Is there that much difference in L lenses

sparky675

I am looking to switch to canon 40d. I prefer to have a plan on which lenses to buy first, I shoot a lot of wildlife so I am looking at either the 75-300 is or the 100-400 L , I also take a lot of high school sports so I am looking at the 28-135. then down the road a 50 prime. Since I am switching from another brand I don't know the canon lense jargon. a little help would be appreciated.sparky675

Tee Why

photozone.de has reviews of many lenses in the Canon mount and offers a pretty good review of the optics and the overall performance. You may want to check there first as a primer.

ziggy53

Generally speaking, the Canon "L" lenses are a considerable improvement over either the consumer or the "prosumer" lenses.

You usually gain:

Sharper at large apertures.
Faster, more accurate focus.
More durable construction.

Whether that makes them "worth" their extra cost depends upon your priorities. I tend to use Canon "L" lenses for paying jobs and then an assortment of other lenses for personal use. Some Sigma "EX" lenses and some primes, for instance.

The Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III USM is an example of a consumer zoom and is pretty soft wide open, and especially at the long end.

The Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM is considered a prosumer lens by many, but I think it's still a little too soft wide open for my taste. It does sharpen nicely at middle apertures and the IS helps somewhat to prevent camera shake.

The Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L USM is a very nice longer zoom and usable wide open to absolutely splendid at middle apertures.

FWIW, I prefer the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM for outdoor sports, especially night work. It has weather sealing and rapid focus even in low light, very important.

For wildlife, the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L USM is used fairly often for bright conditions, but you might find it a little slow for overcast and low-light work.

pathfinder

Sparky,

Canon L lenses can be identified by the red ring around the business end of the lenses.

Canon's website says this about their L glass lenses "Canon's line of L-Series lenses incorporate specialized optical materials such as synthetic fluorite, Super UD and UD glass, and large-aperture high-precision aspherical lenses. Only lenses that perform to the highest photographic standards are allowed to bear the designation "L."

More about L glass here - http://web.canon.jp/imaging/l-lens/index.html

There are variations among the L glass lenses that Canon offers - some are definitely higher quality than others, but all are pretty darn good. Canon makes some excellent non-L lenses as well, like the 50mm f1.4, or the 85mm f1.8 or the 100f2.8macro.


L lenses are not cheap, but they hold their resale pretty good, and are built to function a long time.

There is always a lot of discussion among photographers about the sharpness and image quality of lenses, but rarely do they talk about the construction of lens barrels, the life expectancy of iris diaphragms( iris diaphragms are rapicly moving mechanical parts), or whether the lenses are sealed against humidity. These things matter a lot in the long run.

Really good tools are rarely cheap, but really good tools are usually a pretty good value in the long run.

Sigma and Tamron also sell some excellent glass - you need to spend a little time to learn which lenses are held in high regard by folks who use them every day. Photozone.de is a good site to review lens quality.

20DNoob

ziggy53 wrote:

FWIW, I prefer the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM for outdoor sports, especially night work. It has weather sealing and rapid focus even in low light, very important.

A fine lens indeed, but IIRC only the IS version of this lens is sealed.

ziggy53

20DNoob wrote:

A fine lens indeed, but IIRC only the IS version of this lens is sealed.

A good point and I believe you are correct.

Thanks,

straehle

I agree with those that mention the 70-200 f2.8L. The IS version is expensive, but worth every penny for sports (particularly at night and inside). I use primarily L lenses: 17-40, 24-105, and the 70 - 200. I never know if the picture I take maybe only for my own use, may turn out to be something I'd like to submit for stock, and may not be of stock quality if taken with a consurmer lens. The 70-200 is not long enough for birds, although it is fast enough to take a 1.4 or by stretching a 2.0 extender. If you do that you end up with 400@ 5.6 which is essentially equal to the 100-400 (4-5.6). I have a Signma 80-400 for nature, which is sharp, but slow to focus. If Canon would redo the 100-400, I might replace it. Hope this helps.

mercphoto

sparky675 wrote:

I am looking to switch to canon 40d. I prefer to have a plan on which lenses to buy first, I shoot a lot of wildlife so I am looking at either the 75-300 is or the 100-400 L , I also take a lot of high school sports so I am looking at the 28-135. then down the road a 50 prime. Since I am switching from another brand I don't know the canon lense jargon. a little help would be appreciated.sparky675

As many have stated, the L lenses are worth the money. Its not just image sharpness and accurate colors. Its also build quality, fast auto-focus, and sometimes weather sealing.

Those HS sports you want the 28-135 for, are they indoor? Because that lens will never work for indoor sports. f/5.6 is just too slow for indoor sports. And its focus motor is probably not fast enough. (Don't get me wrong, I like the lens, just not for indoor or night sports). You want a 70-200/2.8. Or another basketball favorite seems to be the 85/1.8, which should work well for any indoor sport. You will have the same problem with night sports outside as well. But this is stuff you should already know from the brand you are using today. Nothing I've stated in this paragraph is specific to Canon.

sparky675

Thanks for the info, seems I better study a lot more. I am switching from oly because of the noise issue, Most of my shots are in the 40 to 100 range. And yes it is mostly indoor sports. I will go study more and come back if I have more questions. THANKS

HiSPL

Just an FYI, the Canon consumer primes tend to be of excellent optical quality, but generally have plastic barrels or other trade offs to make them hit a price point. The 50/1.8 (fantastic plastic), 85/1.8, 100/2, or 135/2.8 with soft focus.

All of these would make a great intro into the canon lineup, and if you bought them on the used market you could sell them for the same price you paid for them. This would allow you to find out what you really need or want without taking a big hit on the wallet.


BTW, the 135 soft focus is an older lens that offers great performance. It has a switch on the side that allows for a soft focused "glamour shots" look, but when the switch is off it is a fine, fast, telephoto lens....

HTH...

KED

sparky675 wrote:

I am looking to switch to canon 40d. I prefer to have a plan on which lenses to buy first, I shoot a lot of wildlife so I am looking at either the 75-300 is or the 100-400 L , I also take a lot of high school sports so I am looking at the 28-135. then down the road a 50 prime. Since I am switching from another brand I don't know the canon lense jargon. a little help would be appreciated.sparky675

Here's another website to check out:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/

The reviewer is a bit of a "homer", but his reviews are very detailed and I have found them useful in making my lens choices. You can also google "digital lens reviews" and find many other resources.

Ditto all the positive commentary on the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L and the 85 f/1.8. I don't think I have ever heard/seen a negative comment on either, and am very happy with mine.

Sprout Crumble

Never assume that the L is superior. Many are, but its no guarantee of quality. Canons EFS 17-55is is probably their finest standard zoom for example.
Some of the Sigma EX lenses are outstanding. The 80-400 OS is the equal of the 100-400L, the 14/2.8 is far better than the 14Lmk1 etc. They also make some stunning lenses that simply have no equivalent in the Canon range like the 300-800, 50-500, 100-300 etc.

Most of the 'L's are great but as I said, its no guarantee.