Canon "L" lens verses Non "L" lens

macmac

Is there a thead that discusses this? If so, please point me to it. If not, can someone discuss the degree of advantage to "L" lens. Thanks.

nikos

macmac wrote:

Is there a thead that discusses this? If so, please point me to it. If not, can someone discuss the degree of advantage to "L" lens. Thanks.

Here's a start:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-L-Lens-Series.aspx

L lenses are not always "better". I have a couple of non-L and EFS lenses for my 20D that I would never part with.

For others, L lenses are the only option and some people have to seek therapy after they start thinking of selling extra body organs (do we really need 2 kidneys?) to get that nice 400mm DO lens.

Nikos

macmac

nikos wrote:

Here's a start:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-L-Lens-Series.aspx

L lenses are not always "better". I have a couple of non-L and EFS lenses for my 20D that I would never part with.

For others, L lenses are the only option and some people have to seek therapy after they start thinking of selling extra body organs (do we really need 2 kidneys?) to get that nice 400mm DO lens.

Nikos

Thanks! I read a post reviewing the new 50 1.2 L and the writer seemed to be saying the 50 1.4 (non-L) was a great lens. Most of the post I have read on several board seem to lean to the "L's".

nikos

macmac wrote:

Thanks! I read a post reviewing the new 50 1.2 L and the writer seemed to be saying the 50 1.4 (non-L) was a great lens. Most of the post I have read on several board seem to lean to the "L's".

Joe,

I have the 50 1.4 and that's is one of my non-L lenses that I will not part with

Depending on what your budget is and what you're going to be shooting, there may be other lenses that may be more appropriate for your 30D at half the price.

Nikos

pathfinder

Canon says that "L" lenses are characterized by the inclusion of technical advantages including ( and I quite from their website ) "Ultra Low Dispersion UD and Fluorite lens elements to absolutely minimize chromatic aberration (color fringing), Aspherical lens elements to combat spherical aberration (image smearing), and Canon's Super Spectra Coating to virtually eliminate ghosting and flare."

Note that not all lenses require these technologies to produce an excellent lens. But they do offer real. visible, advantages to long telephotos - in particular like the 300f2.8 L IS and the 500 and 600 f4 L IS lenses also.

Canon makes some excellent non-L lenses - like the 100 f2.8 macro or their 50mm f1.4 or the 85 f1.8, or the 35 f2.0

Never the less, "L" lenses rarely disappoint if used with good technique.

Much of the on-line discussions about lens quality almost always relates to image sharpness, and rarely to discussions of lens barrel weight, strength, and robustness of the iris diaphragm, or whether the lens is moisture sealed. Think about how many cycles the iris diaphragm in a telephoto lens goes through on the NFL sidelines while shot in high speed 8FPS motor drive every Sunday afternoon hour after hour. These are built as heavy duty production tools, not for a few hundred shots a years like some consumer lenses.

I got a good understandng of this when I was shooting with gluwater, 300zx and Nightingale while shooting on Mackinaw Island. It was a cool day in the 40s and we had been outdoors for a couple hours. Then we went into the Butterfly Pavilion where the temp was 80 degrees with humidity and their lenses and cameras were totally fogged in, icluding condensation inside their lenses that took over an hour to dry out. My 135 f2 L did not suffer this fate and I was able to quickly resume shooting.

Just one reason I love "L" glass. Here's another reason, I had a tripod and a 300 f2.8 IS L take a header into the dirt at Vierra - over 5 feet off the ground. Yikes!! Picked it up, dusted it off and went back to shooting. I have posted shots taken with it since that time and they are as sharp as ever. Robustness counts for a lot. Several images shot with it after the fall can be seen here

Another reason - the front optics of the very expensive Canon 300, 400, 500 lenses are replaceable by Canon Factory Service, to protect the investment in them.

jsedlak

Is it true that every L comes with a hood and a carrying bag?

Also, would like to see side by side comparisons with an L and non-L lens with the same settings...

Red Bull

^I believe that all L's come with a lens hood and carrying bag.

esc2476

jsedlak wrote:

Is it true that every L comes with a hood and a carrying bag?

I am not sure about every one, but the two I bought yesterday did.

ChrisRPhoto

"L" lenses are generally more superior wide open, they control colour, contrast and sharpness far better usually then non L lenses, having said that there are some dam fine non "L" lenses about, take the 85mm 1.8 for instance.

My 200mm f1.8L resolves wide open as a non "L" lens does at mid apertures,
shame they discontinued it

macmac wrote:

Is there a thead that discusses this? If so, please point me to it. If not, can someone discuss the degree of advantage to "L" lens. Thanks.

pathfinder

jsedlak wrote:

Is it true that every L comes with a hood and a carrying bag?

Also, would like to see side by side comparisons with an L and non-L lens with the same settings...

The super teles come in cosmetic suit cases with Canon - Steal Me written all across them. They end up getting replaced with a nice black nylon case.

pathfinder

nikos wrote:

Here's a start:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-L-Lens-Series.aspx

L lenses are not always "better". I have a couple of non-L and EFS lenses for my 20D that I would never part with.

For others, L lenses are the only option and some people have to seek therapy after they start thinking of selling extra body organs (do we really need 2 kidneys?) to get that nice 400mm DO lens.

