L Lenses

B

buster2

Suspended / Banned
Messages
30
Name
john
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm not in the market for l lenses as yet and wether i will be i dont know? but my Tamron takes superb pics and has great af and was just wondering what would i be really getting for the vast amount of price difference?
I know they're better built and more ergonomics neither of which seem that important but would anyone really say "WOW" to the iq between a £1000 lens and £180 like i paid for the Tamron 17-50 if you just wanted A4 sized prints? I really cant see what improvement i'd get over what i'm getting already the only poor pics i get are my own errors.
 
Last edited:
A part (not sure how much of a part) is definitely because of the better build, higher quality materials more time spent etc,. and if that doesn't matter to you (it certainly doesn't matter to me) then I doubt you would go WOW as the differences in IQ would be marginal rather than major I would think.

I just count myself lucky that for my purposes a £100 plactic prime lens does nicely...
 
Better quality lenses aren't really going to make a lot of difference in print size/quality (that's more governed by the sensor/pixel density) however they can seriously improve the colours & contrast of images.

Not to mention faster, more accurate auto-focus ;)

A friend of my bought the a 35mm Sigma, loved the image quality but whether it nailed the focus or not was very hit & miss..... he ended up buying the more expensive Canon version which performed a lot better.
 
I used two L series lenses to the other week. The 50mm f1.2L USM and 24mm f1.4L USII and I could not put them down. Every aspect of them were just brilliant. Speed, response, sharpness, build quality.
 
Its common sense really.. You dont think people are paying an extra 1k a lens just because its built different do you? You need to try an L lens as thats the only way you will understand..

You are happy with your lens? then dont try an L is my advice...
 
I suppose it's like the difference in buying a cheap £150 full suspension mountain bike in Halfrauds, to spending £1500+ on a high spec full suspension XC mountain bike.

You could go just as fast for your £150, but it might just throw you off on the bumpy stuff, you'll suffer the next day and it'll disassemble itself before you even need to adust the brakes on the more expensive machine.

There is always a certain amount of over hype with certain products, but you'll never know until you try.


On the other hand, when it comes to mainstream "trendy" items, like iPad/iPhone, you can often get something much better and much cheaper elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
I don't think that you can automatically assume that a Canon badge, the L designation, build quality or weather sealing or anything else necessarily mean you'll get better image quality.

The only L lens I've personally tried is the 17-40mm and it left me completely underwhelmed and I instead bought a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 which IMVHO simply smashed the 17-40mm into the ground... although you have to look very closely to see these differences IMVHO which is why I mostly buy lenses on their specification and the look they produce.
 
I think that 3rd party manufacturers can produce very competitive lenses in the shorter focal lengths. The 17-40 L isn't that great and could do with a revamp. However as you get into the longer focal lengths 70-200, 300 etc then then generally the major makes quality starts to eclipse the rest.
 
Gaz J said:
I think that 3rd party manufacturers can produce very competitive lenses in the shorter focal lengths. The 17-40 L isn't that great and could do with a revamp. However as you get into the longer focal lengths 70-200, 300 etc then then generally the major makes quality starts to eclipse the rest.
Click to expand...


I would go with the above for sure... well put :)
 
So would still appear you may not go WOW if comparing your Tamron 17 - 50 to an L in same sort of focal length range then.

All depends how easily WOWed you are of course...
 
Gaz J said:
I think that 3rd party manufacturers can produce very competitive lenses in the shorter focal lengths. The 17-40 L isn't that great and could do with a revamp...
Click to expand...

Indeed. My point was that talking about L lenses involves the good, the not so good and the deffo could have bought something better for a lot less money.

No disrespect to the OP but IMVHO with threads like this there's a danger of generalising and badge snobbery. Talking about L's is IMVHO a bit like talking about cars and lusting after Fords in that some could be right for you whilst others could be dogs (like the sheds I drove as company cars :thumbsdown:) To pick and choose is the way :D
 
ernesto said:
So would still appear you may not go WOW if comparing your Tamron 17 - 50 to an L in same sort of focal length range then.

That Tamron is a good lens and if you're in the market for a lens like that you are free to pass on by and buy a 17-40mm f4 :lol: but God knows why you would. IMVHO :D
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I have one L lens and the others are canon's midrange usm they are brilliant but for me the selling point is the focus speed and IS. The kit and any sub £100 lenses are so noisy and slow your shot is gone by the time it even gets halfway focused. For some that may not matter but at the end of the day I come home with more useable shots and thats worth saving for!
 
