Canon consumer vs L lens...much difference? tests included.

Robbo

Robbo

Messages
3,962
Edit My Images
Yes
Without getting into a big debate, just a simple question....just curious of what other difference these lenses have to make them 'L' ....obviously there must be something different to boost the price and quality up. Having never used on, I wouldnt know.

So....purely off research I have the following comparison of the 70-300mm IS USM 4-5.6.....70-200mm F4 L....70-200mm F2.8 L

Chromatic Abrasion at 70mm from F4-32

joint first (near enough identical results) 70-200 2.8 and 70-300 4-5.6
last 70-300 4

Chromatic Abrasion at 100mm from F4-32

Same results except the 70-200 2.8 max CA was slightly better than the 70-300

CA at 135 from F4-32

70-200 2.8 clear winner, with the other two pretty much the same.

CA at 200 from F4-32

winner is 70-200 F4
second(just) 70-300
third 70-200 2.8

Distortion at 70mm

All are about the same

Distortion at 100mm

All pretty much the same again.

Distortion at 135mm

70-200 2.8 is the winner, and the other two matching results.

distortion at 200mm

70-200 2.8
just pipping in at second is the 70-200 F
70-300

Blur index

All checked at their best F. ranging from F.4-8

from 70-135 the 70-200 2.8 is a clear winner. with the other two having near enough matching results.

at 200mm the 70-300 shows better results, not much in it, but has the flattest throughout the frame to.

with 70-200 2.8 second followed by 70-2000 f.4



SO..............having done all that, to me, non of them really stand out to be a clear leader in all fields. But obvious price difference say different, and i am assuming a big IQ different to go with it.

So.....the final question is....what else make the L lenses mentioned in here better than the 70-300 to qualify paying so much extra? excluding build quality. As the results are fairly similar.

Thanks, well that was a long winded question haha


I appreciate I might have have been able to type the results up as best to compare them. Here is the site I got the information from.

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/index.php
 
Well AF speed is another parameter you haven't checked, that will typically be better with an L lens.

Durability and consistent focus are big things for pros I would guess, and the things that probably make Ls worth it to them. For us amateurs, there are non-L lenses that get very close on the other parameters such that it may make little difference for the price differential involved.
 
I didnt find much on the AF but I am assuming as with all lenses the better the F. Number the better the AF

Better build quality will bump up the price yes, and that will come with more consistency and long term use I assume to?
 
Hi mate, I'd stick my neck out here and say that the figures you've quoted make naff all difference in the real world (unless you're really pixel peeping... in which case, stop it!), the biggest differences will be IQ across the zoom range (center and corner sharpness, sharpness wide open etc), colour / contrast reproduction etc as well as build quality. I prefer to use The Digital Picture for reviews Clicky Here as they tend to compare like for like and I think in the 70-300 review they do compare it to the 70-200 f4L.

Carl
 
In my experience, contrast and colour are much better on the L lenses, the edge to edge sharpness, constant aperture, ring-type USM, weatherproofing
 
forget picture IQ, take them all and shoot a football match, a wedding, a play etc, and you'll soon see where the extra money has gone into VERY quickly.
 
Thanks for the linky mate

Raymond, I wish I had the money to take them out and play lol :-D
 
Robbo said:
Thanks for the linky mate

Raymond, I wish I had the money to take them out and play lol :-D
Click to expand...

If the subject is STILL, in good light, and you have all the time in the world then any one of your lenses will do basically.

If they move, if the light fades, if you are shooting into the sun, if its drizzling, if you are pushed to the limit....that's where the money has gone into. L-glass give you bigger limits/window to get your shot.

Simple as that. (and that's before we talk about the IQ, contrast, etc)
 
cheers for the input raymond, now all I need is another 5 numbers (or hopefully more) to come out on the lotto again! lol
 
As far as I know, all Canon's L lenses have 'ultrasonic' focus motors, with the vast majority if not all using ring USM. This is renowned for being fast, quiet and accurate. Then there's the build; L lenses are built very well, many are even weatherproof.

They are specialist lenses, a lot of them are very expensive as well. There are some crackers, such as the 17-40 f/4 and 70-200 f/4 which are nicely priced but probably because they are slow. Others such as the 16-35 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 are vastly more expensive but don't offer that much more in practise; unless of course one extra stop of light is worth double or triple the price.
 
There are lots of aspects to it. Image quality is one, but a lot of the cost goes into build quality, weather sealing, AF, IS and so on.

On image quality, CA and distortion are much more prominent at shorter focal lengths which don't show up so much with these lenses, ditto vignetting.

