Are L series lenses really worth the premium price?

To some people the premium of L glass is worth it, to others it's not. In the same way the premium of a 1Ds over a 5dII is worth it, whereas to others they're happy with the lower specced 5DII.

It's horses for courses and each to their own.
 
FM1 said:
Haha! How did you know Im a miscer? Who are the other miscers on TP?
Click to expand...

I've seen those images before in one of the photography threads. I'm sure I noticed some other images here that I remember seeing on the Misc but I can't remember the username.
 
What on earth is a miscer?
 
FM1 said:
This is stemming from my other thread about my new 24-105mm lens.

So a while back I had pretty much convinced myself that I would never splash out on an L series lens as CS4 and a little post processing knowledge can bring up the quality of photo to its full potential regardless of the lens that as used.

As an example, the folloing photos were taken with a 40D and the 18-55 kit lens (non IS).

4120917550_95a95c4168.jpg


4120896984_dcabf55f25.jpg


4120120957_ae7f9b5d52.jpg


I genuinely believe that these photos would not have turned out any better had I used an L series lens.

What do you guys think?
Click to expand...

Can we have some links to these photos at a decent resolution?
Everyone in this threading is arguing the toss between consumer lenses and L pro lenses when we are staring at tiny cropped images.
 
trencheel303 said:
What on earth is a miscer?
Click to expand...

Miser = cheapskate is a person who is reluctant to spend money, sometimes to the point of forgoing even basic comforts and some necessities. The term derives from the Latin miser, meaning "poor" or "wretched," comparable to the modern word "miserable".
 
pretty much at that resolution you'd see no difference. L lenses are sharper but are they worth the money probably not lol


FM1 said:
I genuinely believe that these photos would not have turned out any better had I used an L series lens.

What do you guys think?
Click to expand...
 
I only own two 'L' series lenses... The rest are divided between Sigma EX, one Canon EF-S (the 10-22) and a few Canon EF USM primes.

I use what I think performs well and sits within my budget... I certainly don't go all rhapsodic just 'cos I've got a couple of 'L' lenses.

Si
 
For my use...Yes.

1. They focus faster.
2. They are sharper throughout the frame.
3. They are sharper wide open
4. Did I mention they focus faster?

Sure you can get great photos from standard lenses, but for pixel level sharpness (I crop a lot), I don't think you can beat it.

However if you take photos and resize the images or print 5x7's then it isn't worth it (like the photos you have posted).
 
SLRUser said:
Sure you can get great photos from standard lenses, but for pixel level sharpness (I crop a lot), I don't think you can beat it.
Click to expand...

I asked the OP to do some pixel peeping in his previous post.
There's no need to go all anal about it but I agree with you and it proves a point.

4539170792_92a7b83973_o.jpg


4538538503_f9b4c899a0_o.jpg
 
The crop is soft, quite so in fact. The fullsize is nice and sharp an crispy and stuff - but I suspect it has had the usual flickr'itis applied to it, i.e., that photo is sharper than when it left your computer.
 
trencheel303 said:
The crop is soft, quite so in fact. The fullsize is nice and sharp an crispy and stuff - but I suspect it has had the usual flickr'itis applied to it, i.e., that photo is sharper than when it left your computer.
Click to expand...

It's such a tight crop it'd be a miracle for it to retain it's sharpness.
However, on my monitor and stood back a few feet, the IQ is still better than what I have tried with other lenses.
As for the original, the only difference I can see between the original and the one on flickr is that they have boosted the colours and too much for my liking.
 
I suppose it is quite a tight crop. Sharpening would sort it out. Flickr tends to mess with images in my experience, one of the major caveats. Nice dog though.
 
OP's sample photos doesn't really show why one would need to get a L-Glass.

1 - They are all out door, does not require wide apertures
2 - The size of the photo is tiny, can't see details
3 - They are all processed, hard to compare straight out of camera colours.
4 - None of them are taken in extreme conditions, i.e. REALLY sandy places, REALLY dark rooms.

