Are L series Canon lenses worth it?

microbike

microbike

Messages
116
Name
Tim
Edit My Images
No
I'm considering buying a 24-105 L lens, to replace a Sigma 105 macro lens which seems to be incompatible with my 5D mk II. Is there a justification in any of your eyes in owning an L lens? Other Canom lens I'm trialing is the 70-300mm DO stabilized lens which seems really compact, sharp optically with a quick motor, very tempted, but it's not an L. Don't want anything heavy. Currently been working with 50mm 1.4 Canon, 20mm prime Canon, and the Sigma, but that's no longer working for me, it 'close focuses' by a foot on every shot.

Anyhow, L series - worthwhile if money no option?
 
can't speak from an optical point of view, but as an investment the resale values are excellent....
 
There are a few Non L gems out there too :) The 85mm f1.8 is regarded as the best Non L lens Canon make.

Generally though it's like most things in life, you get what you pay for. It's not just sharpness, it's focusing accuracy and speed and the weather proofing and lack of flare and chromatic aberration..............
 
I started with a good range of sigma lenses and swore by them.. just like many do on here. they really where that good.. I had the 17-35 the 24-70 the 70-200 and the 120-300.. all great lenses. when I say started... I built up to owning all the above over a few years.

I couldnt envisage paying big money for any other lens because I was happy with the sigma lenses... like a lot of people are.. But then I had reason to use a canon 300mm f4 prime lens for a couple of weeks and the difference in quality over any of the above sigma lenses was just phenominal and now I own a good range of canon L .. I have gone from loving sigma to the point now where I wouldn't waste my money on one.

The difference is that big.. I wasn't too bothered about build... But the colours are so much better and the quality is such that I can crop in far more with canon than with sigma... for sports its important to be able to crop in... for other photography it wont be and therefore not get the same benefits...

Canon L over sigma easy peasy and I ahve owned and used a lot of both..



ADDYONBIT.. I am not on a mission to convert people.. Its none of my business what others use and if your happy wiht any lens then your happy... I am just answering a question :)
 
i would say yes, but i don't have much experience with 3rd party or non L lenses.
 
I don't think it's a hobby/pro split; it depends on whether the lens you have is good enough for you.
By the time I upgraded to my first 'L' (a 24-105) I could spot the limitations of the kit lens in A3 prints, in particular very soft edges. It annoyed me intensely as it was spoiling some images; I was ready to upgrade and it still took a long time for me to justify the cost. I know people that use non-Canon super-zooms who swear by them, when I've borrowed them for a play I've found them no better than the canon kit lens. But they can't see the problems and are very very happy - they are not ready for 'L'.

Another point is that you mention you now have a 5DII - it's full-frame.
A lens that might be reasonably acceptable on a cropped frame sensor may prove awful used on full frame. Any edge softness masked by the cropped sensor will really stand out on the 5DII, especially given the quality the 5DII is capable of.

I know a well know tog who specialises in portraiture. She's been happy with her trusty non-L 28-135 which was ancient when I first met her 8 years ago when she'd just started dabbling with digital. However, she's finally upgraded to her first 'L' glass and it's a direct result of getting a 5DII. She's tasted the quality the 5DII is capable of, and wanted that quality at a wider range of apertures.
 
Definately

Over the last couple of years I have sold off nearly all my non "L" lenses and replaced them with "L" glass. Build Quality and Image Quality are superb.
I have read reviews about the latest EOS cameras (50D onwards) and they all state that to get the best out of the sensor, use the best lenses you can afford.
Currently I have a 17-40, 24-105, 70-200 f4 non is, 300 f4, and about to buy a 100-400 s/h.

Go for it - you won't be disappointed.
 
bomberman said:
the 24-105L gets a less-than-fantastic review on photozone. apparently it has "massive barrel distortion"
Click to expand...
The conclusion is a lot fairer than the bit you selectively quoted.
The 24-105 is a superb walk-around lens - as the saying goes; a jack of all trades, master of none.

24mm really pushes the internal mechanics of the lens; you can feel something weird going on when you zoom away from 24mm. It's definitely the lenses weak point...
In practice 24mm is still very usable - the vignetting, distortion and CA at 24mm doesn't show in most images and when it is noticeable it is easily corrected in post-processing. I rarely do any correction.
 
Yes, even on a base camera such as a 400D the benefits of using L glass is apparent. On a 5D Mk II it must be against the law to use anything other than L glass or equivalents from other manufactuers (Eg Sigmas EX range )
 
KIPAX said:
Canon L over sigma easy peasy and I ahve owned and used a lot of both..
Click to expand...

