ernesto
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,839
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Or maybe two including yourself. Or three as no doubt I am included now too.
L Lenses
- Thread starter buster2
- Start date
Or maybe two including yourself. Or three as no doubt I am included now too.
It's not really a question of flaunting it! It you want / need a 400mm lens there are very few options available. If you want something as fast as a f/2.8, even fewer.
You simply will not find a lens for £100, £200, £300 that will meet these criteria. You have to go to £600+ before the focal rage is covered by a zoom, and even then, wide open you're only going to get a quarter of the light into the lens due to the maximum f/5.6 aperture. You will also be pushing the boundaries of the zoom, and will inevitably not get the best even that lens could produce in those circumstances, it will likely be soft. The reduced light level will affect the quality of the autofocus - certain sensors in the body only work at f/2.8 or f/4 maximum apertures, so the chance of nailing focus is reduced. Focus speed will also be poorer as the focussing motors are less accurate and, that, in combination with the lower light levels, weaker focus sensors will mean the lens will spend more time hunting for focus.
As has already been said - these differences are much less obvious at the shorter end, but as you go longer, these become more and more evident.
In other words, it's not a question of vanity, flaunting it or not. You simply will not be able to take the same shots.
- Messages
- 16,680
- Name
- Ebenezer McScrooge III
- Edit My Images
- Yes
oh dear have you got a problem? As i said there's always one in every forum:bonk: i suppose you analyze every pixel toi 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)
FAR too much of this on here just now. Have a bit of time out to reconsider your approach.
williams359
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 371
- Name
- Nick
- Edit My Images
- Yes
L lenes are better in every way than the standard kit lenses of £100. A lot of the sharpness comes from the lens camera combination . Cheaper lenses that work fine on a 1.6 crop body will struggle on a full frame. this is especially true when you look at the sharpness at the edge.
Phil V
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 26,303
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
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
Just in case you come back to read this.
No I definitely haven't got a problem. However, having given some relevant information, I find it a bit rude when the person asking the question dismisses my opinion. Then when I see they've dismissed other valid opinions, I have to question the sincerity of the question:shrug:.
I'm not a pixel peeper or a purist, but bad manners get right on my wick
The 5% improvement that you find in the best products is worth a mint when it's the difference between frustration and a great shot. For some people that's not worth the massive price difference, but for others it's worth every penny. That's why at every major sporting event, the press pit is full of white lenses, they're not just following the crowd, they need to be able to rely on the gear.
wyx087
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,209
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The difference between L and third party is the build quality, focus speed and lastly image quality.
I can bash around the 24-105mm f4L while I have to be very careful with my Tamron value 70-300mm.
Prime lenses will always be sharper, more contrast than zooms, but a good zoom (eg L series zooms) does come pretty close.
I can bash around the 24-105mm f4L while I have to be very careful with my Tamron value 70-300mm.
Prime lenses will always be sharper, more contrast than zooms, but a good zoom (eg L series zooms) does come pretty close.
Gaz J
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,294
- Name
- Gary
- Edit My Images
- No
I'd recommend hiring a lens for a week. e.g 70-200 2.8 MkII and then you can decide for yourself if L lens worth the outlay and the hype I think my 70-200 is so sharp that its worth a bagful of primes.
I'd swap my 17-40 for something a bit sharper, I'm not hung up on my lenses being only made by canon, but the 70-200 is unmatched by any other canon fit lens of similar length IMO, the 300f4 whilst a bit slow in the focusing dept can hold it's own with any similarly priced product and the 500f4 is a class bit of glass.
I'd swap my 17-40 for something a bit sharper, I'm not hung up on my lenses being only made by canon, but the 70-200 is unmatched by any other canon fit lens of similar length IMO, the 300f4 whilst a bit slow in the focusing dept can hold it's own with any similarly priced product and the 500f4 is a class bit of glass.
Russ77
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,093
- Name
- Russ
- Edit My Images
- Yes
No quite oranges for oranges but still fairly relevant.....
