'L' Lens v Standard Lens

dmcaloney

dmcaloney

Messages
289
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
I am aware that the L lens is the ultimate in Canon lenses, however, they dont come cheap as we know.

I am currently having a think about whether the increased picture quality is worth the outlay (and the moaning from the wife :)). I only dabble in family shots etc so not sure if the outlay is necessarily going to be worth it.

so I was wondering... has anyone on here got example pics from similar standard v L lenses that could be compared?

e.g a 28-135 v 24-105L?

Thanks.
 
L lenses are the best glass in the best barrels with the best AF etc.

Some other lenses have the same standard of optics, but economise on other aspects. Canon 17-55 2.8 is a case in point, 10-22, 60mm macro. Those all happen to be EF-S lenses too, which is really where you should be looking first with a 40D.
 
Thanks Richard.

So in terms of image quality only, are you saying that the L lens would be false economy and I should look at EF-S lenses given the camera I have?
 
HoppyUK said:
Those all happen to be EF-S lenses too, which is really where you should be looking first with a 40D.
Click to expand...

not sure I agree with that.

if you buy EF-S lenses then you're either going to have to stay with a 1.6 sensor when you upgrade or replace all your glass.

40d's work really really well with L glass so having a 40D shouldn't restrict you.

However to agree with other posters there is some good standard EF glass that has great quality just not the robustness of an L when you drop it
 
Lee, dont see myself upgrading camera any time soon, just looking at the optimum lens to get the best pics without spending a fortune (arent we all :))

Just not sure I can justify 6-700+ quid on a lens if the quality difference of the pics isn't hugely apparent.
 
HoppyUK said:
L lenses are the best glass in the best barrels with the best AF etc.

Some other lenses have the same standard of optics, but economise on other aspects. Canon 17-55 2.8 is a case in point, 10-22, 60mm macro. Those all happen to be EF-S lenses too, which is really where you should be looking first with a 40D.
Click to expand...


*stirs pot*

I don't agree with this either, the Glass is more important than the Body IMO, and this isn't the best advice. I would happily stick top end Nikon Glass on my D40, if I could afford it, as I know it will contribute to me getting a better picture more than buying a D300 etc.

L-Glass all depends on budget, if you want future upgrade capabilities, whether you can hack the wife and if you want top top top quality, or will settle for slightly cheaper glass at a fraction of the cost, but without seeing the different too much (unless you pixel peep)
 
dmcaloney said:
Lee, dont see myself upgrading camera any time soon, just looking at the optimum lens to get the best pics without spending a fortune (arent we all :))

Just not sure I can justify 6-700+ quid on a lens if the quality difference of the pics isn't hugely apparent.
Click to expand...

Its not a choice between L or EF-S though, its EF or EF-S

I used to own a 40D and was very glad I bought EF lenses since that meant the upgrade was just the body and not the glass too

and I still use my 50mm F1.4 and 100mm F2 (both EF lenses) even though I have a 1d
 
One of the best lenses I ever had was the EF-S 60mm what a cracking lens. I think there are some fabulous non L lenses out there, for another example take the "Nifty Fifty", a lens that should be in everyone's arsenal. Having said all that for absolute excellence there is no substitute for quality and the L series is exactly that. The L series primes are just simply stunning but you have to pay for that quality. You will, in time, upgrade your body and should you go full frame....and I happen to think you will, then EF lenses will see you through the upgrade.

I do think the 24-105 is about the best walk around lens I have ever fitted to my camera and the price is becoming even more affordable especially if you bag a good second hand one.
 
