Non L series primes

J

Jeff

Messages
23
Name
Jeff
Edit My Images
No
I'll be quick - Canon primes without the L designation - are they considered inferior to Canon zooms which do have the L designation?
 
Depends which prime and which L zoom your comparing and on what basis you make that comparison. For example a standard 85mm f1.8 is much sharper than a 24-105 L.
 
I have a 24-105 on my 6D but am looking at getting a 28mm f2.8 IS USM.

According to lenstests.com,

"If you are buying a prime lens you expect it to be sharper than most zoom lenses. And the EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM certainly is: compare the test shots below with the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM to see how well the EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM performs. It outperforms the zoom lens both wide open and stopped down. The lens is much sharper than the EF 28mm f/1.8 USM , still a little sharper than the EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM and similar in sharpness to the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM (compared at same apertures). Overall it's a sharp lens indeed from the image center right to the corners."
 
Jeff said:
I'll be quick - Canon primes without the L designation - are they considered inferior to Canon zooms which do have the L designation?
Click to expand...

One oldie but goldie is the 50mm f2.5. I can't be certain but I doubt you'll find a Canon zoom that'll embarrass it :D

Generally the best primes will be "better" than the best zooms, even those that carry the L designation, I think... :D
 
My sharpest Canon lenses in my gear list are: EF 300mm f2.8L IS mk1, and EF 135mm f2L, then my Macro 100 f2.8 older version, all those are sharper to my eyes than my 24-70L mk1 and 70-200 2.8IS mkII and 24-105L, so i will not put winners of zooms over best of primes high quality optics, comparing cheapo not great optic primes with high end best optically zooms will not change the fact, and people will still dream to afford best primes over zooms when they don't have budget and will always dream that affordable zooms will blow away best primes.
 
Not going to give an overall yes or no - because some L's are better than others and some of the non-L's are better than others.

Having said that - I have the EF 50mm f1.4 and it is sharper (marginally) than my 24-70 f2.8L at 50mm and comparable apertures. Though still think the L is slightly better for colour.

That's the optical side - build quality of L's is better than the non-L lenses.
 
The advantage of primes over zooms is mostly about much lower f/numbers. Plus smaller size, less weight, and lower cost - all before image quality.
 
You've probably realised by now, there's no hard and fast rules.

There's less than perfect L lenses (primes and zooms) fantastic non L lenses (primes and zooms)

Although you'd think that a very wide generalisation would be that prime lenses are better than zoom lenses, L primes are better than non L, L zooms are better than non L. It is a vast generalisation, and then there's how subjective 'better' is; build quality, focus motors, sharpness, colour rendition, edge sharpness, bokeh? What's important to you?

A lens I'd love is the 85L, it has the most wonderful creamy bokeh and razor thin DoF. But it takes for ever to focus and so the hit rate for some people is such that they prefer the much cheaper 1.8 version.
 
Don't forget the 100mm f/2 which is also very highly regarded :)

Seems it's a hot topic…
 
Fast maximum apertures are not something I need or want as most of my pics are tripod mounted at f11-22; also faster lenses weigh a ton more. Bokeh seems to be something that photographers talk about and everyone else pays not a jot of attention to, and again not really relevant for my area of interest (landscapes). It seems that the extra price is often for an extra stop of light (although I'm guessing there must be some better quality in there somewhere) or image stabilisation and usm, again things I can live without. Sharpness and lack of abberations is what would attract me to a lens.
 
Last edited:
Jeff said:
Fast maximum apertures are not something I need or want as most of my pics are tripod mounted at f11-22; also faster lenses weigh a ton more. Bokeh seems to be something that photographers talk about and everyone else pays not a jot of attention to, and again not really relevant for my area of interest (landscapes). It seems that the extra price is often for an extra stop of light (although I'm guessing there must be some better quality in there somewhere) or image stabilisation and usm, again things I can live without. Sharpness and lack of abberations is what would attract me to a lens.
Click to expand...

If you're shooting at f/22, you're just throwing away a stack of sharpness - diffraction. Don't go above f/8-11 for max image quality.

Given what you've said, the lens for you is probably a tilt & shift.
 
I bought 3 non L primes earlier this year, a 35 f2, a 50 f1.4 and an 85 f1.8 and all 3 give me some fantastic quality shots. Considering I got all 3 for around £650, which is around half the cost of my Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS MkII, and all 3 give me a similar IQ to the zoom. They haven't got the same build quality as the L lenses but for me, as an amateur, they are perfectly good enough for my needs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top