Do I need L or do I just want them because they have a shiny red ring?

guybrush

guybrush

Messages
358
Name
Rebecca
Edit My Images
Yes
Sigh! I need to stop hiring out L glass, that whole "Once you've used L, you'll never go back" saying rings so true. But I'm not entirely sure it's down to the actual optical performance, more of the fact that more often than not they're big huge bulky things which feel awesome to be holding.

Currently using a 24mm f1.4 L, something I'll never be able to justify spending that amount of money on.

However I am in need of a very good quality (optical & build) 20mm><50mm & f1.4><f1.8 prime lens to sit on my crop sensor camera alongside the Sigma 50mm f1.4. So price has ruled me out of the 35mm f1.4 & 24mm f1.4s whilst the build quality just seems completely rubbish on canon's standard range of primes. But looking at Sigma's offering (outside of their 50mm) - they don't seem to have anything that can really compete.

So I don't what's up with Sigma's EX range? They seem to just throw it on almost everything and a lot of the time they're barely any better than Canon's standard lenses.

Oh you big black red banded beautiful lenses, why do you have to be so far out of my budget? :shrug:
 
I have a 20mm f1.8 and a 30mm f1.4 and I think they're both good although the 20mm is a little soft at f1.8 but it does soon sharpen up works out as a nice 32mm on a Canon APS-C.

The problem is they're both Sigmas :) so you may not be too keen. I think they're good though :)
 
The canon 28/1.8 actually is very nicely made and quite solid. It seems to review quite badly but I really like mine. It is soft wide open (actually more of a haze) but sharpens up very quickly if you stop down. Even f2 is a lot better.
 
I've been looking at the Sigma 30mm 1.4 very closely lately, but everyone seems to suggest that it's not all that great.

Perhaps the only option is to save up and get some L glass instead..

Also, I'm using a 500D and planning on purchasing a 7D to go alongside it. I doubt I'll ever travel down the FF route, unless I can be convinced.
 
I think it depends. If you work professionally or if you are hardcore then L lenses maybe the better option. I used to think the same way and have owned alot of L glass. But over time, I have started selling them off. first to go was the 85mm 1.2, then the 70-200mm 2.8L IS (twice), then the 35mm 1.4, and this month, the 135mm 2L. I now only have the 100mm 2.8L macro, 70-200mm 4L IS, and the 24-105mm 4L IS. I'm even considering getting rid of the 24-105 soon as it is extra weight in the bag that I just do not use. I'm actually shooting with a 85mm 1.8 at the moment, nothing else. I got married this May, so my priorities have changed considerably. To me, I just came to the conclusion that I am not a pro, after using the cheaper glass, I personally am more than happy with the results so why pay more, I'd rather downgrade a little and use the money to start a family with the new wife next year. Awwww I'm all grown up now :lol:
 
guybrush said:
I've been looking at the Sigma 30mm 1.4 very closely lately, but everyone seems to suggest that it's not all that great.
Click to expand...
Not sure where you get that from, most people who own that lens (me included) seem very happy with it. :shrug:
 
guybrush said:
I've been looking at the Sigma 30mm 1.4 very closely lately, but everyone seems to suggest that it's not all that great.
Click to expand...

The problem isn't with the lens, it's with inexperienced photographers who try and shoot portraits with it at f/1.4 and then wonder why only the tip of the subject's nose is in focus.....:lol:
 
guybrush said:
Also, I'm using a 500D and planning on purchasing a 7D to go alongside it. I doubt I'll ever travel down the FF route, unless I can be convinced.
Click to expand...

Apart from the obvious difference in sealing and build quality then it's the old question of how much this camera is going to benefit from L lenses.

One of the biggest plus points is how much better they perform towards the edges of the shot - something a cropped camera won't even be capturing.

There's no doubt some of the attraction lies in that red ring but at the end of the day if you can afford them and you'll be upgrading your body at some point then go for it. If you decide they're not delivering improved results then re-sale is never a problem.
 
"I've been looking at the Sigma 30mm 1.4 very closely lately, but everyone seems to suggest that it's not all that great."

People who own them and know how to use them generally think that they're very good.
 
What are you using the 24L for? If you are using it for landscape then you are wasting its potential. You are probably going to shoot at F/8 or something? Which your kit lens could do and you might notice some sharpness but personally i don't think that is £1k better sharpness.

However, go into a dark room and shoot some dancing at 1.4 and watch it shine. Try that with your kit lens!

What i am saying is that L is not just about optical quality.

DOF, Speed, Focusing Speed, sealing, contrasts and build quality are all qualities that you are paying for.
 
Last edited:
Some of canon's lenses must be showing their age a bit by now as some are over 20 year old designs. Both optical design and coatings must have moved on a bit in that time and if you're going to get a prime it might as well be a fast one otherwise for a lot of people it might not have any significant advantage over a zoom.
 
I don't know about the entirety of Sigma's EX range, but their 10-20 is, to me at least, a high quality build. The lens felt solid and had buttery smooth zoom and focus rings. The 17-40 f/4 feels more robust, but not hugely, and it does cost twice as much as well. One thing I have noticed on the 17-40 (I use it on a full frame body) is the lack of vignetting in real world situations. You have to be looking for it at f/4, and above f/4 it's all but nonexistant. Sharpness wide open is impressive as well, but so was the Sigma I had. The main reason I got the 17-40 was the weatherproofing - it's an invaluable addition for me, and third parties don't offer it.


dinners said:
One of the biggest plus points is how much better they perform towards the edges of the shot - something a cropped camera won't even be capturing..
Click to expand...

I agree, and for croppers there are some very good wide angle EF-S options, if one doesn't need weather sealing.
 
Last edited:
guybrush said:
Sigh! I need to stop hiring out L glass....


Oh you big black red banded beautiful lenses, why do you have to be so far out of my budget? :shrug:
Click to expand...


I've got L lenses - mostly in white rather than black. I'm currently spending a lot of time playing with very low cost M42 mount manual focus prime lenses which are almost cheap enough to be disposable in some cases. Is IQ the same as with a current spec L lens? Of course not - these are several years' out of date technology after all. Do they produce razor sharp images? Potentially but they're MF rather than AF. Besides who wants razor sharp portraits?

Tell you what though, they're teaching me an awful lot about ISO/Exposure/Aperture settings - far more than Av or Tv ever did.
 
R.Y.K. LEE said:
Not after I fart on them!! PFFFFFFT!! How you like that??

Nah, I'm only playing :D They are pretty, especially the one on the right. Hey baby, what's your name? Aw c'mon now, don't be all shy... Yeah... :lol:
Click to expand...

You can indeed, they are weather sealed :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top