Cheers Nigey. I have the nifty 1.8 and I am more than happy with it (especially as its extremely affordable cost wise)

Maybe I should think about renting / borrowing a few and trying them out?
 
dmcaloney said:
Cheers Nigey. I have the nifty 1.8 and I am more than happy with it (especially as its extremely affordable cost wise)

Maybe I should think about renting / borrowing a few and trying them out?
Click to expand...

good idea, but just to reiterate - as we seem to be getting a bit mixed up

L lenses or otherwise is a choice between pocket/quality/robustness and only you can answer that

My original comment was that I don't feel EF-S lenses are a good choice unless you can get something you can't get elsewhere, just because it limits your choices in the future
 
With the 40D high ISO performance and 1.6x crop leading to larger DOF, I'd still recommend the 17-55/2.8 IS over any other lens for a standard zoom. Perfect zoom range and f/2.8 + IS in a fairly lightweight package. And it's very easily sold if you go full-frame later.

Also you're depriving yourself of an ultra-wide angle lens (10-22) if you refuse to buy EF-S.

I'm not saying thse EF-S leses are as good as EF L glass (though the 17-55 sure is close), just that they are very good and versatile tools, created for a purpose.. Certainly some EF-S lenses beat the carp out of lesser EF lenses.
 
Nigey said:
One of the best lenses I ever had was the EF-S 60mm what a cracking lens. I think there are some fabulous non L lenses out there, for another example take the "Nifty Fifty", a lens that should be in everyone's arsenal.
Click to expand...

but to be precise this isn't an EF-S lens

Having said all that for absolute excellence there is no substitute for quality and the L series is exactly that. The L series primes are just simply stunning but you have to pay for that quality. You will, in time, upgrade your body and should you go full frame....and I happen to think you will, then EF lenses will see you through the upgrade.
Click to expand...

this will also work if you move up to the 1D range since EF-S lenses don't fit on them either
 
vaizki said:
Also you're depriving yourself of an ultra-wide angle lens (10-22) if you refuse to buy EF-S.
Click to expand...

which is then a perfectly good reason to buy an EF-S

I'm not saying thse EF-S leses are as good as EF L glass
Click to expand...

Am I speaking in japanese? :bonk:

EF != L

I'm sure you know that but I think it might help if we could separate the EF vs EF-S question from the L or not L question

wish I'd not tried to help!!! :bang:
 
keirik said:
L lenses or otherwise is a choice between pocket/quality/robustness and only you can answer that
Click to expand...

Thats was the reason for my post Lee... I would like to compare photos 'side by side' so to speak on L and non-L lenses. I

am not sure what difference the quality would be between my walkabout 28-135 and say a 24-105L.

:shrug:
 
p.s. Just to clarify Lee, I get the whole EF v EF-S thing :D

Apologies if I have caused confusion in the thread.
 
There is a thread on here, where the OP posted two pics. One taken with a £40 lens, the other with a £1200 lens. He let the forum guess which pic was shot with either lens. The amusing bit was that 50% thought Pic 1 was shot with the expensive lens and vice versa, so in general, if you already think the extra cost wouldn't be beneficial when it comes to IQ alone, stick with the cheaper glass. The L lenses do offer better IQ, but there are lots of other factors that make them that much more expensive, particularly the build quality of the barrel and the AF engine.
 
dmcaloney said:
am not sure what difference the quality would be between my walkabout 28-135 and say a 24-105L.

:shrug:
Click to expand...

probably not much. the L would be weatherproofed of course and probably a bit better wide open etc. but would the price be worth more... its up to you.
 
Personally, on an XXD series I would suggest the 17-40 f4 L as a walkaround over the 24-105 f4 L, but that may be just that I like the flexibility of the wider field of view, I have both, the only non L-series lens I currently own is a 10-22 EFs which is optically fantastic but not quite up to L-series build quality. I have no issues running L glass on XXD bodies, especially if gripped, they balance really well. If I ran XXXD bodies the answer might be different.

On a side note, I do however at times miss the ' Swiss watch' precision of some of the better FD lenses and MF 3rd party glass, IMHO AF glass just wasn't really designed for manual work.