Purely in terms of sharpness, the 70-300 IS a very good lens and excellent value. But if you compare it to the very best L lenses, such as the new 70-200L 2.8 MkII, this is what it looks like from the site mentioned above. Toggle on the arrow in the middle to compare the two, and scroll down to check the mid-frame and corner sections, and in this comparison at 200mm it is comparing f/5 against f/2.8 - almost two stops brighter. There's a heck of a difference! http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0
 
If you need 2.8 for what you're photographing, the answer is pretty clear. If you dont, then you're probably going to have a bigger think about which lens you get anyway.

Interesting info though.

Oh - and I hope I dont get any chromatic abrasion on my lenses. Sounds painful but we all know you meant abberation.
 
HoppyUK said:
There are lots of aspects to it. Image quality is one, but a lot of the cost goes into build quality, weather sealing, AF, IS and so on.

On image quality, CA and distortion are much more prominent at shorter focal lengths which don't show up so much with these lenses, ditto vignetting.

Purely in terms of sharpness, the 70-300 IS a very good lens and excellent value. But if you compare it to the very best L lenses, such as the new 70-200L 2.8 MkII, this is what it looks like from the site mentioned above. Toggle on the arrow in the middle to compare the two, and scroll down to check the mid-frame and corner sections, and in this comparison at 200mm it is comparing f/5 against f/2.8 - almost two stops brighter. There's a heck of a difference! http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0
Click to expand...

How odd! I just compared the 70-200 f/4 L to 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II and the /4 was sharper (slightly) in the centre than the /2.8, but considerably less sharp in the corners. Good job I'm not upgrading to full frame anytime soon!
 
Tobers said:
Oh - and I hope I dont get any chromatic abrasion on my lenses. Sounds painful but we all know you meant abberation.
Click to expand...

I didn't, I thought he meant aberration - Sorry, could not resist it :)

A very interesting set of results though. At the end of the day we all buy lenses for a number of different reasons. I guess that is why there is the choice there is out there.
 
Does anyone else let a lens' aesthetic appearance affect their purchase, even just a tiny bit?

...guilty here!
 
Yes my spellning if horrifik!

If I had the money then yes, I would let the nice look of the lens tip me towards it...
 
Glad I'm not the only one.

White painted lens? Who thought of that one though?!

Might have to get the spray paint out after.
 
I would think the difference wou;d be a lot more obvious on a FF camera with a lot of Pixels, carrying out tests on a low end consumer grade body is not going to give the most reliable results.
 
EdBray said:
I would think the difference wou;d be a lot more obvious on a FF camera with a lot of Pixels, carrying out tests on a low end consumer grade body is not going to give the most reliable results.
Click to expand...

Why is it that whenever I say words to that effect I get a load of hostility my way? :cuckoo:

I've ALWAYS asserted that L's are made for full frame and so the best comparisons/results etc. will be on full frame, but nooooo, it's never good enough is it :thinking:
 
Before you start whining about being 'picked on', the information below is just a simple statement... not a swipe at you!

EF designation means it'll work on ALL Canon EOS cameras... Just 'cos it's an 'L' doesn't mean the comparisons won't be valid. Sticking an 'L' lens on an APS-C sensor is actually utilising the lens' 'sweet-spot' so the results can actually be better!

Si
 
Most lenses will be at their sharpest in the centre, thus a non L lens will likely show similar performance to an L on an APS-c sensor, the differences will become much more apparent on FF where the edge sharpness, consistency of colour, contrast and flare handling of an L lens will outperform the non L by a significant difference!
 
I have the 70-200 F4 L.
Originally I planned to buy the EF-S 55-250 but when I read the review of the lens on "the digital picture.com" website it compared it with the 70-300 USM and the 7-0-200 F4.

After reading the review I am glad I bought the L lens. The AF speed of it is 2nd to none for the price and it is so quiet! The shots that it takes are fantastic and I think it is money well spent even though I am only an amateur. The good thing is given the build quality of the lens it will last well beyond my owning the 1000D!
 
I have the 70-300 and very happy with it, exactly what I was expecting from it which is normally quite a lot! I couldn't afford an L, and I needed 300mm, so maybe it would be a fairer test to compare the 70-300 against a 70-200 with a 1.4xtc for the long end, or the 100-400 of course.

There are so many lenses and a million different reasons people buy them, so comparing is often hard to do fairly, unless of course you are comparing exactly like for like!
 
If I was a pro and out day on day I would be looking for the best lens I could 1, afford, 2, justify. As I am not a pro I have to compromise, and as such have the 70-300, its a cracking lens for the money but at f4-5.6 not the fastest, but for the number of times it comes out and the prevailing conditions its just fine. My normal lens is the 24-105 f4 L, and I love it; its well worth the L price uplift. I have to tailor my wants to my needs, if I was a birder then the 70-300 would not hack it, add a converter and you lose another stop etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top