grumpybadger
Alan Rickman
- Messages
- 4,638
- Name
- Paul Beastall
- Edit My Images
- Yes
On the original question, I think it's not about L or not. It's about whether it meets your requirements and budget. Sometimes that means L, sometimes not.
I got fed up with the barrel distortion on the 24-105 on FF so got rid of it and have replaced it with a pair of ancient Olympus primes and manual focus. Are they L lenses? No. But they are superb quality and for much less than a Canon prime.
I've also just bought what I believe to be Canon's most expensive non L lens. The 400 f/4 DO. I had one before and have always regretted getting rid so when one came up on Ebay from a good source, I got it. It's a compromise lens as it doesn't produce quite the same quality as my 500L, but when the 500 is sat at home as it is too heavy for a particular trip, its image quality doesn't matter!
I got fed up with the barrel distortion on the 24-105 on FF so got rid of it and have replaced it with a pair of ancient Olympus primes and manual focus. Are they L lenses? No. But they are superb quality and for much less than a Canon prime.
I've also just bought what I believe to be Canon's most expensive non L lens. The 400 f/4 DO. I had one before and have always regretted getting rid so when one came up on Ebay from a good source, I got it. It's a compromise lens as it doesn't produce quite the same quality as my 500L, but when the 500 is sat at home as it is too heavy for a particular trip, its image quality doesn't matter!




