Are L series lenses really worth the premium price?

F

FM1

Suspended / Banned
Messages
86
Edit My Images
No
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?
 
i think the first and third pics are excellent!

How did you process them if you don't mind me asking?

with regard to L glass - i think you really find how good they are when in harder conditions like low light and they are still immensly crisp throughout the focal range and wide open.
 
L lenses don't magically make photos better.

They tend to be sharper than kit lenses. They tend to have larger maximum apertures than consumer lenses. They tend to be built better than consumer lenses. They tend to focus faster and better.

However, 'sharpness' and 'image quality' are nothing if you only look at them on your computer, or don't print off huge. Even if you do, most modern lenses are bloody good still... a kit lens (even the canon one which is pants wide open) stopped down to f8 will be perfectly sharp for all but demanding landscape stock or portrait work...

My cameras get used very regularly, I sometimes shoot in, uh, less than ideal enviroments, my equipment needs to be durable enough to take a drop or a hit from a flying pint of beer... does yours? If not... you are paying a lot for build quality that you don't need.

There are some fantastic alternatives out there...my main lens, that earns probably 80% of my keep, is the tamron 17-50 2.8. Can't find flaws with it to even contemplate upgrading to the nikon 17-55 (the flare caaaan be a tiny bit ugly, that's all, not tooo bad though). Great lens, tack sharp, I haven't managed to break it yet. Don't hold the red ring on a magic pedestal, end of the day it's not what's on the front of your camera that really makes your photos so much better, it's what's behind the camera ;)

short answer: if you need that particular zoom range or aperture or build quality, then yes... if not, then no, far too many canon users worship the red ring and when they buy are amazed that they haven't suddenly turned into ansel freaking adams...
 
I think this is one of those areas that really opens a can of woms and I can see this thread splitting between the "You get what y0ou pay for" crew and the "Its the skill of the photographer " brigade.

I tend to fall into the latter category firstly because I cant afford L glass but mainly because I have seen supreme quality results from more mundane lenses and especially from reasonably priced manual focus primes used on DSLR's.

At the end of the day you pay your money and take your choice
 
'L' lenses are weather proof and generally built better but most of the extra you pay is for that red ring around the top!:D It's like buying a BMW, Yes the quality is better but not the asking price better.

Seriously the price difference between a 'L' lens & similar HSM lens is far too much imho.

It does amaze me though that some fantastic images printed in photographic magazines are taken with a 400d and 18-55 IS lens or Siggy 17-70mm, not that there is anything at all wrong with the kit i have described obviously but it just goes to show that most of photography is down the the person taking the shot!
 
There'll be a lot of comments from people better qualified to comment than me, I'm sure, but I actually had similar thoughts about the performance that I got from my Nikon D40's kit lens in some of the shots that I got with it.

The thing is, scenes such as the three that you have photographed and posted here are not especially 'challenging' for any lens - there's no need for wide apertures, sharpness and colour rendition are hard to determine when there's no large subject in the frame and auto-focus performance can't be judged by looking at images with such deep DOF either.

If you were to try and compare the kit lens to L glass with portaiture, or shooting fast moving subjects etc., you might begin to see the differences a little more.

IMO, the benefits of quality glass are more to do with getting the picture in the first place, more than having that extra 5% of contrast and sharpness in the kind of 'landscape' images that you have chosen as examples.

If that was the only kind of photography that you wanted to do, you could get fairly similar results with a very high quality compact :shrug:. Not having a go at you here by the way, FM1, I do agree that you would see relatively little benefit from L glass in any of those three pics.
 
I love my L lenses and adore using the ones at uni too :D Wish I had bought my 70-200mm f4 IS L first time round instead of buying 2 non-L lenses. (a 70-300 and a 55-250)
Now I just go for the L's straight away because I know that as long as I do my part right with the camera settings, then the pics I get with the L's will be super duper :D
 
All depends on how big/if you want to print them.
I've taken pics on my compact and compared them to my 1dsmk3 with 24-70, printed to 9x6, really hard to tell any great life changing difference.
The person behind the camera makes the image, not the equipment.
 
