Are Canon's Premium 'L' Lens's really worth the money?

[Andrewbullie]

I recently watched a review where Canon's standard range lens was compared to the 'L' range lens equivalent. During the review, the photographer took pictures of the same image using both lens's.

The outcome was that very little if any difference existed and he put the high price tag down to the 'L' lens water resistance. After this he proceeded to pour a bottle of water over both of them and then reattached it to his camera. Again, both performed just as good as each other.

So, does anybody have experience of the 'L' lens that can back up the high cost or is it just a status symbol to have that red ring around your lens?

 

[CSB]

Was this review on youtube? Do you have a link to it?

 

[mid_gen]

I think it's fair to say that many of Canon's non-L lenses are optically on a par with the L range.

Having owned both types though, the obvious difference is build quality. EF-S lenses you feel you have to handle carefully, I wouldn't fancy giving one a knock on a hard surface. L lenses are aimed at professionals who need workhorses, not something that gets wrapped in cotton wool and only taken out at weekend.

 

[born-shooter]

Yep the L lenses are workhorses used in warzones deserts and still perform beautifully I have the 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8 L is usm mk2 both beasts and also the L lenses hold there value extremely well

 

[Chris Primadona]

Agree, I love the build quality of the L lenses.

 

[Willid1]

I think its like all things in life, do you value the "extra" qualities that the premium price brings?

I wear a £20 Casio digital watch but have a colleauge at work who has a predeliction for Breitling watches, both tell the time, but I do not value the extra "qualities" in his watch enough to want one.

Same with cars, why spend £80k on a S calss Mercedes when a Ford Mondeo will probably do most of the same things for a quarter of the price?

Discuss

David

PS if I win the lottery next week a S Class will be coming my way

 

[The23rdman]

I don't wish to be inflammatory here, but I never felt the L lenses I owned and used were as well built as the Nikon pro range. I'm not saying they're worse at all, by the way.

 

[killwilly]

I love Canon gear and have used it for nearly 40 years, but I do believe "today's" L lenses to be overpriced and overrated, the dust pump springs to mind. No doubt others will disagree.

PS. Just to prove my point, this was taken with my 55-250 and I doubt the 70-200 would have done much better on my camera.


132 by killwilly, on Flickr

 

[stevewestern]

Was this review on youtube? Do you have a link to it?

I think this was the review -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njqTFlMiGLQ

As for the question - I would have to hope that there IS a difference in optical quality between the L range and the non L lenses though it may not be obvious on a computer screen but then again, if there isn't I might be able to save me a whole load of cash on my next purchase..!

 

[joescrivens]

all the L lens equivalents I have had have been considerably better in image quality than all the non L I owned, also there aren't that many non L lenses that are exactly the same for comparison, the L often adds other features as well as the build quality like IS or a lower aperture.

for example there isn't a non L 2.8 in the 70-200 range from canon.

The best one to compare would probably bet the 70-300 IS with the new 70-300 IS L

I had the 70-300 IS and my 70-200 L blew it out of the water for image quality

 

[joescrivens]

After this he proceeded to pour a bottle of water over both of them and then reattached it to his camera. Again, both performed just as good as each other.

can't be the youtube video posted above this guy is talking about, after all he only poured a bottle of water over the L. The non l just got some splashback.

Also the conclusion was that the L was better in sharpness, bokeh and the fact it has a image stabilizer as well as wether proofing. The conclusion though was that just because the L was better it didn't mean the non L was a bad lens.

andrew which video were you referring to?

 

[arad85]

That's the Digital Rev review of the 100mm Canon macro lenses. The non-L 100mm macro is meant to be very good, but doesn't have IS. I know IS gets less effective at macro distances, but I've managed to get tack sharp macro images at below 1/100. I struggle to get tack sharp images at 1/focal length as it is and the fact I can with the IS at macro distances means the lens is worth the 2x price to me.

 

[jon ryan]

If I could use a £75 p&s for my work, believe me, I would! I don't spend outrageous sums of money on kit simply for fun or because I like to pose around with it. I do it because I have to guarantee my clients that I will get them the best work of which I am capable. (I then pass on the outrageous kit costs by charging them outrageous fees, of course .

A bit like superzooms. If there was a lens that reliably covered 17-400, the queue of pro photographers would be unbelievable. But there is no such queue, is there?

