L Lens blind test

[pete 1]

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.

It's more about the photographer I suspect I doubt anyone could look at a bunch of photographs and tell you which lens was used, but you'll always get those that say this lens was 100 times better because they have to justify why they've spent so much more on a "PRO" lens.
Of course they'll be differences but they're not as great as some want to believe.

 

[SixToes]

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.

Yes to all of this.

They aren't magic (well, apart from the 135 f2) but they remove nearly all room for blaming your equipment when things don't work out.

 

[Rowee]

It's more about the photographer I suspect I doubt anyone could look at a bunch of photographs and tell you which lens was used, but you'll always get those that say this lens was 100 times better because they have to justify why they've spent so much more on a "PRO" lens.
Of course they'll be differences but they're not as great as some want to believe.

I suspect if you compare 2 photos, one taken at 200mm f5.6 (max on my old sigma) and one at f2.8 you could easily see the difference.
Also if you shot 2 pictures at 200mm at 1/200 sec one without any IS and one with IS you would also easily be able to see the difference...?
Again if you tried to take a picture of something relatively fast moving with a non USM lens you would likely struggle much more than with, you might miss the focus all together, again I'm sure you might notice that in the final result...

I'd agree IQ from 'Pro' lenses vs some other lenses can be minimal, as long as those other lenses allow you to take the photo in the first place.

 

[wakarimasen]

Yes to all of this.

They aren't magic (well, apart from the 135 f2) but they remove nearly all room for blaming your equipment when things don't work out.

Absolutely agree with this.
L lenses are constructed for heavier use, and employ some technology not found in other EF lenses. Saying that they are just for people that are justifying buying a 'PRO' lens is nonsense at best, and reverse snobbery at worst.

 

[pete 1]

I suspect if you compare 2 photos, one taken at 200mm f5.6 (max on my old sigma) and one at f2.8 you could easily see the difference.
Also if you shot 2 pictures at 200mm at 1/200 sec one without any IS and one with IS you would also easily be able to see the difference...?
Again if you tried to take a picture of something relatively fast moving with a non USM lens you would likely struggle much more than with, you might miss the focus all together, again I'm sure you might notice that in the final result...

I'd agree IQ from 'Pro' lenses vs some other lenses can be minimal, as long as those other lenses allow you to take the photo in the first place.

using specific settings/lenses and comparing of course you'll see differences , I'm talking generally in real world terms.

 

[pete 1]

Absolutely agree with this.
L lenses are constructed for heavier use, and employ some technology not found in other EF lenses. Saying that they are just for people that are justifying buying a 'PRO' lens is nonsense at best, and reverse snobbery at worst.

I wasn't saying all by any means,and certainly didn't state anything like your comment, I do wish people would read things properly before commenting :-/ . But many are gear heady, pros know why they have pro gear and for good reason, many others don't. As I said it's more about the photographer than any lens.

 

[odd jim]

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

The Sigma 105mm f/2.8 OS is as good as the Canon L equivalent [emoji3]

 

[Eloise]

The Sigma 105mm f/2.8 OS is as good as the Canon L equivalent [emoji3]

But not as good as the Nikon 105mm f/2.8 VR

 

[odd jim]

But not as good as the Nikon 105mm f/2.8 VR

Not sure the OP would be interested in the Nikon [emoji6]

But in all seriousness I can't see how the Sigma could be improved!

 

[odd jim]

[double post]

 

[Eloise]

Not sure the OP would be interested in the Nikon [emoji6]

But in all seriousness I can't see how the Sigma could be improved!

Sorry was just being facetious.

But yes, L doesn't mean it's the best lens you can buy for your Canon, it just means it's the best lens Canon makes, that's all it means.

 

[Rowee]

Is there no improvement on auto focus with the canon macro? The AF on the sigma is horrendous, not a problem for macro but for general use it's horrible

 

[chris malcolm]

Is there no improvement on auto focus with the canon macro? The AF on the sigma is horrendous, not a problem for macro but for general use it's horrible

Slow hunting AF seems to be a feature of macro lenses. One popular way of improving it is being able to switch out the macro range, either with a switch on the lens, or selectable AF limits in the camera body.

 

[odd jim]

Is there no improvement on auto focus with the canon macro? The AF on the sigma is horrendous, not a problem for macro but for general use it's horrible

Nothing wrong with the AF on the Sigma, not with the current OS model anyway (it uses an HSM motor). I've used it to capture my dogs in flight, which it's not designed to do but it did it perfectly anyway.

As you say, Most Macro photography is done manually (I only use the AF on it when I'm shooting other subjects) though but slow gentle, more accurate AF is the norm with most Macro lenses.

 

[StewartR]

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.

Glad it worked for you!

 

[Rowee]

Glad it worked for you!

Yep spot on mate. I'll be borrowing another of yours in the next couple of months actually. I'll be looking for a nice wide fast lens for some milky way shots! Need to do some researching first but I'll certainly be in touch!

 

[SixToes]

Slow hunting AF seems to be a feature of macro lenses. One popular way of improving it is being able to switch out the macro range, either with a switch on the lens, or selectable AF limits in the camera body.

The 100 L IS Macro is one of the fastest most accurate focusing lenses I've ever used, unless you ask it to something daft like go from MFD to infinity. For something like portraiture it focuses accurately and blazingly fast every time.

 

[Furtim]

I started off with Canon and eventually upgraded all my kit to L glass because I liked the wide open aperture primes and constant aperture zooms.

Then an odd thing happened. Rather than taking more and perhaps better pictures, I took fewer and fewer, until eventually, I spend pretty much a whole year without a single picture.