I'd like the option of decent glass without the massive price of an L lens, I also dont particularly wish to advertise to all and sundry that I have L glass (the big white ones).
I've moaned for a while that alternative reasonably priced good quality should be in Canon's line-up but was told in no uncertain terms on here that the L series are reasonably priced compared to average earnings and what we used to spend on decent non L lenses, for amateur use anyway. So I am sure a lot of people on here will say that the L series represent good value for money compared to consumer grade lenses, they probably do, their built quality etc does represent good value for a pro, but for light amateur use I'm not so sure.
I've often seen L series second hand on here advertised as hadly used, does that warrant the cost, not in my view, but resale values hold well so the 'hit' isnt too bad.
Some of Canon's older lenses offer very good value with pretty decent build quality, I have some old zooms that compare favourable IQ wise with my 50, 85 and 100 macro lenses, so I know they have good IQ and second hand are very cheap (compared to some of the L series), but if you dont want second hand then its consumer or L series and as Canon seem happy to sell what they make I cant see them changing.

So pay for an L with good IQ and build quality or buy a throw away consumer lens, some of which, including the much maligned 18/55 non IS kit lens (as above) produce decent results for the money but probably wont last too long if used hard.
Matt
 
Echoing what others have probably said (I have not read he thread properly) you can't make an unsharp photo sharp in photoshop. Sure, you can sharpen, but sharpening is meant to complement an already sharp photo. Whether it's an L glass, Nikkor glass or just a good quality glass it will always be better than a poor quality glass. Why put lipstick on a pig? Also, crap lenses will really show up when you go to print your photos.
 
The way i see this is this;
If you have a FF body that requires sharpness at the edges then you buy L lenses.
If however you are in the majority and use crop sensor DSLR's then there really is no great need to use L lenses as crop sensor cameras use the middle sweet spot and 99.9% of lenses are sharp there and stopped down to f8 i doubt you would tell the difference using a crop sensor.

Its true you get what you pay for in terms of build quality etc with L lenses but i also suspect very strongly a lot of the "L is brilliant" comments are quite simply from those people who have invested heavily in these lenses and it really sticks in their throats that cheaper lenses and third party lenses dare to be anywhere near as good as them.

I for one have seen many so so images shot with L lenses that quite frankly look really poor, you even get duff L lenses.
 
AndyWest said:
'L' lenses are weather proof and generally built better but most of the extra you pay is for that red ring around the top!:D It's like buying a BMW, Yes the quality is better but not the asking price better.

Seriously the price difference between a 'L' lens & similar HSM lens is far too much imho.
Click to expand...

Not all L glass are weather proof. I have been looking at the 70-200 f/4L which is not weatherproof.


CraigF said:
The way i see this is this;
If you have a FF body that requires sharpness at the edges then you buy L lenses.
If however you are in the majority and use crop sensor DSLR's then there really is no great need to use L lenses as crop sensor cameras use the middle sweet spot and 99.9% of lenses are sharp there and stopped down to f8 i doubt you would tell the difference using a crop sensor.

Its true you get what you pay for in terms of build quality etc with L lenses but i also suspect very strongly a lot of the "L is brilliant" comments are quite simply from those people who have invested heavily in these lenses and it really sticks in their throats that cheaper lenses and third party lenses dare to be anywhere near as good as them.

I for one have seen many so so images shot with L lenses that quite frankly look really poor, you even get duff L lenses.
Click to expand...

So true :thumbs:
 
I cant help but feel a lot of amateurs and semi pros tend to rationalise to help justify the additional cost of the lens. Seriously, is corner sharpness or minimal CA that much of a huge deal to people who are photographing as a hobby? I wouldnt think so.

As for printing photos, I have printed several of my shots and they have turned out great. Almost as good as what they look on my laptop.

With other products, such as cars, when paying a premium you can really tell the difference between a standard car (Honda Civic) and a top of the range car (Mercedes C63 AMG) in build quality, ride quality, additional features, more powerful engine, etc.

With the L series lens, this is not the case. The only real difference is in the build quality, i.e. it can take a few more hits than what other lenses can.
 
Can't really tell witht he tiny shots above. I'd have to see them at full res to be sure. I've got some awful shots (slightly out of focus etc) that look fine at web sized images.

L lenses. Well in my experience they are worth it, and when I've let other unbelievers use my lenses they've agreed as well.
 
I wouldn't say they all have a premium price. The 70-200 f4L is not too expensive and knocks the socks off of my old 75-300 III USM and the 70-300 IS, even when using the 1.4 TC. I didn't think the price was too huge for that combo.

However, I would not get a shorter lens in an L at the moment as I find my sigma 18-50 f2.8 to be great. I have blown up photos with that one from my old 300D and they just look superb, it is just so sharp!

However a 300mm f4L IS, there is a lens I might want to get to know...
 