 

[LCPete]

That's the Digital Rev review of the 100mm Canon macro lenses. The non-L 100mm macro is meant to be very good, but doesn't have IS. I know IS gets less effective at macro distances, but I've managed to get tack sharp macro images at below 1/100. I struggle to get tack sharp images at 1/focal length as it is and the fact I can with the IS at macro distances means the lens is worth the 2x price to me.

Yep agree Although in my case went from sigma 105 macro to 100L
the Sigma is a very sharp lens but the IS makes the Canon more usable, I am now able to use lower ISO settings = less noise

 

[squarepeas]

The true value is decided by the S/H market value.
Rather than reading review/report/discussion on pro or non-pro, the simplest and efficient way of picking up a lenses is:
Work out the depreciation on S/H used lenses.
Full stop.

 

[Xenon54]

I always thoughts the price premium for L lenses was simply buying you top image quality in a wider range of photographic situations.

L lenses are normally tack sharp when used wide open, which helps in low light, they tend to have better weather sealing and flare control, which help when outside, or don't have variable aperture across the zoom range, which is annoying in a fast paced event, or have better bokeh for working in tight situations, or less distortions when straight lines are prominent, etc etc......

The point is, a battered old consumer lens from yester-year can still produce stunning images when stopped down in optimal conditions. But the L premium gets you stunning pics in a wider range of less-than-optimal-conditions. It means there are less limitations to think about (and then control/compensate for), making the togs job easier, and more reliable. This is why people pay a lot more for them.

As an amateur, I don't strictly need L glass, but I spoil myself and enjoy the quality and convenience it brings. If my budget was more restricted, I would have no problem with Canon's consumer range at all. If I was a pro, I would only have L glass.

 

[neil_g]

Yep the L lenses are workhorses used in warzones deserts and still perform beautifully I have the 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8 L is usm mk2 both beasts and also the L lenses hold there value extremely well

didnt arkady switch to nikons because the canons didnt like the sand and dust in the desert?

 

[Big Andy]

There is some good info in the following link about L verses non L glass.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/l.htm

 

[whiteflyer]

If your only printing at A4 or less then your not really going to get any better optical results from a standard lens over the equivalent L, if on a crop camera the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS is better optically than the equivalent 24-70 L

Now build is a different matter and the L's tend to use much better materials, like all metal barrels and more environmental seals.

One problem is they don't do non L lenses in all the same focal lengths like focal lengths above 300mm

I do feel Canon are pricing themselves out of the market for the keen hobbyist , in the past you could buy an L lens, but with the new prices Canon are coming out with this is becoming impossible. For example the new EF 500 f4 L II is going to be around £6,500+ (more likely in the £9K to £10K range) yet a sigma 500mm f4.5 is £3800 and the Sigma 150-500mm f5-6.3 is less than £900.

OK you want a Canon but where is the Canon equivalent to the Sigma 150-500mm f5-6.3, they just don't have one, if fact if you have a 5D the longest non L Canon do is the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM


I'm going to against the grain and say it's about time Canon STOPPED upgrading the L range and started to produce some standard lenses in the longer focal lengths at reasonable prices.

 

[woof woof]

Many years ago a wise man said that lens sharpness isn't an issue and these days with computer designs and modern manufacturing it's probably even truer so I suppose what you pay extra for is specification (including image quality or maybe just build quality and weather sealing) and (lets be honest) the badge.

There's nothing wrong with buying a badge even if all other things are equal, irrelevant or represent so tiny a difference that it'll never matter. You only live once so if badges make you happy, fill your boots.

 

[ziggy©]

Am i right in thinking that if you dont print any photos and only take photos to display online then the L lenses should not make any difference?

 

[joescrivens]

Am i right in thinking that if you dont print any photos and only take photos to display online then the L lenses should not make any difference?

i don't know what's right and what's not but in my experience

no, that's not right.

My photos with my L lenses are better when looking at them on my computer than my non L lenses.

 

[joescrivens]

Many years ago a wise man said that lens sharpness isn't an issue and these days with computer designs and modern manufacturing it's probably even truer so I suppose what you pay extra for is specification (including image quality or maybe just build quality and weather sealing) and (lets be honest) the badge.

There's nothing wrong with buying a badge even if all other things are equal, irrelevant or represent so tiny a difference that it'll never matter. You only live once so if badges make you happy, fill your boots.

everyone is obsessed with sharpness

there is a lot more in a photograph, how about barrell distortion? chromatic abberation? color rendition?

if you focus on one aspect you'll convince yourself that the cheaper version is just as good, when you look at the bigger picture, in MOST cases (not all, mind) but most, the L lens is superior.

