Are L Lenses really worth it ,,

jackdaw

this was taken with the kit lens (18-55)
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2346/1804652096_9778df7b92_o.jpg


this with a EF 24-70 f2.8 L

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3136/2577858127_6889e05005_o.jpg


Its a little sharper yeah ,, but worth the €880 + ???

City-Exile

Better build quality.
Better glass.
Better lens coating.
Faster.
The price is always going to be about what you can though.

A portrait would have been better for comparing those two lenses though.

Fajitas!

It's not just the sharpness you buy it for - It's for the autofocus, the 2.8, the lack of distortion, the build quality and the reliability...

My 24-70 2.8 is a workhorse - My best all round lens, without a doubt!

Borderfox

I would agree with Al, the 24-70L is a fantastic lens capable of shooting anything you put on front of it. Bullet-proof build quality too and superb flare handling. Put it in a dark situation and see which lens gets a shot.

Roen

In word, yes.

Borderfox

I see them as tools and they work so well day in, day out (for me anyway)

AnimalRights

2nd picture is far sharper.
I hope to be the lucky recipient of 2 L lenses this week.
I'll be working for 5 years to pay for them though!

Borderfox

Make them work for you AnimalRights

AnimalRights

Bit like waiting for a bus eh...

Borderfox

The guy I work for at the Horse shows is always looking for people with a good eye (two) to shoot with us. It can be a bit daunting at first but if you dont go sour the first time you last the distance.

steelydan99

Well worth the investment, the glass in the L lenses are far superior than kit lenses.IS is awesome, and even the weight of an L shows you what makes them different from the rest. "You get what you pay for" is a true saying

MartMax

Like said by the others, "L" lenses are better built, faster and of course more expensive. A number of would have weather seal which might be important for some people. Worth the money you pay for it.

I for myself only have the 70-200 f4L IS but having tested few others I'm really considering the Ls of 17-40 and 24-70 or 24-105 as my next glasses soon. Being new in photography (less than 3 months), I hope I'm not going too fast!

Borderfox wrote: »

The guy I work for at the Horse shows is always looking for people with a good eye (two) to shoot with us. It can be a bit daunting at first but if you dont go sour the first time you last the distance.

Keith, where do I sign up? Just kidding!

elderlemon

I don't think you can compare a kit lens with an L. They are completely different beasts and of course the sharpness isn't there with the kit. You can however, get non L lenses which are pretty good when it comes to clarity and sharpness...

17-55 2.8 IS EF-S

Having said that I also have some L lenses and they are simply great, tack sharp, fast (light), fast (focus) and great colours and saturation.

jackdaw wrote: »

this was taken with the kit lens (18-55)
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2346/1804652096_9778df7b92_o.jpg




this with a EF 24-70 f2.8 L

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3136/2577858127_6889e05005_o.jpg


Its a little sharper yeah ,, but worth the €880 + ???

Dink

They bloody better be... I just traded in my Sigma 70-200 2.8 for the Canon!! I am now officially broke..

Borderfox

go Dink !!

jackdaw

YEs i did some further comparisons and the L is far better ..

it just scared me at 1st when i could only see small differences between
those pics .. but they are not the ones to compare...

fguihen

are they worth it? it all depends on your perspective.

if you are a pro, making money from photography then yes, they are the tools of your trade and are totally worth it.

if you are a hobbyist who just takes the camera out at weekends and likes to tinker, unless you have bags of cash to throw around, then no.

if you take money out of the equation they are totally worth it, they are way better quality than standard lesses, but unfortunately its rarely possible to remove money from the equation.

I would love 2 L class lenses, and although im sure they would give me sharper pictures, I am only a hobbyist wtih limited budget, so at present they are not worth it for me.

In the same boat as fguihen at the moment.Lack of money means I'm still shooting landscapes with the kit lens :rolleyes: In my opinion the L lens is not worth the extra €880.Never used an L lens but I'd image the differences would not be worth that kind of money and most would be marginal differences,only viewable when printed large.I don't think there's any need to splash out on something like that which isn't essential(if one doesn't have loads of excess cash.)

fguihen

Deleted User wrote: »

Never used an L lens but I'd image the differences would not be worth that kind of money and most would be marginal differences,only viewable when printed large

note again, to some people even marginal differences are absolutely worth that extra 1000 quid. if i won the lottery on wednesday, i can for certain say that the L lenses would be worth every penny.likewise if i became a pro photographer.

its all a matter of priorities. Technically though they are far superior to standard lens's.

SOL

It is funny though, you see people spending 1500 on a D300 and putting average lenses on it, when you would be much better buying a second hand D40/50/70/s and putting a 70-200 f2.8 vr on it, you can even get 2nd hand d200's for €600 these days, so I'd say it really is worth putting the money in the lenses and not the camera...

SOL

I'm sure the same applies to the appropriate models/numbers for Canon

Calina

SOL wrote: »

I'm sure the same applies to the appropriate models/numbers for Canon

Depends. Owner of a 40D for the fps. Stick Sigma lenses on the front of it. They get covered in sea spray sometimes. Shot with a 350D for a long time and really ran into the limits of the camera.

So sometimes, it's not that straightforward. Between L-glass and a casing right now, the casing is winning. The mistake not to make is to believe that what is right for you is right for everyone.

Roen

Amen Sol, lenses are for life, not just for Christmas! Get the best glass you can afford and it will follow you through several bodies.

FX Meister

I was surprised with the amount of barell distortion on the 24-105L. Thought it would be a lot better to be honest

Roen

Well to be honest you can get a lot of cheaper older stuff if you want to go wide on a Canon. A lot of the older wide angle Zuiko lenses will beat the Canon wide L's for a fraction of the cost for instance.

And due to the nice engineers at Canon when they designed the EF mount, you can stick a host of makes of lenses on a Canon body.

You'll lose AF and have to use stop down metering, but for landscape photography that's no big deal at all. Different story if you need it for something other than landscape though where lack of automation may hurt you.

For mid to long tele or zooms stick to the own brands though. Although you can really put some crazily priced mid rage teles on a Canon body too if you want to beat the L quality, but in this case it will cost you an absolute fortune instead of saving you bobs. And you'll still lose AF and auto metering.

L's might be great but they're not the be all and end all when it comes to quality.