Overall, I consider L-series glass an investment, not only due to the optical quality but also the build quality and the serviceability. Residual prices are good and therefore the cost of upgrades or, heaven forfend, mistakes is easier to justify after the initial outlay. In fact, given recent price hikes, I have resold some L glass for a similar price to that which it cost new!
 
dmcaloney said:
Thats was the reason for my post Lee... I would like to compare photos 'side by side' so to speak on L and non-L lenses. I

am not sure what difference the quality would be between my walkabout 28-135 and say a 24-105L.

:shrug:
Click to expand...

that's pretty hard, because people rarely have the same lens in both formats - and if they do they've probably already made the decision otherwise why spend all that money

For what it's worth I think all my L lenses are worth the money - perhaps with the exception of the 28-300 (mainly because you have to stop it right down to get any quality) but at the end of the day I have never sat and worked out whether my 24-70L is better or worse than my standard 50mm F1.4, mainly because I use them in different circumstances

I think renting, as you suggest is the best idea, but rent something you think provides something you'd use rather than trying to match something you already have.
If you like it and the quality is what you want then its worth it. If you don't miss it when it goes back then it isn't.

I don't think pixel peeping and checking between two different situations gives you anything particularly valid and even two shots of the same thing won't be exact so are you comparing the lenses or the situation?

If I was to spend my money all over again... I'd buy the 24-70 again - and it's now cheaper too!
 
keirik said:
EF != L

I'm sure you know that but I think it might help if we could separate the EF vs EF-S question from the L or not L question
Click to expand...

Yes I know that, and I wasn't even implying that they were! :LOL: Canon refuses to brand any EF-S lenses 'L' or to weatherproof them for that matter. So while all L lenses are EF and some EF lenses are L, no EF-S lenses are L. Thus, anyone looking ONLY at L-glass is going to miss out on the gems I mentioned, which would be a shame.

But we digress. :bonk:
 
Cheers for the advice folks.

Much appreciated.

Will probably stick with what I have for now, but will definitely look at renting to get a feel for the better lenses at some point.
 
Primes are another cheaper alternative. 50mm / 85mm depending what you need them for.
 
dmcaloney said:
Thanks Richard.

So in terms of image quality only, are you saying that the L lens would be false economy and I should look at EF-S lenses given the camera I have?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say false economy necessarily, it depends. But one of the things about all L lenses is that they are designed for full frame, and you pay a lot for that, both in terms of reduced spec and cost, and you're paying for sensor coverage that you cannot use.

Compare the 17-40L f/4 and humble EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens. For a fraction of the price you get more range and IS. Or the EF-S 15-85mm, massively more useful and just as sharp.

Compare the 16-35L f/2.8 and the superb EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS - cheaper, more range, and IS. The combnined demands of an f/2.8 aperture and full frame coverage are very restricting to lens design.

The advantages of the smaller format run out very quickly after about 50-60mm, so there is no real point in making longer EF-S lenses.

The thing about upgrading to full frame in the future is a red herring IMO. For a start not many people ever do it, mainly because it costs about double, but if you do, your full frame lenses will behave completely differently so you'll have to shift around and replace your focal lengths anyway.

And then there's the cost. What you loose selling on a good EF-S lens is a fraction of what you'll lose on the camera body, and in the overall scheme of things, not that significant anyway.

I just did exactly that - sold my entire 40D outfit on here (in just a few days). The biggest cost was that I only got £400 for my 40D - great camera, mint - and the new 5D2 cost £1500. Not too worried about a hundred quid on lenses here and there. If you buy second hand in the first place, selling on might cost you nothing at all.

My 40D outfit was basically EF-S 10-22, EF-S 17-55 2.8, and 70-200L - very good it was too (y)
 
Good post HoppyUK!

With any technology, and perhaps especially photography, it's very easy to get caught up in the perceived greatness of things. We are easily led astray by things such as price and the "L"-mark without actually considering our needs. We immediately believe that by getting the greatest technology, our results will increase in proportion to it.