 

[The23rdman]

everyone is obsessed with sharpness

there is a lot more in a photograph, how about barrell distortion? chromatic abberation? color rendition?

if you focus on one aspect you'll convince yourself that the cheaper version is just as good, when you look at the bigger picture, in MOST cases (not all, mind) but most, the L lens is superior.

All things very easy to correct in post. A soft shot oversharpened, however is a different matter.

 

[Moreorless]

With reguards to the 100mm macro's digital rev tested I'm wondering if that maybe down to the limations of the sensors? macro's are afterall normally some of the sharpest lenses so I wouldnt be supprized if the L version has been designed with a view towards use of Canosn next gen of FF cameras.

If you look at the price of the high end EF-S lenses(17-55, 15-85 and 10-22) compaired to there nearest L equivalents(24-70, 24-105 and 17-40) there really isnt that great a prenium on the latter.

 

[Ste Manns]

How many L lenses did you own Dean?

I can only comment on my own experiences, but here it is for what its worth.

I have used a lot of non L glass - Canons own and other brands. I've also used a lot of older M42 and Tamron Adaptall lenses. I've only recently bought two L lenses, the 24-70 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8 (non IS).

Sharpness aside, i have found I have so many more 'keepers' than I ever did before. Shots are crisper, colours are more accurate out of camera, richer and generally the shots are just a lot 'nicer'. Focusing is a whole lot quicker, more accurate more of the time and now I've got to it, sharpness is spot on even wide open. My cheaper Canon glass always needed stopping down to a sweet spot (usually f8) before I could get a sharp shot. I don't have that issue anymore, I can confidently use f2.8 without issues, miss focusing is now more often than not down to me and not my equipment.

In summery, yes, I think they are worth the money, at least the ones I have bought. I can't comment on some of the other focal lengths.

 

[joescrivens]

All things very easy to correct in post. A soft shot oversharpened, however is a different matter.

well your definition of easy is different to mine then dean. And if paying extra money means less time spent "correcting" in front of the computer on EVERY SINGLE photo I take, then that's money well spent

 

[MartynK]

My experience here is very limited, but I definitely prefer the IQ from my 70-200mm f4.0 L to my 17-85mm. No comparison, and not very fair either, I suppose. OTOH, I've used two different 17-55mm f2.8s and was very impressed by the IQ, but a lot less impressed with the build quality at this price point.

It's a bit academic for me now. I've more or less decided that I won't be replacing my 30D when it fails and can't be fixed economically, because I just don't use it enough to justify staying on the DSLR track. My main interest is travel photography and I prefer a compact for that - travel is more important than photography for me - or I'll revert to my F2 and FM if I need SLR capability. I still have my manual Nikkors and the old, metal bodied, lenses we took for granted in the 70s and 80s were better built than their consumer equivalents are now IMHO.

 

[arad85]

well your definition of easy is different to mine then dean.

Surely you just use the lens correction in Lightroom. You can apply it whenever you import so the adder is just waiting for the pic to be auto processed.

If you're that worried, you can create a lens profile that is specific to your lens quite easily (although it does take a little time).

 

[BacktotheFuji]

I've only got the 300/4L but what I've noticed compared to other lenses in the 300mm range is:

* Build quality
* Sharp wide open
* Very little CA (which can be attributed to some of the element properties found in L glass)

 

[MatBin]

I have some old film based lenses (Canons) and some L glass in roughly the same focal lengths e.g. 24/70 L and 28/70 (non L) and a 70/200L plus 70/210F3.5/4.5 non L, there is a difference in IQ but its only very slight and I dont think worth the premium I paid to get L glass, but the build quality is superb on the L series stuff and I feel sure if I took the L series glass out with my 1D in poor conditions the kit would continue to work, whereas I'm not sure it would with a modern kit lens mounted on my 5D. If I was a pro I'd happily pay for that re-assurance, as an amateur I'm not sure I've got value for money.
I've said many a time that the old metal mount semi-pro lenses from the film days produce some great quality and there's nothing in the line-up today that matches them for the money, its either kit lens or L, the kit lens produce good quality but I'm juts not sure they would take even the every day use that the old lenses ate for breakfast, hence the reason they are still working well 10/20years on.
If you want good IQ and a lens that will work for years to come it has to be L glass.