I don't think it's that easy ;) I know when it comes to the 70-200's I've owned the sigma absolutely walked all over the canon 2.8 IS I have now.

In general though, it's purely my opinion that whilst there is no doubt that the L range gives superb build quality, great image quality and 100% compatability you do pay a price premium which isn't necessarily proportional to the improvement in results. There's very definitely an element of buying into the "dream".
 
They're worth it if you can comfortably afford them. I agree that they're not the best value for money but as stated previously their resale values are excellent.
 
microbike said:
I'm considering buying a 24-105 L lens, to replace a Sigma 105 macro lens which seems to be incompatible with my 5D mk II. Is there a justification in any of your eyes in owning an L lens? Other Canom lens I'm trialing is the 70-300mm DO stabilized lens which seems really compact, sharp optically with a quick motor, very tempted, but it's not an L. Don't want anything heavy. Currently been working with 50mm 1.4 Canon, 20mm prime Canon, and the Sigma, but that's no longer working for me, it 'close focuses' by a foot on every shot.

Anyhow, L series - worthwhile if money no option?
Click to expand...

Sigma AF 105mm f/2.8 EX macro DG is a full format lens, so not sure why yours isn't working if thats the model you have. Have you thought about getting the lens serviced?

If your intending to use the 24-105mm f4 as a replacement for your sigma 105mm macro lens and use it for macro, then personally the canon 100mm f2.8 is more suitable as its a true 1:1 macro lens. The 24-105mm f4 is a great lens and on a FF camera is the perfect walkaround lens, but its not a macro lens.

As for the 70-300mm f4-5.6 DO lens, yes its compact, its not sharp, actually produces soft images, its over priced and you would be better off getting the 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS which is a better lens for 1/2 the money.


BadgerLover said:
I don't own any L glass; I prefer to take the non-L gems. However, I'm a hobbyist - not a pro - so I'm not after the best image quality available as I can't justify the expense. I'm happy with very good images from lenses which cost a fraction of the price.

I read this a while ago and it puts things into perspective a bit. http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/Pontification/a0101_Why_I_Diss_L_Lenses/a_Why_I_Diss_L_Lenses.html

George.
Click to expand...

Yep read the link, and he's only giving half the story, it really depends what you are photographing. Yes L series lenses are very expensive, but there are still affordable 1's out there like the 70-200mm f4 which is a great lens, or the 400mm f5.6 or 300mm f4 all great lenses for reasonable money. And yes there are some great non L series lenses as well.

You do notice a significant difference in speed of operation and quality of images when using a L series lens. OK there are 1 or 2 L series lenses that don't make the mark, but there are worth the investment if you can afford them.

Of course at the end of the day, money is the main driver, DSLR's have opened the world of photography to a larger audience. And you can only afford what you can afford.

Yes there are good alternatives to L series lenses at a faction of the price, but its finding them within the minefield of mis-information available on the net.
 
basically yes

that 21mp camera you've bought , unless you've got top notch glass you're not going to get the best shots out of the camera and it will enhance the bad bits on the cheaper lenses

personally i'd always put preference into the glass quality over the body, which is why i only have L glass
 
All of those who own L lenses what u use them for? Is it cause u are pros and need them for work? In which case their price tag is justified

or hobbiests with a high desire for perfection?

they surely seem to be the cherry on the cake from all i read about them but the price tag if not justified or you're loaded seems too much an overkill
 
well i'm not a "pro" yet but aim to be within the next 2 years so that is a key part in the decision as for sports on a Canon body you really need f/2.8 lenses and for the focal lengths i need the L lenses were the best of the bunch
 
Are L lenses worth it ?

I guess it depends on your personal and photographic circumstances.

I've used a fair amount of L glass and there's no doubt the quality is great but I've never bought my own.

I know from experiance that the 'quality' of my shots would improve with L glass but I'm not really able to justify the expenditure at present so whilst I would like some L lenses they're not worth the extra for me.

The next bloke may be able to afford them so if he sees an improvement and doesn't have to sacrifice too much to own them then why not.

Don't think it matters whether somebody is a pro or not. I'm sure there's loads of fantastic photographers who do something else for a living, some can afford L glass and some can't.

Let's face it - how many people choose to drive a BMW or an Audi when a Fiat will do.
 
P-Chan said:
All of those who own L lenses what u use them for? Is it cause u are pros and need them for work? In which case their price tag is justified

or hobbiests with a high desire for perfection?

they surely seem to be the cherry on the cake from all i read about them but the price tag if not justified or you're loaded seems too much an overkill
Click to expand...

