L Lens blind test

D

davholla

Messages
2,685
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
Has anyone tried to test L lens in real world conditions and then post processing asked people to compare them to non L lens?
For example you have take photos of a model with 2 lens of the same focal lens one L and one normal. Get someone else to process them without looking to see which lens is which and see how many people can tell the difference.
Or a cathedral.
For moving subjects it would be a bit harder to compare exactly the same because it moves.

After reading
http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/Is-The-Expense-Of-Owning-A-Canon-L-Lens-Worth-It-/10000000008261832/g.html

I get the impression that L lens are only worth it under difficult conditions.

BTW I am not thinking of buying one, I am happy with the lens I have at the moment. I am just curious, I think lighting is the main thing that would approve any photos I have problems with.
 
Last edited:
All i can say is i bought a 70-200f4Lis a few back to use with my canon 550d. The results were excellent under all conditions, it was the best upgrade I have done and both the camera and lens are still going strong. Although now the 550d has been replaced with a 7d2.
I am not saying the results with my 55-250 were bad but to me i could tell the difference straight away
 
Your last sentence sums up what I think (taking build quality out of it) but is that not the same for all photography equipment. The same would apply if you put a canon 80d against a 1dx. 80% of what your paying for in high end stuff is how it performs under pressure which would explain why pros buy it.
 
wave01 said:
All i can say is i bought a 70-200f4Lis a few back to use with my canon 550d. The results were excellent under all conditions, it was the best upgrade I have done and both the camera and lens are still going strong. Although now the 550d has been replaced with a 7d2.
I am not saying the results with my 55-250 were bad but to me i could tell the difference straight away
Click to expand...
But could other people tell the difference? It could have been your bias telling you they were better? (No offence to you we all have this, I once did a flickr search and thought - I wish I could take photos like that for one photo and then I realized it was mine).
Did you ever swap lenses and take photos of the same subject using same lighting etc?
 
It all depends on what Non-L lenses you are comparing it against. Thre are some Non L lenses that perform remarkable well, plenty of others that don't

Sure you could probably get similar results with a kit lens, but only whilst at the lenses sweet spot of say f8 and in great light conditions. Open it up wide and sharpness drops off considerably.
You also have to factor in build quality, weather sealing and focus speeds which will be faster than a STM or or Non L USM lens.
 
ecoleman said:
It all depends on what Non-L lenses you are comparing it against. Thre are some Non L lenses that perform remarkable well, plenty of others that don't

Sure you could probably get similar results with a kit lens, but only whilst at the lenses sweet spot of say f8 and in great light conditions. Open it up wide and sharpness drops off considerably.
You also have to factor in build quality, weather sealing and focus speeds which will be faster than a STM or or Non L USM lens.
Click to expand...
Good points, I just wondered if anyone has tested them.
For me weather sealing is not an issue as I don't take photos in the rain.
I could believe - it was dark and tricky - this photo would be better with a l lens (although possibly a tripod and a lower shutter speed might have been better and no flash).
EF7A0059Dinosaurv2 by davholla2002, on Flickr

But not sure about this one
AlbertMemorialEF7A9444 by davholla2002, on Flickr
 
Don't forget there are no EF-S "L" lenses, they are all intended for use on FF cameras where edge sharpness is more noticeable than when used on a crop sensor.
All of the zooms apart from the 70-300 and the 100-400 are constant aperture.
Build quality is invariably higher so they take abuse which an "ordinary" lens won't. I saw a chap who was a retired pro using a 300 f2.8, it looked as if it had been in a war zone( it might have been) but it still took razor sharp pics.
Yes you are paying a lot for something which you as a non -pro may not need, but if you are earning your living with it then that is a different matter.
 
davholla said:
Good points, I just wondered if anyone has tested them.
For me weather sealing is not an issue as I don't take photos in the rain.
I could believe - it was dark and tricky - this photo would be better with a l lens (although possibly a tripod and a lower shutter speed might have been better and no flash).
EF7A0059Dinosaurv2 by davholla2002, on Flickr

But not sure about this one
AlbertMemorialEF7A9444 by davholla2002, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Can't really comment on the first image because I have no idea about the conditions or the setting it was shot with.