Matt

 

[lost]

Im lucky to own a lot of L spec glass and over the years i have tried almost all the Canon range and you do get some bargains but at a cost take the 50mm 1.8 for the money it's got to be the best value in the canon range but what are it's downsides 1 no USM motor 2 Plastic build and mount 3 no depth of field window.
The L spec lenses Have faster apertures this means you have more chance of getting the shot or not. Step all lens down to F8 in perfect conditions and 99% of them will turn in perfect results it's when the conditions are far from ideal the L spec lenses come into their own.
Heres a few threads just ask yourself can my lens turn in results like this

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=334575

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=336774

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=335435

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=334878

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=335734

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=335657

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=338904

Take it from me Canon L spec glass makes a difference it makes me a good living but if you are into landscapes and studio work just maybe the non l lens could be a good saving but for sport and wildlife it's L spec for me

Regards

Richard

 

[joescrivens]

Surely you just use the lens correction in Lightroom. You can apply it whenever you import so the adder is just waiting for the pic to be auto processed.

If you're that worried, you can create a lens profile that is specific to your lens quite easily (although it does take a little time).

i dont use light room.

why would i want to add extra steps though anyway? thats what i am paying more money for, to get me better results right out of the camera in the first place.

 

[Rod.F]

Thing like lens flare and the occassional ghosting aren't that easy to quickly fix in post, or at least not for me. Also I don't believe colour rendition can be that easily sorted, subtle colour changes can be lost as the light makes its way throught the glass.

 

[killwilly]

PS if I win the lottery next week a S Class will be coming my way

David.

Be careful what you wish for! I have a Mercedes, 12 months old, 6500 miles on the clock. Two weeks ago it broke down and left me stranded, a fuel pump failure. OK it didn't cost me anything to get repaired, but it should have never happened. Which, goes to prove that expensive doesn't always mean the best. The same could be said about lenses.

 

[arad85]

i dont use light room.

If you will use inferior software LR makes it exceptionally easy to correct those aspects of distortion out. It's available for a Mac too you know

why would i want to add extra steps though anyway? thats what i am paying more money for, to get me better results right out of the camera in the first place.

And, generally, the L series glass gives you better out of the camera pictures. All the glass used on my 5D2 is L glass (apart from the Siggy 12-24). I still routinely apply lens corrections to my pictures through LR. IMHO, it makes a significant difference, even with L glass.

 

[joescrivens]

If you will use inferior software LR makes it exceptionally easy to correct those aspects of distortion out. It's available for a Mac too you know

And, generally, the L series glass gives you better out of the camera pictures. All the glass used on my 5D2 is L glass (apart from the Siggy 12-24). I still routinely apply lens corrections to my pictures through LR. IMHO, it makes a significant difference, even with L glass.

I use photoshop, it has lens correction too!

However easy it might be, it's even easier to not have to do it at all, and I'm talking about not just lens correction - like i said, colour rendition, edge to edge sharpness and some other stuff i said that i can't be bothered to go back and double check

 

[arad85]

like i said, colour rendition, edge to edge sharpness and some other stuff i said that i can't be bothered to go back and double check

We are actually saying the same thing, as is Dean (23rdman). L lenses tend to produce better pictures that need less post processing. What is also being said (although not as explicitly) is that non L lenses are more likely to suffer artefacts that are less easy to process away (edge to edge sharpness, colour rendition).

 

[joescrivens]

We are actually saying the same thing, as is Dean (23rdman). L lenses tend to produce better pictures that need less post processing. What is also being said (although not as explicitly) is that non L lenses are more likely to suffer artefacts that are less easy to process away (edge to edge sharpness, colour rendition).

i got from deans post where he highlighted my comment about barrell distortion, chromatic abberation, color rendition

and then said

All things very easy to correct in post. A soft shot oversharpened, however is a different matter.

that basically since they are easy to correct it doesn't warrant paying the extra to not have them

 

[arad85]

that basically since they are easy to correct it doesn't warrant paying the extra to not have them

No, I read it as they are less important to use as a criteria compared to sharpness as you can't really correct soft images in post. I.e. if you had the choice of a lens that exhibited CA and barrel distortion as well as some colour rendition issues, but was perfectly sharp vs a lens that was perfect in all distortions, but wasn't very sharp (yes, I know this is a contradiction ), which would you choose?

Of course, one that is perfect in all respects would be preferable but...