L-Glass will show its worth when you are pushed to the limit.
 
I only recently purchased my first L (70-200 F4 IS USM) lens and I can honestly say it's the first lens I've owned for ages (perhaps for ever) that I've been totally happy with. Have to say though that some of my Canon FD stuff was pretty cool but was never subject to the type of pixel peeping scrutiny the digital stuff has to endure

Below is a (not very good photo) to illustrate a few points.

My previous lens (70-300 F4-5.6 IS USM) would have struggled to take this picture, it would have struggled to focus, had pretty grotty chromatic abberation on the blown out highlights and at 185mm and 1/60th sec (took my eye off the expsure) would probably struggled with the IS as well.

Taken on a 400ASA on a 40D

My wife was very pleased to hear me say it was "worth every penny".



 
Thing is...even within the L-Glass range, there are better ones within it.

Don't believe me? Pick up a 135L, 85L, 35L (Holy Trinity) or the 300L.

They don't call the 135L the magic lens for nothing.
 
David, that expression is priceless. Print that photo!
 
L Glass is something that once you have, you never go back. Reason is, it is a beautiful piece of equipment. Sure they are expensive, but they perform in horrible conditions, they are built to withstand abuse, and image quality out of camera or at large print sizes is amazing.

I have the 24-70L and the 70-200 F4L. I bought the Sigma 15mm fisheye because people said it was as good as the canon and gave better bokeh, so you can see I am not a canon whore.

I want a portrait lens next but having bought my 5DII funds are very tight, so will go for the 85 1.8. Also it is meant to be an amazing quality lens, not L quality build, but I will rarely if ever use it in the pit at gigs, so build quality is not quite as important. I do not need the extra stop, so cannot justify it. If I made my living shooting portraits though, guess which lens I would have in my bag?

The other thing is L glass holds value really well. I could sell my 70 - 200 today for the same price I bought it at, and I have had it for 2 years, so really owning the lens will have cost me nothing. When I finally update to the 70-200 f2.8L I will have had free ownership of a 70-200L for 2 years, made my money back and can put it to my upgrade also confident that if I sold my next lens on, I would make nearly all my money back again. To me buying L glass is worth it on that fact alone.

Put simply, how many people buy L glass and never look back? How many people buy L glass and then go back to non L? To me that says it's about more than a red ring.
 
Willid1 said:
I only recently purchased my first L (70-200 F4 IS USM) lens and I can honestly say it's the first lens I've owned for ages (perhaps for ever) that I've been totally happy with.
My previous lens (70-300 F4-5.6 IS USM) would have struggled to take this picture, it would have struggled to focus, had pretty grotty chromatic abberation on the blown out highlights and at 185mm and 1/60th sec (took my eye off the expsure) would probably struggled with the IS as well.
Taken on a 400ASA on a 40D
My wife was very pleased to hear me say it was "worth every penny".
Click to expand...

Cracking shot David, I agree with trencheel303, get it printed and framed
However, I digress....
I never owned a 70-300 IS but I have used one, I also own a 70-200 F4 IS and I totally agree with your comments.
For the money the 70-300 IS can produced some good shots but things like CA are a lot more noticeable.
Being able to use slower shutter speeds and have a fantastic IS system is another benefit with L lenses.
The 24-105 has many good reviews written about it and unless the OP really does have a duff copy (I would be surprised if he does) it's capable of producing pin sharp images.
I really like my 10-22 for landscapes and today I did some landscape shots comparing it to the 24-105.
Quite often I needed to stop the 10-22 down to avoid blow highlights but I didn't have to do this with any of the shots taken with the 24-105.
I know it's not a direct test as I obviously had to use different focal lengths for both lenses but the difference was interesting.
Another thing is that I still think the Tamron 18-270 is a good consumer lens, my 70-200L IS certainly makes a difference with less blown highlights.

FM1 as I said in your other thread, you are more than welcome to try my 24-105 and I am quite flexible for meeting up, I can do weekdays as well as weekends.
Too be honest I think it would be good for you before you decide that you really are not impressed with it.
 