The second image looks soft throughout and has been over processed, hence the halo around the spire.
Was that the lenses fault or photographer error?
 
ecoleman said:
Can't really comment on the first image because I have no idea about the conditions or the setting it was shot with.

The second image looks soft throughout and has been over processed, hence the halo around the spire.
Was that the lenses fault or photographer error?
Click to expand...
For the second one I just used the Canon 7D MK II in camera HDR art mode, no manual processing was carried out. So you could say that the problem is either my taste for liking it or Canon's for making it that way. I am not offended by people disliking my taste.
Saying that a tripod might have helped as there might have been a little shake between shots.
The dinosaur was in a really dark environment and the angle was tricky due to space etc.
 
Last edited:
davholla said:
For the second one I just used the Canon 7D MK II in camera HDR art mode, no manual processing was carried out. So you could say that the problem is either my taste for liking it or Canon's for making it that way. I am not offended by people disliking my taste.
Saying that a tripod might have helped as there might have been a little shake between shots.
The dinosaur was in a really dark environment and the angle was tricky due to space etc.
Click to expand...

My comments have nothing to do with whether or not I like the image. The haloing a common issue with over cooked HDR images and whether you did it or the camera did it, it doesn't look good IMO.

The thing is thought that if you want people to make comparisons of images from different lenses you need to post better images, not not with camera shake and over processing.
 
Real world example from me i had the 100mm USM macro lens and 'upgraded' to the L version, 100mm IS USM L. Optically you'd be splitting hairs comparing the end results because they're both outstanding lenses. I acquired the L version for the more robust build quality and IS.

It really does as posters have noted above depend on what you're comparing. For example the 17 - 55mm ef-s lens for crop is widely regarded as an L lens in terms of quality in all but designation and weather sealing, optically it's there or thereabouts though. It's roughly a 24 - 70mm walkabout L but for crop cameras.
 
Last edited:
ecoleman said:
The thing is thought that if you want people to make comparisons of images from different lenses you need to post better images, not not with camera shake and over processing.
Click to expand...
True - although I like it - that is just my taste.
Sorry perhaps those images were not brilliant examples - anyway I don't have a l lens so my images are really relevant. Although the dinosaur might have looked better with a l lens because it was very dark.
Anyway to get back on topic, has anyone ever got e.g a Canon 60 taken a photo with l lens x and then done the same with a non l lens and asked if people can see the difference? I guess you would have to use a tripod to have exactly the same point of view.
BTW I did google this but didn't find any proper tests just opinions. I am surprised no one has ever done this.
 
Last edited:
davholla said:
True - although I like it - that is just my taste.
Sorry perhaps those images were not brilliant examples - anyway I don't have a l lens so my images are really relevant. Although the dinosaur might have looked better with a l lens because it was very dark.
Anyway to get back on topic, has anyone ever got e.g a Canon 60 taken a photo with l lens x and then done the same with a non l lens and asked if people can see the difference? I guess you would have to use a tripod to have exactly the same point of view.
BTW I did google this but didn't find any proper tests just opinions. I am surprised no one has ever done this.
Click to expand...

You probably won't find real comparisons because a) people with L lenses generally won't have a non L lens as well and b) because for the most part you do not get comparable lenses in L and non L.

As sharky said above the 17-55 EF-S lens is very well regarded, I had one when I had a crop sensor, but there is no L lens equivalent. Again the 100mm Macro lenses are used as an example above. The Non L lens is very sharp but then it's a fixed focal lens which are generally much easier to make sharp. The L version is a better build quality and offers IS which the Non L version doesn't.