I was really happy with my lesser non-L lenses, then I needed a faster focussign lens for sport and bought a scondhand 70-200F4. The colour depth and quality was really noticable, and that was on a 300D.

The 40D followed and all my lenses were upgraded to L.
On holiday a sigma user swapped lenses with me so he could try my 24-105. All my shots with his lens were binned, all I kept hearing him say was how noticable the colours/contrast improvement was.
 
dod said:
I don't think it's that easy ;) I know when it comes to the 70-200's I've owned the sigma absolutely walked all over the canon 2.8 IS I have now. .
Click to expand...

I got rid of my siggy 70-200 for the canon equivalent.. didn't like it any better and got rid for a 135mm f2 and it walks all over the other two lenses by a country mile..

There are far too many permutations and too many people have good and bad stories.. thats the trouble with lenses..


I think the general concencus of opinion if that L glass is better than 3rd party and as such must be worth it if you can afford.. if you cant afford then is anyhting worth it?
 
If you have got a 5D, it really deserves good lenses, but the Sigma 105 Macro is a good lens, it should also work with the 5DII, the 24-105, as said above isn't really the same sort of lens.
 
microbike said:
Anyhow, L series - worthwhile if money no option?
Click to expand...

I'd say if you have the money then yes, as others have said the resale value (if looked after \ not dropped etc) is high, if you buy second hand you can often sell back at the same price which you could equate to virtually free rental.....

On my wishlist of lenses I'd say only one was officially an L:

Tamron 17-50 or Canon 17-55 both f2.8
Tamron 90mm Macro or Canon 100 Macros
Canon 400 f5.6L
 
I've been lent a 24-70 F2.8L and am gobsmacked by the quality of the images, images crisp, colours awesome... would I spend £800+ on one of these?... phew... now thats a question.... :thinking:

Would rather go for a 24-105 F4L cos of the longer reach but thats away from the point of this thread. :bonk:

Money no object... L all the way. :thumbs:
 
pete.rush said:
As for the 70-300mm f4-5.6 DO lens, yes its compact, its not sharp, actually produces soft images, its over priced and you would be better off getting the 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS which is a better lens for 1/2 the money.
Click to expand...

I read lots about the options here.. The non DO is as good if not better and is 1/2 the price. I got mine from Kerso for a great price

cheers

MIP
 
Thanks for all your comments, it's all incredibly interesting hearing about your personal preferences in terms of lenses. The general consensus seems to be that they're expensive, but worth it - like I said, a money no-option option, suited to those making money from photography.
Things I will miss about the Sigma EX105 DG are the really nice portraits it would do at 2.8, the way a 105mm lens doesn't distort a face, the length was often ideal shooting across a boardroom or office environment when you want to do a more reportage-y shot. I won't miss the often over-exposed shots it produced, for me they were often too bright by at least an f stop.
So I'm looking for: a complement to the 20mm and 50mm primes, that's robust, light, sharp, perhaps a zoom, and could be an L. Going by what someone said earlier, could that be a 70-200 L? Going in to look this afternoon.
Also wondering about the need for f2.8 lenses over f4.5-5. I was shooting across a kitchen last week, and the 70-300mm got me right up in the action, but I couldn't get below f5. Actually, it wasn't that bad, shots still looked nice with a blurred background. You pay more for brighter glass, tough one to decide too!
 
To answer youR title question, it is always better to spend the money on the glass than the box in front that is if your wanting quality images, so in a nutshell the answer is YES

LesF
 
70-200 f4 IS L is one of Canon's sharpest zooms and is as sharp as many of their primes.
The f2.8 is a gnats whisker away from being nearly as good.

The IS is also superb - when I got mine I shot 4 images on a 20D, hand held, standing, 200mm 1/6s. Three of them were critically sharp and the other was good enough for a 6x4 print; amazing!

The 24-105 is a good lens, but the 70-200 is an exceptional lens.
You will never regret buying one of these.
 
KIPAX said:
I got rid of my siggy 70-200 for the canon equivalent.. didn't like it any better and got rid for a 135mm f2 and it walks all over the other two lenses by a country mile..
Click to expand...

oh yes...mine 135L lives on my 5d2 for 95% of time :naughty:
Best lens Ive used so far.
And are L Lenses worth extra money ?? HELL YEAH :nuts:

Ive started of with few sigmas, but then I tryied Canon Prime L lenses ( 50 1,2 and 85 1,2 ) and decided that from now on I will only invest in L prime lenses :)

If you had money for 5d2 now you need to spend money on L glass :D though life, I know :cuckoo:
 
microbike said:
Other Canom lens I'm trialing is the 70-300mm DO stabilized lens which seems really compact, sharp optically with a quick motor, very tempted, but it's not an L. Don't want anything heavy.
Click to expand...