Even buying L lenses involves compromises. I don't know if Canon make any lens which could be regarded as the worlds best at it's length but if optical quality was the only criteria people who could afford the best would buy the best be it Canon, Nikon, Zeiss, Leica or whatever and even the oft lambasted Sigma make a lens or two that could challenge L's at least on optical quality.
 
keirik said:
It reared its ugly head in response to a comment that L owners justify their purchase despite their seemingly lack of improvement over on L lenses

personally I don't give a toss what people buy or don't buy, I know why I have my L lenses and why I use them.

It seems to be non-L owners that seem to have such a downer on them - probably in many cases without ever having tried one. The OP may have an L lens, but from his other thread he seems to have bought it, decided it wasn't worth the money and therefore started a thread saying they're not worth the money

Finally, you say you don't turn green when you see a DB9 but do you go on a forum and say they're not worth the money and a ford focus does just as good a job?

Nope. thought not!
Click to expand...

I,ve not said that they are not worth the money just that ownership of an L or Nikon/Olympus/Sony equivalent lens is not mandatory in order to get very high quality shots.
Yes the likes of a 70-200 f2.8 L is great for sports photography and if I had the money I would have one in a shot,however would a 24-70L give better results that my beloved Canonn 24-85 in the more leisurely world of Landscape,Rail and Canal photography that I use it for,probably not.
Finally why do L lens owners get so spikey when someone is less than complimentary about them
 
The lens is only ever as good as the TOG :D. For example, a beginner wouldnt go out and spend £500 - £1000 on a new L lens just because they produce sharper quality images, with time they would develop into a better photographer and if the time came where they could afford it then yes they would upgrade, however many pro TOGS have the L series lens because they are just that little bit extra in a picture. Not only that but you can pretty much gurentee that with L series you wont have a bad copy such as some of the sigma ranges.
 
How many people on here can say, hand on heart...that they find their daily shooting conditions extreme enough (either in terms of physical environment, or lighting) to necessitate the L Series?

The OP's photos are not of the sort that would need an L series, sure it's nice to have and it gives you a warm glowy feeling but they're not necessary for 90% of shots on here...even the sports ones which everybody seems to think is an L'coholics paradise.

Example:
If you're shooting your kids football, you dont need a 400L f/2.8. It's bright, you've not got 30,000 people all wearing the same colours as the players in your background and you can get the required focal length from cheaper lenses, and still produce great photos if you heed the advice of lots of people on here.
 
So, some thoughts. Lets not target L lenses, but refer to all premium lenses, after all they are all expensive.

Totally agree that having the best kit doesn't mean you automatically get the best possible pictures - the operator is what makes it all work (or not), but what I think alot of people are saying is that using top quality glass makes it easier - I'd probably agree.

The OP says that he uses post processing to improve the picture - saturation/sharpening etc. Fine, but what if you could cut your pp time in half by having a better image to start from ? This could be critical if you are a pro - time is money. Doesn't matter so much for amatuers, but i'd rather be out with the camera or doing something else than be tied to the computer for hours sorting out a set of photos, just my opinion.

I bought a 24-105 after using a friends one. Aside from being a more useful walkabout lens than my kit one it does give better colour saturation and I think its also better when opened up over the kit lens.

I think the bottom line is premium lenses do have advantages over the cheaper ones, if you are prepared to pay for it or not is personal choice I think.
 
Interesting thread. If you have only one opportunity to get a shot, then you need to give yourself as much advantage as possible. L lenses are another tool in the armoury to get you that advantage.

If you've got time to put the camera on a tripod and stop your lens down to f/8 to get it all nice & sharp, then a kit lens may well do the job. If you're trying to get a shot on goal from Drogba under floodlights then you need fast focusing 2.8 (or quicker) robust lenses that can do the job and can take the punishment.

Aside from that, they are very very nice to own and use. It's just like anything in our choice-rich society - its there and available - you dont have to buy it if you dont want it.