I bought a Sigma 175-500mm for (I think) about £600 about 5 years ago for Cricket/Rugby usage. It worked OK but with a minimum aperture of f6.5 it wasn't great in low light, the AF was a little slow and the IQ was far from great.
I sold it to a friend and bought a 100-400L second hand for around £900 and the difference was like day & night plus I got an extra stop of light too!
The colours & contrast were far superior, the AF was like lightening and in just about everyway it was far superior to the Sigma (although a slightly different focal length).
At RRP, the Canon was about double to price of the Sigma but worth every penny IMHO
philthejuggler
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 7,086
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I should add there are some L-beating third party lenses (such as the Sigma 35mm f/1.4) although there's still an argument that the Canon is better built and might have more consistent focussing. This argument is slightly offset by the 3-year warranty Sigma offers.
There are few lenses that can beat the Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro Planar - ok, it's not autofocus, but optically is something special and definitely my preference to Canon's 100mm offerings when used for Makro and most other things unless AF is critical.
Also, some third party lenses offer near-L quality for a lot less - the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 is a very good lens and focusses more rapidly than my 85L.
Ultimately though, Canon know their own AF algorithms, so their lenses are likely to have a AF advantage and (aside from the new lenses from Sigma that can be updated via USB connector) are more likely to work properly with new bodies in the future.
Also, if you have a pile of L-lenses and decent camera bodies, the Canon CPS service is really good.
Phil
There are few lenses that can beat the Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro Planar - ok, it's not autofocus, but optically is something special and definitely my preference to Canon's 100mm offerings when used for Makro and most other things unless AF is critical.
Also, some third party lenses offer near-L quality for a lot less - the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 is a very good lens and focusses more rapidly than my 85L.
Ultimately though, Canon know their own AF algorithms, so their lenses are likely to have a AF advantage and (aside from the new lenses from Sigma that can be updated via USB connector) are more likely to work properly with new bodies in the future.
Also, if you have a pile of L-lenses and decent camera bodies, the Canon CPS service is really good.
Phil
Last edited:
- Messages
- 21,370
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
I use that advantage and still forget to mention it
3 day turnaround to fix equipment ..loan equipment.. advice.. and free to be a member.. if you can call owning expensive equipment free..
postcardcv
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,661
- Name
- Peter
- Edit My Images
- No
For me one of the biggest advantages of the Ls that I have had is that they consistently deliver the results I want. I used to shoot birds with a Sigma 500mm and my first job on the PC was to sift through and delete the shots that were slightly OOF. I switched to the Canon and was very happy to find that this process isn't needed anymore, so long as I have the subject in frame the lens nails focus every time. The Sigma could produce as good images but struggled in poor light where as the Canon delivers everytime (apart from when I mess it up).
seriousrikk
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 5,881
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well while the OP seems to have asked a question without really wanting to know the answer - this has turned into an interesting debate.
I use L series lenses.
Why? Guaranteed performance at the extreme.
I started off with the Tamron 17-50mm - and it performed flawlessly. It was sharp and compact - those were it's strengths. But if you asked it to focus on a low contrast subject in the dark - well it wouldn't. Couple that with the fact the focus ring moves when auto focus used, well it just wasn't good enough.
So I got the 17-55mm. More than double the price, and annoyingly heavier. Plus not quite as 'wide' at 17mm - not much but noticable. However, the percentage of shots that were in critical focus rose sharply.
Now I use a 5D3 & 24-70mm L and the number has risen again. Now I do not miss shots for any other reason than me.
I use L series lenses.
Why? Guaranteed performance at the extreme.
I started off with the Tamron 17-50mm - and it performed flawlessly. It was sharp and compact - those were it's strengths. But if you asked it to focus on a low contrast subject in the dark - well it wouldn't. Couple that with the fact the focus ring moves when auto focus used, well it just wasn't good enough.
So I got the 17-55mm. More than double the price, and annoyingly heavier. Plus not quite as 'wide' at 17mm - not much but noticable. However, the percentage of shots that were in critical focus rose sharply.
Now I use a 5D3 & 24-70mm L and the number has risen again. Now I do not miss shots for any other reason than me.