Visual Benefits of L lenses over standard ef-s lenses

Ickle97116084

Ickle97116084

Messages
45
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
Yes
i am aware of the physical benefits of a quality lens such as watertight seals and longevity however are there any optical benefits of an l lens versus non l ef-s on crop sensors I.e. A 70d. I plan to buy a new standard lens in a few weeks but wondered if there is any point waiting to save more for a 24-70 Is L USm vs a 15-85?
 
It would be good if people who own these two lens to post images so any differences can be viewed.
 
There are many points of comparison between lenses.

For me, forget the badge, forget the 'great reviews', and just think about what it is you need.

IMHO the 24-70L is a crap lens for what you want. Because on a crop camera that lens isn't a std lens, it's not wide enough. The 17-55 2.8 is the optical equivalent of the 24-70 for a crop camera. It doesn't quite have the build quality (though it's OK), but it has IS and is optically great, has a fast 2.8 aperture and a great focus motor too.

If 2.8 is important to you, then you could save some money and buy the Tokina equivalent, or maybe the Sigma, they're both very good (though IMHO not all round such a great lens).

Or if 2.8 is less important, the Canon 15-85 is optically good, has great build quality and is a great lens too.

If the L badge means something but 2.8 doesn't, then the 24-105L is good too. But as I said, 24 on a crop would wind me up to distraction.
 
I think Richard was talking about the 24-70/4 IS Phil, not the 2.8.....the rest of your logic is valid though.

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
I think Richard was talking about the 24-70/4 IS Phil, not the 2.8.....the rest of your logic is valid though.

Bob
Click to expand...
Yes - I missed the IS in the text. :oops: :$

In which case - I'd definitely recommend the 17-55 rather than the 24-70 f4.
 
I already have a 10-20mm and a 18-55 is stm but I am not too impressed with the 18-55. It's fast and sharp but lacks punch and contrast. If a 24-105 or 24-70 offer better colour and contrast it would mean less time on the computer making my images more punchy.
 
Last edited:
Ickle97116084 said:
I already have a 10-20mm and a 18-55 is stm but I am not too impressed with the 18-55. It's fast and sharp but lacks punch and contrast. If a 24-105 or 24-70 offer better colour and contrast it would mean less time on the computer making my images more punchy.
Click to expand...
The 17-55 is better in that regard, however, the contrast and punch of the lens will make the last 1% improvement to your shots.

I'd suggest that your shooting conditions are more 'at fault' than your lenses.

Or, to answer your OP now we know the problem: not that much.:)
 
Not owned the 17-55, but I have owned the 15-85 and 24-105L at the same time (on 7D and 5D2). The 15-85 produced better images on the crop sensor (7D) IMHO, let alone the fact that it goes to a useful wider focal length on a crop sensor.
 
While I appreciate that a lens does not make a photographer good or bad, technique does, my question was not "Please tell me why my images are dull and lucklastre". I plan to buy a new lens in the coming weeks, I appreciate the look of the sigma 10-20 straight out of the camera however i do not like the look of the 18-55 IS STM images out of the camera, read as no processing. I get high levels of noise, poor contrast and colour, some of this may be technique but I dont think this is the case all of the time. I believe this is a factor of the lens design. Yes IS and STM are great and the images are sharp(ish) but thats it. So telling me my technique is at fault is useless for answering the question.


So back to the question will an L lens have noticeably improved optical characteristics such as colour and contrast over a non L ef-s lens such as an 17-55 IS USM or 15-85 IS USM? I am mainly considering the 24-105, 17-40 and 24-70 (all f4).


Richard















 
arad85 said:
Not owned the 17-55, but I have owned the 15-85 and 24-105L at the same time (on 7D and 5D2). The 15-85 produced better images on the crop sensor (7D) IMHO, let alone the fact that it goes to a useful wider focal length on a crop sensor.
Click to expand...


Thankyou Arad, I do like the sound of the 15-85. We're the images both sharp and had good colour sharpness and contrast?
 
I've heard good things about the 15-85mm but I have to say, I loved the 17-55 IS.
there is no reasonable comparison between an 18-55 IS (USM, or STM) and the optically superior 17-55 IS.
It's commonly thought of as L glass in all but name (and weather sealing). The focal lengths are similar but that's about it.

I would recommend trying one before you make a decision and there are loads 2nd hand, esp now that people are jumping to full frame on a 6D.
 
The L lenses that you list are all the bargain basement offers so it'd be wrong to base any judgement solely on those. Once build quality has been put aside then the usual attraction is their larger maximum apertures and rendering (bokeh and colour).

Bob
 
Different lens coatings will affect transmission in different ways which (to some degree) will affect contrast, colour and saturation.

I use a variety of L lenses on a 1D3 which is a 1.3 crop body and doesn't take EF-S lenses. Plus points for me is build quality, completing the camera/lens weather sealing, 77mm consistency for filters and also resale value.

That said - on any 1.6 crop cameras I use - If my gear isn't sat out in the pouring rain or sat in a loch - I'm just as happy with the results I get from the 17-55 f2.8 as I am with 17-40L, 24-105L, 24-70L etc on the same body.