I have a 16-35mm F4 L, there is no Non L equivalent.
I have a 24-105mm F4 L, there is no Non L equivalent.
70-200 f2.8 L IS, no non L equivalent

With regards to your dinosaur image it really depends on what lens and aperture you shot it at. If you had a kit lens and was shooting at f5.6 then yes, I would probably get a better image with a f2.8 lens simply because I get get more light onto my sensor, thus reducing ISO. Would my image be sharper? Probably. Would somebody be able to tell the difference without pixel peeping? That depends on the lens and the person behind the camera.
Would having your non L lens on a tripod with a slower shutter speed have helped? Possibly, in that you could have perhaps reduced the ISO, and it may reduce camera shake, but it's not going to fix sharpness issues caused by the lens.
 
ecoleman said:
You probably won't find real comparisons because a) people with L lenses generally won't have a non L lens as well and b) because for the most part you do not get comparable lenses in L and non L.

As sharky said above the 17-55 EF-S lens is very well regarded, I had one when I had a crop sensor, but there is no L lens equivalent. Again the 100mm Macro lenses are used as an example above. The Non L lens is very sharp but then it's a fixed focal lens which are generally much easier to make sharp. The L version is a better build quality and offers IS which the Non L version doesn't.

I have a 16-35mm F4 L, there is no Non L equivalent.
I have a 24-105mm F4 L, there is no Non L equivalent.
70-200 f2.8 L IS, no non L equivalent

With regards to your dinosaur image it really depends on what lens and aperture you shot it at. If you had a kit lens and was shooting at f5.6 then yes, I would probably get a better image with a f2.8 lens simply because I get get more light onto my sensor, thus reducing ISO. Would my image be sharper? Probably. Would somebody be able to tell the difference without pixel peeping? That depends on the lens and the person behind the camera.
Would having your non L lens on a tripod with a slower shutter speed have helped? Possibly, in that you could have perhaps reduced the ISO, and it may reduce camera shake, but it's not going to fix sharpness issues caused by the lens.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that I guess you could say that the 55-200 mm lens is a non L equivalent between 70-200 mm if you know what I mean.
 
ecoleman said:
With regards to your dinosaur image it really depends on what lens and aperture you shot it at. If you had a kit lens and was shooting at f5.6 then yes, I would probably get a better image with a f2.8 lens simply because I get get more light onto my sensor, thus reducing ISO. Would my image be sharper? Probably. Would somebody be able to tell the difference without pixel peeping? That depends on the lens and the person behind the camera.
Would having your non L lens on a tripod with a slower shutter speed have helped? Possibly, in that you could have perhaps reduced the ISO, and it may reduce camera shake, but it's not going to fix sharpness issues caused by the lens.
Click to expand...

The Exif on the dinosaur shows f4.0 1/60 flash fired ISO100

The Albert Memorial blurring suggests the camera took multiple images for the HDR simulation, and the people/foliage moved hence the blurred parts of the image. Its at f5.0 1/400 ISO100

I would suggest that there is a lot more technique to be had here before worrying about L glass. For instance the Albert Memorial would probably be better shot at a smaller aperture to give better DOF and a single RAW image processed to bring out the shadow detail (rather than HDR). It would also better from a composition improvement (ie not chop off the top of the memorial!!)

To me these are both record shots (snap shots) and although that is a little cruel, its meant in a constructive way. IMO More technique would give much better Image Quality.

These images are very much at odds with some of the excellent macro shots on the OPs photostream
 
Mr Perceptive said:
The Exif on the dinosaur shows f4.0 1/60 flash fired ISO100

The Albert Memorial blurring suggests the camera took multiple images for the HDR simulation, and the people/foliage moved hence the blurred parts of the image. Its at f5.0 1/400 ISO100

I would suggest that there is a lot more technique to be had here before worrying about L glass. For instance the Albert Memorial would probably be better shot at a smaller aperture to give better DOF and a single RAW image processed to bring out the shadow detail (rather than HDR). It would also better from a composition improvement (ie not chop off the top of the memorial!!)

To me these are both record shots (snap shots) and although that is a little cruel, its meant in a constructive way. IMO More technique would give much better Image Quality.