As for the photos on the original post - you could have taken them with any camera. A decent point & shoot would probably render the same detail & sharpness. Try something more challenging as a test shot - the aforementioned Drogba example would work.
 
jamesb84 said:
Example:
If you're shooting your kids football, you dont need a 400L f/2.8.
Click to expand...

Well, it depends on how far away they let you stand. These days they try to keep the parents away from the touchline, plus if you pick a point around one corner so you have your team facing you, then a 100-400 zoom lens is great.


jamesb84 said:
It's bright, you've not got 30,000 people all wearing the same colours as the players in your background and you can get the required focal length from cheaper lenses, and still produce great photos if you heed the advice of lots of people on here.
Click to expand...

Actually, I shoot kids rugby and it's not just me that notices the difference since I moved to a 70-200 f2.8 IS. The parents all comment.

I've just sold a 30" x 20" poster print of one of the players which is pin sharp and I know I couldn't have done that with my older/cheaper lens/body combination.

Edit: Again - no-ones saying you have to have them. There's always a price that people have to work to. I was an unbeliever at one time too, but now I'm a full convert to the power of the L.

Come feel the power of the dark side...
 
CaptainPenguin said:
Finally why do L lens owners get so spikey when someone is less than complimentary about them
Click to expand...

i wasn't getting spiky, I was whiling away the time while Adobe Bridge buggered about with my shots from saturdays wedding :)

As I've said previously I have L and non-L lenses, in fact my 100 F2 is great quality and I cant see myself ever buying an L to replace it, same with the 50mm 1.4, but my comments were more to do with the fact that TP seem to have regular threads about L lenses where people regularly say they aren't worth the money, but if you look at their equipment list they haven't got any.

I'm not a zealot, I have no view on if Canon or Nikon is better - but I chose Canon and stay there 'cos I can't be bother (and can't afford) to swop.

Same with L lenses, I've bought them with my hard earned cash, I know how good they are, I know their foibles (the 28-300 for example is crap below F8, but it has such a wide range its invaluable at times) and I know that I've got what I paid for.

I suggest all those that are criticising them without trying them should either put up or shut up.

BTW this also was not spiky, but I'm from Yorkshire and not very good at subtle :lol:
 
jamesb84 said:
How many people on here can say, hand on heart...that they find their daily shooting conditions extreme enough (either in terms of physical environment, or lighting) to necessitate the L Series?
Click to expand...

I couldn't claim that I need to shoot with L lenses, but those I have do make my shooting easier and do allow me to get shots that other lenses would not. Here's a shot that I would not have got with a cheaper lens, it's shot at 700mm (500 f4 with a 1.4x), ISO 800, f5.6, 1/40th...

RFB_6798.jpg


I'd been on site trying to get shots of this bird for over 6 hours before I finally got it in frame and even then I only managed to fire of three shots.
 
keirik said:
i wasn't getting spiky, I was whiling away the time while Adobe Bridge buggered about with my shots from saturdays wedding :)

As I've said previously I have L and non-L lenses, in fact my 100 F2 is great quality and I cant see myself ever buying an L to replace it, same with the 50mm 1.4, but my comments were more to do with the fact that TP seem to have regular threads about L lenses where people regularly say they aren't worth the money, but if you look at their equipment list they haven't got any.

I'm not a zealot, I have no view on if Canon or Nikon is better - but I chose Canon and stay there 'cos I can't be bother (and can't afford) to swop.

Same with L lenses, I've bought them with my hard earned cash, I know how good they are, I know their foibles (the 28-300 for example is crap below F8, but it has such a wide range its invaluable at times) and I know that I've got what I paid for.

I suggest all those that are criticising them without trying them should either put up or shut up.

BTW this also was not spiky, but I'm from Yorkshire and not very good at subtle :lol:
Click to expand...