CraigF said:
The way i see this is this;
i also suspect very strongly a lot of the "L is brilliant" comments are quite simply from those people who have invested heavily in these lenses and it really sticks in their throats that cheaper lenses and third party lenses dare to be anywhere near as good as them.
Click to expand...

I suspect strongly a lot of 'L lenses aren't worth the money' comments are from people jealous that they can't afford them. :naughty:



Horses for courses on anything but I have both L and non-L lenses and use whatever I need to do my job, but for me my 24-70 L stays on my main body 99% of the time at weddings and is without a doubt the best £999 I've spent on anything, ever.

Is there anything wrong with my other lenses? no, but this particular L is worth more than its weight in gold to me
 
menthel said:
However, I would not get a shorter lens in an L at the moment as I find my sigma 18-50 f2.8 to be great.
Click to expand...

Which 18-50 do you have as i'm looking for one.

Thanks
 
My widest lens is not an 'L', my sharpest lens is not an 'L' and my longest lens is not an 'L', but my most used lenses are all 'L' lenses.

I think it's horses for courses, if you want a lens that produces consistent IQ across most apertures rather than just around the sweet spot, a lens that you can bounce around all day, one that generally fast focuses, then go for an L lens if you can afford it.

IF you don't require any or most of the above a non L lens will more than suffice.
 
keirik said:
I suspect strongly a lot of 'L lenses aren't worth the money' comments are from people jealous that they can't afford them. :naughty:



Horses for courses on anything but I have both L and non-L lenses and use whatever I need to do my job, but for me my 24-70 L stays on my main body 99% of the time at weddings and is without a doubt the best £999 I've spent on anything, ever.

Is there anything wrong with my other lenses? no, but this particular L is worth more than its weight in gold to me
Click to expand...

Wondered when the little green monster of jealousy would rear its ugly head,I cant afford L lenses am I jealous of people who can no in the same way as I dont turn green every time I see a DB9,Murcialago or Carrera S
 
You aren't paying extra because it has the letter "L" on it, there is nothing mystical about applying a character to it or painting it white.

Its simply that the better Canon lenses are designated "L" by Canon. If they didn't label them up, like Nikon don't, most of us could still spot the good glass.

So, no you don't pay a premium for "L", you pay more for the best of breed.
 
they're worth their weight in gold, for focus speed for me, predominantly shooting motorsports, focus speed is crucial
 
chrisgeary said:
the EF-S 60mm macro is one of the sharpest lenses I've ever used. Its not an L. Ok it is a prime but its a sharper lens than the 70-200/4L
Click to expand...

It might be sharper, but your 60mm lens won't get you a 70mm or 200mm shot :)


I went for the 70-200 F4 L as my first 'longer' lens, because I read about how great a lens it was (for quite some time) and had the money to buy it. I haven't regretted it. When I saw the quality of the pictures I got I was blown away. It was like getting a new camera. So I replaced my 17-85 F4-5.6 kit lens (a good lens) with the 24-70 2.8 L. Again, I can see a difference. And now I can shoot at f2.8.

I think these lenses will come into their own when I get a full frame camera, which I intend to do one day.

On the flip side, I also have the 50mm 1.8, which can give great results, and the Sigma 10-20, which is awesome. Neither of these lenses break the bank.

At the end of the day, it all comes down to what you want and what your budget is I guess.
 
CaptainPenguin said:
Wondered when the little green monster of jealousy would rear its ugly head,I cant afford L lenses am I jealous of people who can no in the same way as I dont turn green every time I see a DB9,Murcialago or Carrera S
Click to expand...

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!
 
FM1 said:
This is stemming from my other thread about my new 24-105mm lens.

.....

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...

How do you know?
 
I don't think that you can tell anything about the quality of a lens by viewing 500 pixel wide web images. I used a Sigma 500 f4.5 lens for a couple of years and loved it, the images out of it were lovely. Then I cracked and upgraded to the Canon 500 f4, my keeper rate is much higher than I ever managed with the Sigma and the images are noticably sharper. The images from both lenses look great on the web, but when you view the full size files you see just how good the Canon is.

squizza said:
Now I just go for the L's straight away because I know that as long as I do my part right with the camera settings, then the pics I get with the L's will be super duper :D
Click to expand...

I totally agree with this, using good lenses I know that when my shots are poor it's my fault and not the gear...
 
postcardcv said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by squizza View Post
Now I just go for the L's straight away because I know that as long as I do my part right with the camera settings, then the pics I get with the L's will be super duper

I totally agree with this, using good lenses I know that when my shots are poor it's my fault and not the gear...
Click to expand...

