Canon "L" lenses

[jackbauer]

does anyone have picts taken using a standard lens then using the same settings have the same pict taken using an "L" Lens?

just wanna see how good the glass is.

 

[susie]

I don't have anything I can show you to compare, but there is a big difference when you change to a prime L lens, I suddenly discovered that I could get a decent birdie picture, shame the one I borrowed is well out of my price range though!!

I am in the process of selling my current lenses and just having 2 L ones, the Canon 1.4 teleconverter and the nifty, so you can see the effect using one has had on me

Try hiring one or see if you could borrow one from someone - beware its a slippery slope though!

 

[Vertigo1]

The usual benefits are additional sharpness and colour reproduction. Things like internal zoom, non-rotation front elements during focusing and parfocal behaviour are more common on the 'L' series lenses.

 

[pxl8]

take a look at:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/

The reviews have shots of the same chart and you can compare two lenses against each other.

 

[ab$olut]

another good site is http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/

 

[ekimeno]

Here's a quick test I did between an el cheapo Sigma 70-300 EX DG APO lens and a Canon 24-105mm 'L' lens with IS. I think the Canon performs better under a wider range of conditions. Under ideal conditions (ie. good lighting), it's difficult to tell them apart...

Absolutely no processing except for about a 50% crop on both.

Sigma 70-300 f/4 iso 200 1/125 at 100mm

Canon 24-105 'L' lens f/4 iso 200 1/125 at 97mm

 

[jackbauer]

i've heard rteal good stuff about the L lenses, ekimeno u got other picts? cos they look pretty sim ilar to me