Remember (apart from the focal length) L lenses are 'full frame' and the sensor will use more of the lens area. A 1.6 crop camera will only be looking through the centre part of the lens so some say would say you're paying for 'edge quality' that your camera wouldn't be using.
 
Last edited:
Ickle97116084 said:
Thankyou Arad, I do like the sound of the 15-85. We're the images both sharp and had good colour sharpness and contrast?
Click to expand...
Yes. FWIW, I was shooting raw and processing in Lightroom.
dinners said:
A 1.6 crop camera will only be looking through the centre part of the lens so some say would say you're paying for 'edge quality' that your camera wouldn't be using.
Click to expand...
There's also the argument that L lenses are not that sharp as they are designed for FF sensors that are bigger. They tend not to perform as well on a crop sensor as they have to work harder for the same image resolution when compared to a FF camera as the sensor is smaller.
 
Discounting the fact that the 17-55 is f2.8 rather than f4 and the relative sharpness of each lens does the 24-105 f4 produce punchier colours/contrast over the 17-55?

This is my aim, to buy a single lens for long term use and general images of my kids playing.

The sigma 10-20 is great however designed for specialist use.
 
arad85 said:
Not owned the 17-55, but I have owned the 15-85 and 24-105L at the same time (on 7D and 5D2). The 15-85 produced better images on the crop sensor (7D) IMHO, let alone the fact that it goes to a useful wider focal length on a crop sensor.
Click to expand...
arad85 said:
Yes. FWIW, I was shooting raw and processing in Lightroom.
There's also the argument that L lenses are not that sharp as they are designed for FF sensors that are bigger. They tend not to perform as well on a crop sensor as they have to work harder for the same image resolution when compared to a FF camera as the sensor is smaller.
Click to expand...


Interesting.
I have a 40D, 50D, 400D, 600D and 5D mk3 in the family.
I also have all L lenses and quite a few EF-S lenses.

I bought the 15-85 Ef-s lens for my sons 400D/600D combo as a general walkabout lens for him and I have to say I like the range, width and colours. I found the L lenses to be slightly sharper and vibrant on our crop camera even comparing my well used 24-105. using the relevant profiles in lightroom work a treat though. However 24 isn't wide enough for a crop camera, but then the 10-22 is light enough to fit in the bag for when you want wider.

Never hear the argument that L lenses arent sharp on crop.
 
Ickle97116084 said:
While I appreciate that a lens does not make a photographer good or bad, technique does, my question was not "Please tell me why my images are dull and lucklastre". I plan to buy a new lens in the coming weeks, I appreciate the look of the sigma 10-20 straight out of the camera however i do not like the look of the 18-55 IS STM images out of the camera, read as no processing. I get high levels of noise, poor contrast and colour, some of this may be technique but I dont think this is the case all of the time. I believe this is a factor of the lens design. Yes IS and STM are great and the images are sharp(ish) but thats it. So telling me my technique is at fault is useless for answering the question.


So back to the question will an L lens have noticeably improved optical characteristics such as colour and contrast over a non L ef-s lens such as an 17-55 IS USM or 15-85 IS USM? I am mainly considering the 24-105, 17-40 and 24-70 (all f4).
Click to expand...

18-55 STM is a very decent lens, review here http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/831-canon_1855_3556stmis Check the MTF graphs and compare to other reviews on that site. If you're getting consistently worse results than your 10-20, then something is not right.
 
Ickle97116084 said:
Discounting the fact that the 17-55 is f2.8 rather than f4 and the relative sharpness of each lens does the 24-105 f4 produce punchier colours/contrast over the 17-55?

This is my aim, to buy a single lens for long term use and general images of my kids playing.

The sigma 10-20 is great however designed for specialist use.
Click to expand...

In my experience the 24-105 and 17-55 produce similar results on a crop body. I don't have the 15-85 but if you want a single lens I would suggest that is probably a better bet for you (it's essentially the crop 24-105 equivalent or as close as you can get). 24 will be too wide as others have said on a crop most of the time (I use it mostly on my 6D nowdays but I have used it on my 7D in the past). 55 is a bit short for some other things. I'd get down a shop where you can try one out to see what suits.
 
I've just got a Tamron 24-70 as I'm getting a 5D iii next month. I love it on my 7D as it is but I've found the lack of wide really limiting. If I was sticking with just a crop I'd go for the 17-55 2.8 or stick with the 15-85.
The 15-85 is a great lens and I'm not just saying that because I'm selling mine ;)
 
The tamron 17-50 2.8 is a great lens. Look around at reviews and it often outperforms the canon. Make sure you get the non-vc version though. The one with vc is an entirely different lens and quite rubbish.
 
Ickle97116084 said:
How does the tamron image quality compare with the 15-85?
Click to expand...

Honestly at matched apertures I'd struggle to tell the difference. Have a read of the reviews of both of these top end ef-s lenses on TheDigitalPicture and also look under his recommendations as he talks about L lenses for crop cameras there.
HTH
 
Byker28i said:
Never hear the argument that L lenses arent sharp on crop.
Click to expand...
If you do the searching, and understand the MTF charts, you will find that they are less sharp on crop than on FF. Whether you notice it or not is another matter, but it's there and purely a function of the physics of optics and light.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top