These images are very much at odds with some of the excellent macro shots on the OPs photostream
Click to expand...
I think with the dinosaur I must have had the wrong iso.
The Albert memorial was a first attempt at HDR a technique that I would like to learn but do not see many ideal subjects and I will retry both sometime (I work near there).
(Also my views on the Canon default processing, are obviously not shared by everyone which does not help).
Thanks for the kind remarks about the macro shots. The reason for the difference is simple I love macro and birds but for other things I don't take so many photos, partly due to lack of time and partly due to interest.
I might try a bit next week and taking into account your ideas. What would you have differently for the dinosaur apart from a higher iso, smaller aperture?


BTW I should have explained why I asked this question because
a) my sister in law has an l lens (I think 24-105) and my brother (not her husband a different one) and her were telling me about how wonderful they are and I wanted to see if it has been tested. I borrowed hers and took a record shot indoors and I liked the fact that it was lighter but to be honest I could just slightly increase the exposure or have a better flash and on a sunny day it might have looked better
b) I like comparing equipment, I often compare my 550D and 7D MKII to see how they compare, but I don't have the time to do proper tests.
 
Last edited:
My HDR way - not using in camera processing) - take several bracket shots (either aperture or shutter speed) ideally on a tripod so the world doesn't move, and at low ISO. Then merge them to create an HDR image in an external program (eg Lightroom, Photoshop, Nik HDR Efex Pro), but its best to take the pictures without moving objects, ie people, the merge process becomes easier and you get a sharp resultant image. Often best not to go over the top with the HDR effect, less is more for best image results.

This was a seven shot HDR merge

160311 Moreton Corbet Church sm by Mr Perceptive X100, on Flickr

With regard to the dinosaur shot, unless you could get some really dramatic angle composition, I wouldn't have bothered too much, its a record (postcard) style shot, I would have waited until the people were out of shot and possibly used a more powerful flashgun, but in reality I'd have probably not even bothered with the shot. A close up of the head, or a dramatic angle might have been different.

Personally I wouldn't get hung up on HDR (or the dinosaur shot), but practice to improve composition, make your shots stand out from the rest.

I also wouldn't waste time doing direct comparisons, some of the worlds greatest photos were taken on 'in today's terms' low tech kit, it's technique that matters more
 
Mr Perceptive said:
My HDR way - not using in camera processing) - take several bracket shots (either aperture or shutter speed) ideally on a tripod so the world doesn't move, and at low ISO. Then merge them to create an HDR image in an external program (eg Lightroom, Photoshop, Nik HDR Efex Pro), but its best to take the pictures without moving objects, ie people, the merge process becomes easier and you get a sharp resultant image. Often best not to go over the top with the HDR effect, less is more for best image results.

This was a seven shot HDR merge

160311 Moreton Corbet Church sm by Mr Perceptive X100, on Flickr

With regard to the dinosaur shot, unless you could get some really dramatic angle composition, I wouldn't have bothered too much, its a record (postcard) style shot, I would have waited until the people were out of shot and possibly used a more powerful flashgun, but in reality I'd have probably not even bothered with the shot. A close up of the head, or a dramatic angle might have been different.

Personally I wouldn't get hung up on HDR (or the dinosaur shot), but practice to improve composition, make your shots stand out from the rest.

I also wouldn't waste time doing direct comparisons, some of the worlds greatest photos were taken on 'in today's terms' low tech kit, it's technique that matters more
Click to expand...
That is a wonderful church photo- you could imagine that you are there when you see it.
 
Last edited:
The Albert memorial was a first attempt at HDR a technique that I would like to learn but do not see many ideal subjects and I will retry both sometime (I work near there).
Click to expand...

Step 1. Stop letting your camera do the processing. You have no control.
Step 2. What ever software you use, the sliders and switches needs to be adjusted with care.
 