While I know they use better quality glass and build is normally a lot higher, what drives me towards 'L' glass on my Canon is normally the characteristics of the lens itself - by that I mean, it's faster and in the case of my zooms (although not always true), the maximum aperture is consistent across the zoom range.

Of my glass, my absolutely favourite lens in terms of sharpness, DoF both at F/2 and colour rendition is the 135L - it's an awkward length at times, but I just love the pictures it allows me to produce. This is one of the cheaper 'L' lenses too!

Conversely, by 17-40L, which is even cheaper, is not that great, and I don't think performs as well as the Canon 10-22 I bought it to replace, so 'L' is not always the best! (Actually, I've just checked and the EFS 10-22 actually sells for more than the 17-40L)

As others have said as you get longer, the quality is more apparent. I had a variety of the mid range zooms when first starting out 75-300 and then a 70-300 (I think!) and when I finally upgraded to a 70-200 F/4 L, it was such a huge jump. AF was so much faster, and the lens was so much sharper. I got the a bit daft when I started buying kit a few years back and upgraded to the F/2.8 IS version, and while the lens is very nice, you they start to run into weight issues, so again - faster, more expensive etc, can start to become a barrier too.

A lot of rambling, but in short, don't get hung up on the 'L' bit - choose a lens for weight, speed, utility etc - the more demanding you are and the longer you get, the more likely you will end up in 'L' territory, but don't rule out others especially at the shorter end.
 
The 'wow' factor in a shot has many components, but something like a 50mm f/1.2L or an 85mm f/1.2L II will allow you (if you have the skill and vision) to get a certain effect where a very slim depth of field helps to make a shot distinctive.
 
My take on the 17-40L is that it is best as an ultra wide angle on full frame - I got some good shots with it on my old 5D, but I found it underwhelming on a crop sensor.
 
My advice would be,stick with your Tamron if your happy with it. I would like to put your question into a slightly different perspective however. The Canon L equivalent of your lens is the 17-40,there is nothing else and if you paid £180 for yours it was used and a used 17-40 can be had for around the £400-450 mark so the price difference is not quite the £1000 you were mentioning. I know you didn't mean £1000 literally but felt it should be pointed out since the L equivalent of yours is not a huge extra expense.

The guys are right though, the 17-40 is a far superior build and if that was your main criteria for buying then fair enough but for better IQ ? No, the Tammy is probably as sharp if not a little better.

Now, if you were talking literally about £1000+ for a lens that's where things are very different and the L lenses in those price ranges are in a league of there own tbh. You are now talking fast Telezooms and Primes and you will really see in your shots where your money went.

Would I spend thousands on a lens ? No, because my photographic needs don't really justify it. Its very much a personal thing as to how much you are prepared to spend and for what reason. Photographers are a diverse bunch and photography is all the better for it.
 
Last edited:
ernesto said:
A part (not sure how much of a part) is definitely because of the better build, higher quality materials more time spent etc,. and if that doesn't matter to you (it certainly doesn't matter to me) then I doubt you would go WOW as the differences in IQ would be marginal rather than major I would think.

I just count myself lucky that for my purposes a £100 plactic prime lens does nicely...
Click to expand...

I agree better build etc is nice but then i dont think ive come across a badly built lens, and i'm not sure imo that justifies the massive price differences?
 
Gazamonk said:
My advice would be,stick with your Tamron if your happy with it. I would like to put your question into a slightly different perspective however. The Canon L equivalent of your lens is the 17-40,there is nothing else and if you paid £180 for yours it was used and a used 17-40 can be had for around the £400-450 mark so the price difference is not quite the £1000 you were mentioning. I know you didn't mean £1000 literally but felt it should be pointed out since the L equivalent of yours is not a huge extra expense.

The guys are right though, the 17-40 is a far superior build and if that was your main criteria for buying then fair enough but for better IQ ? No, the Tammy is probably as sharp if not a little better.

Now, if you were talking literally about £1000+ for a lens that's where things are very different and the L lenses in those price ranges are in a league of there own tbh. You are now talking fast Telezooms and Primes and you will really see in your shots where your money went.

Would I spend thousands on a lens ? No, because my photographic needs don't really justify it. Its very much a personal thing as to how much you are prepared to spend and for what reason. Photographers are a diverse bunch and photography is all the better for it.
Click to expand...

yes maybe i should have said not in all cases is there such great price differences at least second hand,and i suppose it depends on different focal lenths ,£200 difference is fair enough. I was going to ask if there was a comparison with tam 17-50 but you've answered that
 
Gazamonk said:
Now, if you were talking literally about £1000+ for a lens .
Click to expand...