There's no doubt that the "L" lenses are great, and produce great results. That doesn't necessarily mean they will out perform all else *for your particular need*. As HoppyUK says, camera body has some part in it; but more importantly I think personal style and preference has an equal part in it.

I think that if you don't know if it'll be a step up to a "L" lens from your current set up, you probably don't need to upgrade. If you don't know specifically what you're after there's no point in getting the latest, greatest, and most expensive and then hoping it will suit you.

Anyway, that's a bit more philosophical. On the more technical side; the 24-105L is great for walk-about, one of the best; at least on FF body. Will you gain anything by getting it? Hard to say. Is there anything specifically you're missing from your current lens that the 105 has?

If not, and you're "only dabbling with family shots"; save the money and take the family on a holiday instead, and use the kit you have to take great pictures of them! :)
 
dmcaloney said:
so I was wondering... has anyone on here got example pics from similar standard v L lenses that could be compared?

e.g a 28-135 v 24-105L?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Dave,

I have both these lenses and have just taken an identical shot with each one on a crop body (30D)
You won't be able to make much of a judgement on a <200k file here so PM me your email address and I'll send you the full sized JPG's to look over.

Bob
 
Done. Many thanks Bob.

And once again, thanks to all for the feedback and advice.
 
dmcaloney said:
Done. Many thanks Bob.

And once again, thanks to all for the feedback and advice.
Click to expand...

out of interest it would be good to hear what you thought of the two different images. On a crop camera I can't imagine you having noticed much difference.

I've held a 28-135 in Jessops and although it's not an L it's a lovely solid balanced piece of kit. Focussing was also very quick to lock on. If it wasn't a variable aperture lens (yuck!) I'd buy one.
 
Spot on Kris.

I did identify the 28-135 photo as it was ever so slightly darker and a fraction softer (although a typo in my reply to Bob looked like I didnt.. sorry Bob :)).

It didnt look like anything I couldnt correct in a couple of mins in PS, so for me the quality difference wouldnt justify the outlay.

Like you say, and Bob pointed out, on my crop camera the difference isnt as much as I would have seen on a FF camera, but as I have no intention of going there any times soon, that wasnt a factor for me.

Many thanks to Bob for taking the time to send these. Really good to see photos side by side from different lenses.
 
I used to use a 28-135IS for weddings and was never really impressed with the results.
I sold it and bought a 24-105IS. The image quality is superb, wide open and across the entire range.
 
Lee O'D said:
I used to use a 28-135IS for weddings and was never really impressed with the results.
I sold it and bought a 24-105IS. The image quality is superb, wide open and across the entire range.
Click to expand...

Lee,

I'm assuming that you used it on a FF body for weddings....that's where the difference starts to shine out. The other point to be made is that Dave was interested in general family snapshots so I took the comparison shots at f/8. At f/8 on a crop body then there's very little to choose between the two (based on my copies).

Bob
 
Oh dear Dave, see what you've done, you've started them all off again. I hope I can answer your question in a round about way. I haven't got any L Series lenses and as an amatuer photographer it is unlikely that I will. The reason being is that I dont enlarge my photographs over A3 and generally only have them on the web or as 7 x 5 prints.
I have a very comprehensive range of lenses as you will see in my bag. The 70mm Sigma is as good as any L lens as far as optical quality, sharpness or colour rendition and makes a great portrait lens on a 40D. All the others are very good lenses and i wouldn't want to give any of them up. The 18-200mm IS which was sold as a kit lens with the 50D was condemed as being inadequate, but on the 40D with the lower megapixels it works a treat. I use it all the time as a walkabout lens. I think what i'm trying to say is that you really don't need an L lens to get good pictures with your camera unless you want to enlarge them to a point where the difference will be noticable.

I hope that helps.
 
Cheers Gordon.

Yeah thanks to the advice received and Bob kindly sending me the pics to compare, I have realised that for my usage, the 28-135 and other bits and bobs I have are adequate for my circumstances.

Saves me constantly flitting in and out of the For Sale forum now :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top