L-series is just Canon's way of highlighting their top end "professional" lenses. There is nothing inherently special about them because of the red ring, but if you buy an L-series lens then you are buying the best lens Canon can make at a particular focal length. For some people that reassurance is what they are buying.

The comparisons are easier to make with the fixed focal length. For example Canon have two 35mm lenses (for full frame) the f/2 IS and the f1.4L ... they are saying that if you want the best 35mm lens then buy the L - in many situations you won't see the difference but the L series are often wider maximum aperture as well as being better built and featuring better coatings to the optics, etc. Of course that doesn't say anything about how the 1.4L compares with the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art or Tamron SP 35mm f/1.8.
 
ecoleman said:
Step 1. Stop letting your camera do the processing. You have no control.
Step 2. What ever software you use, the sliders and switches needs to be adjusted with care.
Click to expand...
I suppose you could always let the camera do its own version and then do your own at home, if that makes sense.
Saying that as I liked the final result (I accept the composition could have been better) and other don't then sadly what ever I did myself no one would like :(
 
davholla said:
True - although I like it - that is just my taste.
Sorry perhaps those images were not brilliant examples - anyway I don't have a l lens so my images are really relevant. Although the dinosaur might have looked better with a l lens because it was very dark.
Anyway to get back on topic, has anyone ever got e.g a Canon 60 taken a photo with l lens x and then done the same with a non l lens and asked if people can see the difference? I guess you would have to use a tripod to have exactly the same point of view.
BTW I did google this but didn't find any proper tests just opinions. I am surprised no one has ever done this.
Click to expand...

A few years ago I did a comparison between my 70-200 f4L and my old Canon 70-210 f4 vintage about 1989 ish, both lenses set at f4 and the 70-210 slightly pulled back from full magnification to give as near as I could say the same image as the 70-200 f4l. Camera was on a tripod with cable release, identical shutter speed/iso etc and I couldnt tell which image came from which lens, there was,to my eye absolutely no difference whatsoever.
 
I can't do a direct comparison as only have one L lens, an 70-200m f4 L the nearest lens I've got to it is a ?-300 kit lens, which I haven't used for a long time...

It's my second lens for wildlife.... The advantage it gives, it's the better Fstop to my main Tamron 150-600mm...

Are the picture sharper than tamron's, well really depends on, the weather, The 7d mk2 is a lovely wildlife camera, except when it's a dull day, then you need as wide an aperture as you can get to allow the light in, otherwise you're going to suffer with noise, as soon as you start cropping noise is going to be a problem.

When it comes to IQ, apart from the obvious, that of learning how to use my camera better wasn't buying a new lens but investing in a monopod and gimbal head.... I've had one outing out with this as it was part of my christmas present, and I was so surprised how much different it made to the sharpness of my photographs..
 
Eloise said:
L-series is just Canon's way of highlighting their top end "professional" lenses. There is nothing inherently special about them because of the red ring, but if you buy an L-series lens then you are buying the best lens Canon can make at a particular focal length. For some people that reassurance is what they are buying.

The comparisons are easier to make with the fixed focal length. For example Canon have two 35mm lenses (for full frame) the f/2 IS and the f1.4L ... they are saying that if you want the best 35mm lens then buy the L - in many situations you won't see the difference but the L series are often wider maximum aperture as well as being better built and featuring better coatings to the optics, etc. Of course that doesn't say anything about how the 1.4L compares with the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art or Tamron SP 35mm f/1.8.
Click to expand...
This^

It's rarely about L lens vs non L lens, I'm lucky enough to have some quality lenses, some are L, a few are Canon non L and some are 3rd party.

I've got to be honest though, the shots posted are poor and no amount of L lens magic would improve them. The truth is that a good photograph rarely owes its magic to kit though, and I'm sure if you go through your portfolio you'll realise the images you don't like aren't the fault of the kit, and the great ones aren't due to excellent kit either.