Nikos

Nice link Nikos. I learned something new there - they sell touch up paint for their white lenses too


Oh, by the way, the 400 f4 DO IS is NOT an 'L' lens, it has a green ring not a red ring, and IS a DO lens.

nikos

pathfinder wrote:

Nice link Nikos. I learned something new there - they sell touch up paint for their white lenses too


Oh, by the way, the 400 f4 DO IS is NOT an 'L' lens, it has a green ring not a red ring, and IS a DO lens.

Hrm, I just learned something too. I never bothered looking for the 'L' in the description since the body is painted in the traditional off-white color.

I guess it's not a quality lens anymore

gluwater

jsedlak wrote:

Is it true that every L comes with a hood and a carrying bag?

Also, would like to see side by side comparisons with an L and non-L lens with the same settings...

Andy just did a review of the 50mm 1.2 and there are side be side comparisons of the f/1.2L and f/1.4. The thing you have to realize is that the non-L glass is not bad, it just isn't as heavy duty and is usually a little slower. L glass is usually if not always fixed aperture and very fast. The 50mm f/1.4 is not an L lens but it is better than the 50mm f/1.8. The same can be said for the 200mm f/1.8L and 200mm f/2.8L. Both are L lenses, but the f/1.8 is better, much more expensive and also out of production.

As Pathfinder mentioned above, there are plenty of great lenses that are not "L" glass. The 50 f/1.4, 50 f/1.8, 85 f/1.8, 100mm f/2.8 Macro, 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 are just a few of the widely used and loved non-L glass. Oh BTW canon has also said that they will not be making "L" EF-S lenses. That does not mean that all EF-S lenses are bad, just that they do not have the L designation.

macmac

This is a great thread! Lots of good info to help people like me make a good decision.

claudermilk

pathfinder wrote:

Just one reason I love "L" glass. Here's another reason, I had a tripod and a 300 f2.8 IS L take a header into the dirt at Vierra - over 5 feet off the ground. Yikes!! Picked it up, dusted it off and went back to shooting. I have posted shots taken with it since that time and they are as sharp as ever. Robustness counts for a lot. Several images shot with it after the fall can be seen here

:wow I think I'd have a heart attack seeing that lens heading for the dirt! :hang Thinking $$$$ = :flush as it went in slow motion.

My understanding is basically the L's are built much more robustly for professional use & generally have all the best technology & construction Canon can throw at them. I think the 50/1.2L is a good example where this doesn't always end up with the best solution (yeah, it's better, but $1300 better?).

My main reason for putting mainly L's on my wishlist: constant f2.8 on the zooms.

pathfinder

claudermilk wrote:

:wow I think I'd have a heart attack seeing that lens heading for the dirt! :hang Thinking $$$$ = :flush as it went in slow motion.

My understanding is basically the L's are built much more robustly for professional use & generally have all the best technology & construction Canon can throw at them. I think the 50/1.2L is a good example where this doesn't always end up with the best solution (yeah, it's better, but $1300 better?).

My main reason for putting mainly L's on my wishlist: constant f2.8 on the zooms.

It was a done deal when I realized - I had it on a tripod and was looking the other way with my back to it, and when I turned around it was lying on the gorund - I did have a moment of consternation - but fortunately the reason is fell over was that the ground was soft and allowed one leg of the tripod to sink, but the good news was that the ground was soft enough to apparently do no harm. Everything still works just fine.

sirsloop

There are some VERY nice non-L lenses out there. 35/2, 50/1.4, 70-300IS to name three I own. Now there are L counterparts for each of these lenses, but your money (somtimes 2-3x the price) goes mainly into build quality. For example... the 35/2 and the 35/1.4L - not much optical difference but the L verison has a better built body, USM, better aperture, etc.

wxwax

The 85 1.8 is also a good non-L lens.

Things I like about the "L" train.

1/ Fast.

2/ Sharp (usually.)

3/ Well built (strong and weather resistant.)

I say "usually" sharp, because the 24L and the 16-35L have serious corner softness.

LiquidAir

There are only two generalizations I can think of that all L lenses have over their non-L counterparts:

1. Better build.

2. Better performance at the widest apetures.

When buying a lens, I think it is best to remember that the "L" designation is really just part of how Canon markets their high end lenses. Just because it is an L doesn't mean that it is a better lens for the your particular needs. There are a number of cases where non-L lenses are actually better for some applications than their L counterparts particularly when small and lightweight are important. The 85/1.8, 70-300IS, 100 macro and the 15 fish are all examples of lenses worth seriously considering over their L counterparts even when money is not a factor.

TylerW

Red Bull wrote:

^I believe that all L's come with a lens hood and carrying bag.

The bag kinda sucks. No padding, and no way to make it work with other gear - ie loops for clips and such. Its just another place for Canon to put a logo.

At least they skimped on the bag to spend on the lens though. Most of them are really great.

Red Bull

I use my carrying bag for my 70-200 f/4L but only when I'm not using it. I don't usually bring it along when I'm out shooting, because it's too much of a hassle to take it in and out of the bag and find a place to put it when I'm not using it.

jimf

TylerW wrote:

The bag kinda sucks. No padding, and no way to make it work with other gear - ie loops for clips and such. Its just another place for Canon to put a logo.

At least they skimped on the bag to spend on the lens though. Most of them are really great.

The bag quality depends on the lens. My 17-40 f/4 and 28-70 f/2.8 have bags as you describe, but the 70-200 f/2.8 has (some) padding, clip loops, and comes with a strap.

I rarely use the bag, though, preferring a small camera bag or backpack instead.