Spikey was a generalisation not aimed at anyone in particular
 
Speaking of 70-200 L's I read a review that Ken Rockwell did of the 70-200 f/4 non IS and in his tests you couldn't see any CA at all. I've been deciding between that and the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 (it is more expensive) and that is swaying it for me at the moment.
 
woof woof said:
Sigma make a lens or two that could challenge L's at least on optical quality.
Click to expand...

They do, but you hit another point. Sigma are notorious for poor quality control. Many soft copies about, sending multiple lenses to get the one you want.

L means it will work first time. No soft copies, no exchanging to get a sharp copy. You buy it, put it on your camera and it is pin sharp out of the box.
 
ding76uk said:
They do, but you hit another point. Sigma are notorious for poor quality control. Many soft copies about, sending multiple lenses to get the one you want.

L means it will work first time. No soft copies, no exchanging to get a sharp copy. You buy it, put it on your camera and it is pin sharp out of the box.
Click to expand...

That's absolute nonsense, of course there are going to be sample variations, it happens with everything. It just happens to be that Sigma (apparently) have worse quality control than some other manufacturers. 'L' does not mean that it will work first time, it means that the lens has passed various specifications and is assigned the L to denote that it is of considerable quality. Not all L's are weatherproof and some are certainly better than others.
 
of course they are, its the same with any optics, binos for example. people come in and ask to look at the 200 quid hawkes and say wow theyre great, surely those swarovskis cant be worth 1600 quid more, what more can they do. then they look through the swarovskis and all becomes apparent, and all of a sudden the £200 pair look cloudy, flat, dark, horrible chromatic aberration.

the old saying you pay for what you get never comes truer than when talking about optics.
 
Been out again today with my 70-200 and I post this not for any crit on the image but to show what this lens can do. I am sure my old 70-300 would have struggled here. Images sharpened a "little bit" on resizing but not much.

40D 200mm (320mm eq for 1.6* crop) 400ISO 1/60th f 5.6

Whole image



100 percent crop



And remember this camera is only 10MP. I have a friend with a 7D, just have to work out how to get it off him for a weekend :D

David
 
The colours in the reflection in the cropped eye are fantastic :D

I've also just swapped from the 70-300 to my first L (100-400) and on the first trip out with it I was amazed at the quality of the shots. There most definately is a big difference...
 
let's also remember that there are none L lenses that are rated better than L ones... The 17-55 EF-S is oft rated better than, say the 17-40, in terms of IQ. Shame itdoesnt have the build quality.
 
It really depends on what you're doing.

I love my 70-200 f/2.8L IS. I used to have a Canon EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 IS. It worked fine on a 300D. On a 5D it was mercilessly exposed as not up to par. I have no regrets about trading up to 'L' and I'm still occasionally stunned by the quality of images it produces. Maybe I'd feel the same about a Sigma equivalent. I don't know, but the Canon L does the job for me now.

On the flip side, if I'm out shooting street with my 35mm f/2, it's nice and unobtrusive. It doesn't catch too much attention. I'm not sure a 35 f/1.4L would be quite so 'stealth' and I'm happy enough with the images it makes. Even that surprises me too on occasion. Same goes for my 50mm f/1.4, which I'm not in a hurry to replace with a 50mm f/1.2L.
 
trencheel303 said:
let's also remember that there are none L lenses that are rated better than L ones... The 17-55 EF-S is oft rated better than, say the 17-40, in terms of IQ. Shame itdoesnt have the build quality.
Click to expand...

Only because it's an EF-S lens so can't be badged as an L lens.
 
hashcake said:
Only because it's an EF-S lens so can't be badged as an L lens.
Click to expand...

I would believe that except for the fact that there is a compact with a Canon L lens in it. Can't find it just now, but I know there is one out there.

EDIT: Here we go: http://www.steves-digicams.com/came...rshot-pro1/canon-powershot-pro1-review-2.html

If they can put an L lens in a compact, I really don't see why they can't make an EF-S L lens. The only thing that's lacking from the 10-22 and 17-55 would be the L build quality and red ring I am sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top