I paid just under 6,000 for my 400 and 1,800 for the 70-200 . I have around 10 thousand pounds worth of L lens and believe me I wouldnt pay all that for a red stripe.. you could paint one on cheaper :)

If anyone can tell me a better or equal alternative for a few hundred quid then off you go :)
 
Furtim said:
While I know they use better quality glass and build is normally a lot higher, what drives me towards 'L' glass on my Canon is normally the characteristics of the lens itself - by that I mean, it's faster and in the case of my zooms (although not always true), the maximum aperture is consistent across the zoom range.

Of my glass, my absolutely favourite lens in terms of sharpness, DoF both at F/2 and colour rendition is the 135L - it's an awkward length at times, but I just love the pictures it allows me to produce. This is one of the cheaper 'L' lenses too!

Conversely, by 17-40L, which is even cheaper, is not that great, and I don't think performs as well as the Canon 10-22 I bought it to replace, so 'L' is not always the best! (Actually, I've just checked and the EFS 10-22 actually sells for more than the 17-40L)

As others have said as you get longer, the quality is more apparent. I had a variety of the mid range zooms when first starting out 75-300 and then a 70-300 (I think!) and when I finally upgraded to a 70-200 F/4 L, it was such a huge jump. AF was so much faster, and the lens was so much sharper. I got the a bit daft when I started buying kit a few years back and upgraded to the F/2.8 IS version, and while the lens is very nice, you they start to run into weight issues, so again - faster, more expensive etc, can start to become a barrier too.

A lot of rambling, but in short, don't get hung up on the 'L' bit - choose a lens for weight, speed, utility etc - the more demanding you are and the longer you get, the more likely you will end up in 'L' territory, but don't rule out others especially at the shorter end.
Click to expand...

good fair advice thanks
 
The Canon 'equivalent' of your Tamron isn't actually an L lens.

The 17-55 focus motor is loads better than the Tamron though, but if you think your Tamron motor is great, that's fair enough. But I've never seen a 3rd party lens that can AF in the same conditions the 17-55 will.

If you need to know whether the 17-55 is worth the extra, just ask any pro's who shoot crop, what their std zoom is?
 
Phil V said:
The Canon 'equivalent' of your Tamron isn't actually an L lens.

The 17-55 focus motor is loads better than the Tamron though, but if you think your Tamron motor is great, that's fair enough. But I've never seen a 3rd party lens that can AF in the same conditions the 17-55 will.

If you need to know whether the 17-55 is worth the extra, just ask any pro's who shoot crop, what their std zoom is?
Click to expand...

Well the tamron focuses instantly so i cant ask for more than that, and obviously can't comment on something ive not had.
 
Sometimes there is not alot of difference to the naked eye in your lens and say the 17-55 canon, I know its not an L glass but it might as well be.

But this is not always the case, I had the 75-300mm then I bought the 100-400 and then you notice the difference big style, even more if you got the 300 f2.8 so its all relevent.

Sometimes it pays not to worry too much about what a lens is or how much it cost if you are happy with yours, trouble is though if you really do want to find out and do try a L lens and find there is a difference then you will have to have deep pockets as L is all you would want from then on.

For me I buy the best as if I take a crap pic its me not my gear, its not snobbery on my part just I can afford it and its my only hobby.

There is not right or wrong on what lens you use if you are happy
 
You see i was looking for a long focal length to go with the 17-50 and think this where i noticed the great price differences Tamron again has a 70-300mm vc which seems to have great reviews and ive noticed the canon 200mm f4 is reasonably priced and then you have the canon 500m at 6-7k does it do the washing to? lol
 
Last edited:
If you are looking to go long then you could a lot worse than a 2nd hand 100-400 they go one here for between £750 and 900 depending on age etc.

The tamron gets good write ups because it performs well for the money but that does not mean it is the best at what it does.

The 500mm canon does not do your washing but it takes a dam good pic lol
 
If you are looking for a lens in the 70-300 range than you still have some 3rd party lenses that give excellent results. But the price for these rises when you start looking for constant aperture through the range. Canon don't even do a constant aperture 70-300. Presumably to keep the price down to a realistic level and weight also. Not every L lens is the dogs dangles and there are one or two non L lenses that punch above their weight in the image quality stakes.

But I think it's safe to say that the recent MkII releases really are superb lenses and way ahead of anything that sigma etc are producing.
 
Phil V said:
The Canon 'equivalent' of your Tamron isn't actually an L lens. Canon 17-55
Click to expand...
I didn't cite this model Phil because technically its got IS which neither the Tamron 17-50 ( I assume its the non VC version the OP has ) or the 17-40 have. The OP also specifically was talking about L lenses which the 17-55 isn't.