I really hope no one ever looked at my portfolio and said, 'wow Phil has some great lenses' :(
 
Last edited:
Well that's 10 minutes squinting at a screen I won't get back! :LOL: To be honest, it's not really fair to choose from just one photo set comparison, and also not knowing the weather conditions, etc. doesn't help (a breeze moving the vegetation, particularly the trees, could be mistaken for edge/corner softness, and changes in the brightness and direction of the light could be mistaken for differences in lens contrast, colour rendition, etc.). If I had to vote, as my life hypothetically depended upon it, I'd say the image labelled Canon 16-35 f4 L appears to have more overall detail and clarity than the other two photos, but I don't know if that's due to the lens or the conditions under which the photo was taken.

If I were considering buying one of those lenses I'd want to see a few image sets at full resolution before I parted with my cash or gave my opinion. Thanks for posting the photos though, it was interesting to look at them and consider what to make of them. (y)
 
Phil V said:
This^

It's rarely about L lens vs non L lens, I'm lucky enough to have some quality lenses, some are L, a few are Canon non L and some are 3rd party.

I've got to be honest though, the shots posted are poor and no amount of L lens magic would improve them. The truth is that a good photograph rarely owes its magic to kit though, and I'm sure if you go through your portfolio you'll realise the images you don't like aren't the fault of the kit, and the great ones aren't due to excellent kit either.

I really hope no one ever looked at my portfolio and said, 'wow Phil has some great lenses' :(
Click to expand...
Saying that the kit does make a difference to some degree, for example my first camera phone couldn't take a single decent photo.
I would guess that in the case of wedding photography the poor light you sometimes guess means that you want high quality lens more than other people (not that I have ever tried or will ever try to take professional wedding photos).
 
davholla said:
Saying that the kit does make a difference to some degree, for example my first camera phone couldn't take a single decent photo.
I would guess that in the case of wedding photography the poor light you sometimes guess means that you want high quality lens more than other people (not that I have ever tried or will ever try to take professional wedding photos).
Click to expand...
I will never understand how 'it's rarely about the kit' gets read as 'kit doesn't matter' - the 2 statements are barely related, of course I wouldn't expect a camera phone to compete with my kit. If it could I'd have wasted thousands of pounds.

When it comes to difficult conditions, the following become vitally important:

  • A fast maximum aperture (if there are 2 or 3 choices of lens in the Canon lineup the L lens would be the 'fastest'), and often there's no direct competition, for instance the f2 135mm or 200mm or the fast supertelephotos. The 85mm 1.8 is an excellent lens, but the 85mm 1.2 is in another league.
  • A fast and accurate focus motor (found in some cheaper lenses too, but often where an L lens will be better than a good 3rd party lens will be the focus motor)
  • Excellent optics, again, there's some great non-L lenses, but generally an L lens will have superior optics to its non L counterparts.

Hope that's clear.

BTW, if all you want to shoot is med focal lengths at f8 then you'll have to pixel peep to find the difference in lens quality. But if you want to shoot shallow DoF portraits, a 135mm f2 is a beautiful tool to use, and the red ring isn't the reason it's so great.
 
Sorry I misread your post, reading posts with a child around doesn't aid 100% comprehension.
 
ecoleman said:
Snip... I have a 24-105mm F4 L, there is no Non L equivalent... Snip
.
Click to expand...

There is, the Canon 24-105 f/3.5 - 5.6 STM [emoji3]

In fact, if the OP googles a comparison that'll hopefully give him the answers he needs.

L lenses are obviously supposed to be optically the best, but the OP should note it's not *just* about optics - i.e. Build, constant aperture, coatings, AF motors etc etc...

There are still EF primes that I'd argue are optically as good if not better than some L zooms (I own both L and non L zooms and primes).

And there are of course many third party lenses that can compete with Canon L lenses, such as the equivalent Sigma 105 f/2.8 OS EX (v Canon 100mm L)...
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
There is, the Canon 24-105 f/3.5 - 5.6 STM [emoji3]

In fact, if the OP googles a comparison that'll hopefully give him the answers he needs.

