for repeat business/recommendations ?

Also to anyone here who owns an L series kit of lenses - can you tell me are there any L lenses which arent that much better ? Any L series ones that are best avoided ?

311

I'm not a pro at all ,I have one of them 70-200 F4L's
They are weather sealed ,and tend to have internal focussing.
The glass is a lot better at producing colours I've found,only on really nice days though.Skin colour is full of Life.
When I focus on something it does so instantly ,like as soon as I press the button.

Brian.

Morlar

How much was that one if you dont mind me asking ?

Would you say that its 'sharper' than a non L -from your experience does it produce crisper, clearer results from a distance ?

311

To be honest ,when i bought the lens ,I bought it because I had no one to ask about what to go for ,I wasn't on the forum at the time.
I checked reviews and it was the only telezoom that got the best score that I felt i couldn't go wrong buying.

In answer to your question ,I haven't used other zooms enough to go into detail but I can say that its a sturdy lense,well made and a pleasure to use.
Very light aswell.

I got 100 euro off it ,with the vouchers that came with the camera. worked out at 750 euro I think

Brian.

edunon

When I bought my first Digital SLR, a Canon 300D, I had the 18-55mm and a 55-200mm. Now, on my 350D I have a 16-35mm 2.8, a 24-70mm 2.8 and a 70-200mm 2.8 IS. The differences are like day and night. In terms of color saturation, sharpness and distortion.
The only one I bought new was the 24-70, which I got in B&H Photo in NY. Worth to get a cheap flight from Delta or similar if you are planning to buy few lenses. The warranty is worldwide.
The other two lenses I got them on ebay, for less than half the price. I usually keep an eye for those lenses I'm after until I have my chance..

There are other lenses in between, my case I think is bit drastic...

Morlar

Cool. Cheers for the info. I remember in dublinstudios I was offered the use of a L kit of lenses and turned it down - next time around I will try as many as I can and make note of any that stand out.

Edunon - are those L ones your talking about ?

edunon

They are, 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 IS, all L lenses, great sharpness in the 16-35 and 70-200, the 24-70 is nice but not as sharp as the other two.

311

It wouldn't be fair to compare 2.8 lenses to 5.6 lenses though.
2.8 lenses are always brighter anyway.
I wonder what the 17-40L F4 lense is like ?

Brian

masteroftherealm

_Brian_ wrote:

It wouldn't be fair to compare 2.8 lenses to 5.6 lenses though.
2.8 lenses are always brighter anyway.
I wonder what the 17-40L F4 lense is like ?

Brian

Great digital PJ lens seemingly. Good revires.

heffsarmy

_Brian_ not all the canon L lenses are weathersealed, ie they don't have a rubber seal that connects to the camera. The lenses listed below are weather sealed, as they prevent water entering into the camera body.

16-35mm 2.8 L USM
17-40mm 4L USM
24-70mm 2.8 L USM
24-105mm 4 L IS USM
70-200mm 2.8 L IS USM
300mm 2.8L IS USM
400mm 2.8L IS USM
400mm 4 DO IS USM
500mm 4 L IS USM
600mm 4 L IS USM

edunon you say the 24-70mm is not as sharp as the 16-35mm, after trying 3 copies of the 16-35mm I have yet to find one sharper than my 24-70mm. So I have given up and use third party prime lenses. If you check out FM forum on alternative lenses you see alot of people disappointed with the quality of the 16-35mm lens.

edunon

When I bought the 16-35 on ebay, the guy said it was just serviced by Canon. That could make the difference I suppose.
The 24-70 makes a bit soft images at 2.8, but easily fixed shooting in RAW and processed later.
The 70-200 is the best by far in terms of sharpness, incredible results at any focal/aperture used.

I also have a 85mm 1.8, nice lens, but the construction is a bit "plasticky" and doesn't feel as solid as the L lens. If they are not going to be use in an everyday basis I might not be worth the red ring.

311

Heff ,the guy in the camera shop told me the L lenses were all weather sealed.
I presumed he meant this by the lenses that had internal focussing.

edunon

L lenses are all weather sealed. However as heffsarmy pointed some don't have the seal between the camera and lens, which helps a lot in terms of keeping the CMOS sensor clean.

heffsarmy

edunon sounds like you have a good copy, wish I found one myself, the 70-200 is a super lens. _Brian_ I reckon all the lenses have some sort of tolerance to bad weather, but if you were working in a sandy enviroment (desert) or high humidity (jungle) thats were the weather sealed lenses come into there own. Its not too much of a concern in Ireland though.

311

edunon wrote:

L lenses are all weather sealed. However as heffsarmy pointed some don't have the seal between the camera and lens, which helps a lot in terms of keeping the CMOS sensor clean.

Thanks edunon ,I was getting a little annoyed there I thought someone was telling me porkies,originally I was convinced the 70-200 f4 wasn't but he insisted it was,when I was buying it.

Brian.

heffsarmy

_Brian_ don't be fooled as to what a salesperson tells you, not all of the lenses are weather sealed, I would'nt worry to much about it, if your not using a canon 1 series body which are the only weather sealed bodies in canon range then it does'nt makes to much odds. Heres a link on the this topic below,

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1029&message=17812339&changemode=1

mervifwdc

Hi folks,

I'm only a newbie here, so take it easy on my for a few days :-)

Canon do make some non-L lenses that are brilliant. 85mm f1.8 for example is not that far behind the 85mm f1.2, and is a fraction of the price.

The 85 f1.8 is sharper at f2.8 than the famous (and expensive) 70-200 f2.8 IS L lens at 85mm.

It's horses for courses I guess. you dont have to spend a fortune for good lenses, but it helps!

Merv.