Why?

Everything is soo heavy! All this nice kit, and no desire to lump it around everywhere - too many lenses too much choice, better take it all 'just in case' gah!

Factor that into your decision too - better glass is one thing, but keep in mind any lose of 'portability'. That said, it was my inability to select the right kit for the trip and stick with it that was my downfall

 

[davholla]

The 100 L IS Macro is one of the fastest most accurate focusing lenses I've ever used, unless you ask it to something daft like go from MFD to infinity. For something like portraiture it focuses accurately and blazingly fast every time.

Is it still fast with macro photos?
I have to stay when taking pictures of people I find that kit lens are fast enough - and my wife and son are not at all patient - not much better at staying still than many macro photos I have taken.

 

[davholla]

I started off with Canon and eventually upgraded all my kit to L glass because I liked the wide open aperture primes and constant aperture zooms.

Then an odd thing happened. Rather than taking more and perhaps better pictures, I took fewer and fewer, until eventually, I spend pretty much a whole year without a single picture.

Why?

Everything is soo heavy! All this nice kit, and no desire to lump it around everywhere - too many lenses too much choice, better take it all 'just in case' gah!

Factor that into your decision too - better glass is one thing, but keep in mind any lose of 'portability'. That said, it was my inability to select the right kit for the trip and stick with it that was my downfall

That was why I bought a 60mm macro lens because of the weight, as my 8 year might start taking macro photos soon - it was a good idea.

 

[ChrisHeathcote]

Typically part of the difference between L and Non L lenses isn't just the optical difference, although as has already been mentioned L lenses tend to have faster or constant apertures. It is also about the build quality. They tend to be more rugged and therefore more capable of surviving the knocks and weather. I have a 3rd party lens which I would consider to be up there with the "L"s (Signa 120-300 Sport) and had a heart stopping moment at the weekend when all of a sudden I heard a bang and saw my lens lying on the floor. The pin securing it on my spiderholster had become loose and the lens had fallen from waist height onto the concrete. Although the filter ring is slightly misshapen it continued to work and focus as though nothing had happened. I would imagine that any of the non l lenses would have been in bits

 

[Fuzzdog]

Typically part of the difference between L and Non L lenses isn't just the optical difference, although as has already been mentioned L lenses tend to have faster or constant apertures. It is also about the build quality. They tend to be more rugged and therefore more capable of surviving the knocks and weather. I have a 3rd party lens which I would consider to be up there with the "L"s (Signa 120-300 Sport) and had a heart stopping moment at the weekend when all of a sudden I heard a bang and saw my lens lying on the floor. The pin securing it on my spiderholster had become loose and the lens had fallen from waist height onto the concrete. Although the filter ring is slightly misshapen it continued to work and focus as though nothing had happened. I would imagine that any of the non l lenses would have been in bits

That's it for me, really - I've used plenty of L glass, and the difference isn't as much in the image quality as in the build quality. There are plenty of non-L lenses which are just as sharp (or sharper!), but if you want something that will do the job day in, day out and withstand a bit of abuse, that does come with a price tag, and usually has a red ring on it.

Not all do, of course - my Sigma 100-300 EX F4 has survived things that would make most people wince in horror and would certainly have exploded a lot of alternatives.

 

[SixToes]

Is it still fast with macro photos?
I have to stay when taking pictures of people I find that kit lens are fast enough - and my wife and son are not at all patient - not much better at staying still than many macro photos I have taken.

I don't do that much macro but it always seems fast enough for me.

 

[Byker28i]

Is the L lens better than the non L lens.

The simple answer is yes - in image quality, ability (usually lower f number available, faster focussing), enviromental concerns etc
The difficult answer is - it all depends, how you use your camera, lenses, which lenses you are comparing. If you always shoot in excellent light within the limitations of a cheaper lens, then you might not notice the differences. If you're shooting for facebook photos, 6x4 prints of a holiday, equally so, but say you're shooting for a large poster or advert then yes it does.

For instance - the 15-85 EFS lens on my lads 600D is a great lens, the cheap 70-300 is awful at extremes (wide open, soft at the edges) but usable and can produce good images if you understand these limitations.
Then you've non canon lenses like the Sigma Art...

 

[woof woof]

Is the L lens better than the non L lens.

The simple answer is yes - in image quality, ability (usually lower f number available, faster focussing), enviromental concerns etc
The difficult answer is - it all depends, how you use your camera, lenses, which lenses you are comparing.

Indeed.

17-40mm f4 L v 17-55mm f2.8? You'd need a very good well thought out reason to buy the L, such as using it on a 5D

I'm pretty sure there are lenses out there that compare well with or even beat L's for optical quality (no Sigma Art will ever be an L and my Sony 55mm isn't either and it wont fit a Canon) and I do always hope that people will ignore badges and snobbery and instead just buy the kit that suits their needs best. If the best is an L then whoopie doo and indeed it may make sense to buy an L even if it's not optically the best but brings something else to the party such as weather sealing... it's all part of the decision making process

 

[davholla]

Is the L lens better than the non L lens.

The simple answer is yes - in image quality, ability (usually lower f number available, faster focussing), enviromental concerns etc
The difficult answer is - it all depends, how you use your camera, lenses, which lenses you are comparing. If you always shoot in excellent light within the limitations of a cheaper lens, then you might not notice the differences. If you're shooting for facebook photos, 6x4 prints of a holiday, equally so, but say you're shooting for a large poster or advert then yes it does.

That is what I suspected, although I guess if you are shooting for something commercial the light would be excellent (assuming it is something from a studio or staged in some way).