But this is my point exactly... an L missing from the name doesn't mean it will be crap. You're missing out on superb glass by being L-ist
 
chrisgeary said:
But this is my point exactly... an L missing from the name doesn't mean it will be crap. You're missing out on superb glass by being L-ist
Click to expand...

What makes you think I haven't used other lenses? I've just got the opinion buy cheap buy twice. I bought a Sigma 70-300 and a Canon 55-250 and although okay lenses, I still wasn't seeing the quality I wanted. With my standard lens, I've had the 18-55 kit lens, Canon 17-85mm, and now the Tamron 17-50mm but after using the L 24-70 at uni, I was amazed by the results and now want one. As a student, one on the lowest household income, I wish that the quality was in cheaper lenses. I wouldn't trade my L's in for anything.
 
if used every day then yes, for the sake of the reliability, the IQ wide open and the fact that you don't need to worry about them
 
squizza said:
What makes you think I haven't used other lenses? I've just got the opinion buy cheap buy twice. I bought a Sigma 70-300 and a Canon 55-250 and although okay lenses, I still wasn't seeing the quality I wanted. With my standard lens, I've had the 18-55 kit lens, Canon 17-85mm, and now the Tamron 17-50mm but after using the L 24-70 at uni, I was amazed by the results and now want one. As a student, one on the lowest household income, I wish that the quality was in cheaper lenses. I wouldn't trade my L's in for anything.
Click to expand...

That's because the Sigma 70-300 and Canon 55-250 *are* cheap lenses, in all fairness. Comparing them to L quality lenses is a bit like saying 'well my Ford Fiesta was never as good as my new Mercedes'. There's a big difference here. Cost.

I've yet to come across a 70-300 which is regarded as being better than a 70-200, either - but they're cheaper and more compact. Horses for courses!
 
chrisgeary said:
But this is my point exactly... an L missing from the name doesn't mean it will be crap. You're missing out on superb glass by being L-ist
Click to expand...

No I'm not missing out on anything, but thanks for your concern... ;)

Much as I like my L lenses I also have a number of other lenses that I am very happy with. I don't care if a lens has a red ring round it as long as it performs as I need it to. I have owned a number of very dodgy cheap lenses but I have yet to be disappointed with any L lens, they do seem to be a safe buy.
 
squizza said:
What makes you think I haven't used other lenses? I've just got the opinion buy cheap buy twice. I bought a Sigma 70-300 and a Canon 55-250 and although okay lenses, I still wasn't seeing the quality I wanted. With my standard lens, I've had the 18-55 kit lens, Canon 17-85mm, and now the Tamron 17-50mm but after using the L 24-70 at uni, I was amazed by the results and now want one. As a student, one on the lowest household income, I wish that the quality was in cheaper lenses. I wouldn't trade my L's in for anything.
Click to expand...

I'm merely pointing out that a general assertion that unless it has 'L' in the name, it won't be as good is simply not true. Don't get me wrong, I agree with what you are saying, but there are superb inexpensive non-L lenses out there that will, in some cases, outperform an L.
 
squizza said:
Now I just go for the L's straight away because I know that as long as I do my part right with the camera settings, then the pics I get with the L's will be super duper
Click to expand...

postcardcv said:
I totally agree with this, using good lenses I know that when my shots are poor it's my fault and not the gear...
Click to expand...

postcardcv said:
I don't care if a lens has a red ring round it as long as it performs as I need it to.
Click to expand...

You've just contradicted yourself there and in fact you are agreeing with me ;)
 
I use L glass because I actually need to;

1. It's my profession...I need to produce good images or I'd be homeless

2. My shooting circumstances are far from ideal, I shoot night games at badly lit football grounds, but the editors dont care about the conditions, they want good pictures...consequently, I have a long, wide aperture glass (400L f/2.8 IS)

Is there anyone else who provides a 400mm lens?
Yes, Canon do an f/4 and an f/5.6

Is there anyone else who provides a 400mm lens that is f/2.8?
Not to my knowledge.

Is there a long sports lens that could take extenders for sport where focal length is key (ie. cricket or golf)?
Not to my knowledge.

The argument of "I can get better images with my non-L glass" is fine if you're an amateur or semi-pro who can choose their locations/lighting/limitations...if it's paying my rent, I'll use what I HAVE to use to get the images.

In 99% of cases, thats an L lens. The exception is basketball, where I would prefer the 85 f/1.8.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top