If you're thinking of the 70-300 DO then I'd advise against it. Depending on how long you want to go I'd say look at the 100-400 or the 70-200 f4 IS. I got rid of my DO in favour of the 100-400 and thought it an excellent decision. Then, when I bought a 300 f2.8, I got the 70-200 second hand and the 100-400 hasn't been used since.
 
Having owned L glass myself, I would have to say yes and no. It depends how into your photography you are, and how much detail you are setting out to capture and care about. it massively depends on your budget too. What I mean is, a student spending their student loan on buying a 70-200mm f2.8 IS lens for purely occasional hobbyist use is a huge waste of money from my point of view. Where as, someone who can afford to own the same lens and give it the attention it deserves along with a good body and other lenses etc, is probably a wise investment if they are going to keep using it and using it.
There are also a lot of "gems" as talked about above, that are generally seen as being on par with L glass optically to the point where they are basically non L glass labelled/marketed L glass if you get me. Some other lenses are just very very good for the money and also hard to justify spalshing out on anything better as they are so good.
Some examples are: Canon 17-55mm IS f/2.8, Canon 85mm f/1.8, Canon 50mm f/1.8, Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, Sigma 35mm f/1.4, etc.

There is a lot of L snobbery and obsession, where people get to the point where they simply must have L glass so that they have no excuses and reason to ever worry about blaming their tools for a poor photo. I guess the mind set is that then you have bought the best you can get and the only way photos will get better is by technique and the bottleneck would not be on the equipment side of things. I have been guilty of that in the past myself, thinking I was "investing" in good glass. The problem is, you soon feel guilty having spent a considerable amount on L glass when you don't use it as often as you want to or thought you would do when you had the excitement and eagerness to use it on paper when you hit the buy button.
Something you have to remember, is that if you put a good photographer with a kit lens up against an amateur with a 17-40L, the better photographer will usually get the better results.
 
Everything in life is relative. Two weeks in the sun with the family, a 70-200 IS f2.8 or a nice watch can all cost roughly the same.
The holiday whilst great, is over very quickly but the lens will last for years and years. Same goes for the watch and we all choose to spend our money on different things and in different ways.
 
OK. I've bought the 24-105 today on a 14 day exchange from Devon Camera Centre (good price + good service), if I don't like it tomorrow on my shoot, I can swap for the 70-200mm. Any bets which will win?!
 
microbike said:
OK. I've bought the 24-105 today on a 14 day exchange from Devon Camera Centre (good price + good service), if I don't like it tomorrow on my shoot, I can swap for the 70-200mm. Any bets which will win?!
Click to expand...

Depends on which range of focal lengths you prefer. That depends on what you shoot.
 
Organic said:
Everything in life is relative. Two weeks in the sun with the family, a 70-200 IS f2.8 or a nice watch can all cost roughly the same.
The holiday whilst great, is over very quickly but the lens will last for years and years. Same goes for the watch and we all choose to spend our money on different things and in different ways.
Click to expand...

Try selling the lens better value for money over a holiday thing to the wife. :boxer: :bonk:

BTW I've just ordered a 70-200L F4 from kerso, cant wait to get it!! My first L glass..... :D
 
Marcus Geezer said:
Try selling the lens better value for money over a holiday thing to the wife. :boxer: :bonk:

BTW I've just ordered a 70-200L F4 from kerso, cant wait to get it!! My first L glass..... :D
Click to expand...

I did'nt say it was gonna be easy selling this concept to the wife Marcus :)

BTW, congratulations on your first L glass purchase.
 
DuncanDisorderly said:
70-200 f4 IS L is one of Canon's sharpest zooms and is as sharp as many of their primes.
The f2.8 is a gnats whisker away from being nearly as good.

The IS is also superb - when I got mine I shot 4 images on a 20D, hand held, standing, 200mm 1/6s. Three of them were critically sharp and the other was good enough for a 6x4 print; amazing!

The 24-105 is a good lens, but the 70-200 is an exceptional lens.
You will never regret buying one of these.
Click to expand...

Have to agree about the 70-200 f2.8 it is the best lens within my budget.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top