However I cannot argue with the rest of your post, looking at the usage stats in Adobe Bridge I use the 17-55 for about 80% of my shots. Its practically glued to my camera and is my most used wedding lens. Beats the c**p out of the mediocre 17-40L and the build quality is absolutely fine before all the L fanboys jump in. lol :nono:
 
KIPAX said:
I paid just under 6,000 for my 400 and 1,800 for the 70-200 . I have around 10 thousand pounds worth of L lens and believe me I wouldnt pay all that for a red stripe.. you could paint one on cheaper :)

If anyone can tell me a better or equal alternative for a few hundred quid then off you go :)
Click to expand...

if you've got it flaunt it if its worth it but are you getting £6000 worth of better iq ?? paint one on now there's an idea lol
 
Last edited:
SpikeK6 said:
If you are looking to go long then you could a lot worse than a 2nd hand 100-400 they go one here for between £750 and 900 depending on age etc.

The tamron gets good write ups because it performs well for the money but that does not mean it is the best at what it does.

The 500mm canon does not do your washing but it takes a dam good pic lol
Click to expand...

i would hope it does dam waste otherwise:lol:
 
buster2 said:
Well the tamron focuses instantly so i cant ask for more than that, and obviously can't comment on something ive not had.
Click to expand...

buster2 said:
if you've got it flaunt it if its worth it but are you getting £6000 worth of better iq ?? paint one on now there's an idea lol
Click to expand...

buster2 said:
i would hope it does dam waste otherwise:lol:
Click to expand...
For someone who started out by asking 'is it worth it?' All of a sudden you appear to have made your mind up :thinking:
 
Phil V said:
For someone who started out by asking 'is it worth it?' All of a sudden you appear to have made your mind up :thinking:[/QUOT]

Have I? Do you read minds ? Far from it actually ,that's why I brought it it up to get a better idea if that's ok with you, oh there's always one LOL
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:

Well I quoted you directly, not so much reading minds as reading what you'd written.

Perhaps if I've misinterpreted, then you should be asking yourself why I drew that conclusion from what you'd written rather than sarky remarks about mind reading?
 
Most of the time it just depends on your needs and your wallet.

I started without L lenses and switched to my first L which was the 24-70 2.8L. The Build Quality was a huge difference to the lenses I had before. Contrast and AF was a lot more accurate. The Weather sealing is also something you want to have if you are most of the time outside, it protects it from the elements.

Is it worth the money? For me yes, for you I don't know. Not everyone can justify a large amount of money for some glass. If you can, do it. If not, leave it ;)
 
Phil V said:
Well I quoted you directly, not so much reading minds as reading what you'd written.

Perhaps if I've misinterpreted, then you should be asking yourself why I drew that conclusion from what you'd written rather than sarky remarks about mind reading?
Click to expand...

oh dear have you got a problem? As i said there's always one in every forum:bonk: i suppose you analyze every pixel to:gag: i really would prefer more useful comments. Nothing better to say then please don't bother, ill respond to others in here that are far more helpful and i dont want a childish argument with the argumentative unstable thank you, haven't you got a wedding to go to? (and take some over paranoid pills)
 
Last edited:
Chee said:
Most of the time it just depends on your needs and your wallet.

I started without L lenses and switched to my first L which was the 24-70 2.8L. The Build Quality was a huge difference to the lenses I had before. Contrast and AF was a lot more accurate. The Weather sealing is also something you want to have if you are most of the time outside, it protects it from the elements.

Is it worth the money? For me yes, for you I don't know. Not everyone can justify a large amount of money for some glass. If you can, do it. If not, leave it ;)
Click to expand...

Thank you i think for shorter focal lengths what i have is fine, not convinced i would see any great if any difference for my needs and i'm finding the Tamron a great lens so no need to change for the time being at least, but i do want a longer focal for wildlife, i wont need more than 400mm and i dont want to spend thousands but i dont mind hundreds if its worth the extra
 
Last edited:
The canon 100-400 L is reasonable in price. It's stabilised and weather sealed. Second hand it's like under one thousand pounds. Tamron has some decent lenses., but I am not too familiar with tamron.
 
The 100-400 is a popular lens. Bit soft at 400 and the push pull design has it's critics. Canons 70-300 L is supposed to be pretty good but it won't take a canon convertor. Apparently one or two aftermarket convertors will fit though. If you don't want a zoom the the canon 400 5.6 L comes well recommended. There's not a massive choice to be honest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top