L lenses are obviously supposed to be optically the best, but the OP should note it's not *just* about optics - i.e. Build, constant aperture, coatings, AF motors etc etc...

There are still EF primes that I'd argue are optically as good if not better than some L zooms (I own both L and non L zooms and primes).

And there are of course many third party lenses that can compete with Canon L lenses, such as the equivalent Sigma 105 f/2.8 OS EX (v Canon 100mm L)...
Click to expand...
Well it was more for interest than need. I did google before searching and I was looking for things where someone took the equivalent of an l lens and took photos of e.g a model in a studio and if anyone can see the difference.
This is not really what I was thinking of
https://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Can...4-DG-OS-HSM-vs-Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4-L-IS-USM
 
I took a the Canon 200mm L 1.8 to a wedding shoot and (I know... not L v non L) and compared it against a 200mm 2.8 mk2. The only difference, very subtle, was colour and tone and this was comparing prints.
 
Non L lenses give excellent results I've got several but as you have been asking, I've not gone out to compare. I've a 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.8 but no access to the more expensive L versions. Would be interesting to actually test them with someone who has no idea with file is which.
 
davholla said:
Well it was more for interest than need. I did google before searching and I was looking for things where someone took the equivalent of an l lens and took photos of e.g a model in a studio and if anyone can see the difference.
This is not really what I was thinking of
https://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Can...4-DG-OS-HSM-vs-Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4-L-IS-USM
Click to expand...

No I wouldn't bother with DXO either, it's pretty much unrealistic BS that really bears no real world relevance. But there are many real world comparisons out there, which is what i thought you'd be interested in - the two are directly comparable.
 
odd jim said:
No I wouldn't bother with DXO either, it's pretty much unrealistic BS that really bears no real world relevance. But there are many real world comparisons out there, which is what i thought you'd be interested in - the two are directly comparable.
Click to expand...
I didn't find them but I must not have been looking very well.
 
I saw a great one when the STM came out but I can't find it now (on my phone rather than desktop as I'm in Aus at the moment!), needless to say the L came out top but it's £400 more...
 
I number of years ago I sold my Sigma 55 - 250mm F 4 - 5.6 and bought a Canon 70 - 200mm F2.8 IS L. I am not a pro, and this was a huge amount of money for me to spend so was not a decision taken lightly. The reason? I'd hired one for a few days and was shocked by the difference. Now obviously the difference in these 2 particular lenses is more significant than other pairs of comparable lenses, but this was my 'real world' upgrade so I guess it's relevant.

The build quality is very good, but the super fast, near silent auto focus combined with such depth at 200mm f2.8 gave me results that simply weren't possible with the Sigma. The IS is also surprisingly effective if you haven't used a longer IS lens before. It felt like it had exposed me to quality I didn't know existed. I've now replaced my walkabout lens for the 24 - 105 f4 L and am equally impressed. As others have said, for professional, knowing you are using Canons 'the best we have made' lens must be reassuring, knowing you are doing all you can with kit to give the best results you can. For me, as a non pro, has it improved my photography? I think it has, the extra potential in the lens makes you think more openly about what you can achieve and the features like the fast AF and 2 mode IS help you achieve it.

The image quality in this upgrade was massively improved but that's not always the case I'm sure. Lenses vary and it's not just the numbers and abbreviations that make it so. If you have an exceptional non L lens, you may not notice much difference in IQ compared the the equivalent L lens. What I will say is, in my opinion (somewhat limited in terms of the full Canon L Range), there are some incredible non L lenses out there, but they tend to be similarly priced to the L glass. However, I'm yet to hear of a terrible L lens. Some are better than others, but it's rare for a non L to outperform an L. And yet there are terrible (by comparison) non L lenses out there.

Having said that, I have the Sigma 10 - 20 and 105 macro and love them. If I could warrant the spend, I would probably replace them with Canon equivalents but a: I can't warrant it, and b: I don't feel the need based on the quality of the results I get with the Sigma kit.

Just my thoughts :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top