Putting an L Lens to the test

R

rabaroo

Messages
324
Edit My Images
Yes
I've got an L Lens on hire from next week onwards, and want to take the opportunity to really find out what L Glass is all about and compare it to my current (kit + other) lenses.... that way when I get the money I can justify the 4 figure price tags usuallly associated with the Red Ring.....

So - my plan was to mount the camera on my tripod and take a few test shots outside using my lens and the L lens..... and I expected to download the pics onto the computer, review them and zoom to 100%, and I hope and Expect the L to be crystal clear and show the inferiorty of my own lenses......

However I dont really know what L is and what makes it soooo great and sooo desirable, so I figured in doing this I may not actually be demonstrating to myself the things that really matter.... I do plan to use the L lens over the time ive got it on loan, but I figured doing identical shots with my other lenses and reviewing would give me some answers.... and I dont want to be doing that ALL week!

So - what does L give me - what should I be looking for, and how do I test and review them?
 
Its isnt just sharpness, its speed and accuracy of focusing, contrast, build quality and weatherproofing.

I wouldnt bother with all those tests unless you havent transport to get out somewhere. If you do have transport then why not just use them in the field.

p.s which lens are you getting?
 
Blue Eagle said:
Its isnt just sharpness, its speed and accuracy of focusing, contrast, build quality and weatherproofing.

I wouldnt bother with all those tests unless you havent transport to get out somewhere. If you do have transport then why not just use them in the field.

p.s which lens are you getting?
Click to expand...


OK my interpretation of what you've said is as follows (Happy to be shot down on any of this):

1. I am a very careful person and I take extremely good care of everything I own (down to clothing and shoes)..... I dont shot in the rain so the build quality and weather proofing isnt worth 2 or 3x what the equivalent non "L" lens would cost me

2. Speed is good, but 95% of all pics I take will be outdoors where I'd hope for sufficient natural light for me not to need to shoot at very wide apertures... besides which thus far in my learning I've really struggled with DoF and distances from focal points, and the effect that has on pictures - I need to do more in that space.

3. Improved contrast - is this "better" than what I could do after the event in Photoshop/Lightroom

4. Accuracy of focussing - I dont know enough about the capabilities of my current lenses to know if an L will be significantly superior, and what the effect of this may be


.... I'm getting the 16-35 2.8L (mk 2) on loan, I'll be taking it up to the Lake District and then across to Berwick where we're spending a few days - so I hope to use it plenty while I'm out and about, but I also want some baseline/reference shots to compare my lenses against the L glass.....

I am told, and constantly read about how awesome L lenses are - I want to be able to understand how to judge this and evaluate against not L glass so that when the time comes I can be assured that the increase in quality is worth the extra investment....
 
oooo 16-35 :D im up to get one for a week from Stewart in 2 weeks time :) im looking forward to see some pics made with this lens :D
 
bastic said:
oooo 16-35 :D im up to get one for a week from Stewart in 2 weeks time :) im looking forward to see some pics made with this lens :D
Click to expand...

OOO you may be getting the one that I will be returning.... if I can bear to part with it that is!

I am eagerly awaiting receipt of it (mid next week) to find out what all this L stuff is about!.... My wife for one would be very happy if L glass isnt (For my needs) what I am expecting it to be (Crystal clear shots!).... then the risk of spending all our money on it will subside :) :cautious:
 
thing about the L stuff is you don't notice it, it just works really well. There are good non-L's as well - 85mm f1.8 for example.
 
basically they give better results in worse conditions, depends if that is worth the price tag to you, it is to me as I couldn't live without my 80-200 f2.8L but we shoot different things, I use f2.8 alot, I love having the flexibility to shoot ambient in dark environments
 
david1701 said:
basically they give better results in worse conditions, depends if that is worth the price tag to you, it is to me as I couldn't live without my 80-200 f2.8L but we shoot different things, I use f2.8 alot, I love having the flexibility to shoot ambient in dark environments
Click to expand...

I've got it into my head that my 18-55 kit lens is inferior.... a link to a picture is attached, i have other lenses such as the 28-105 which I actually think is a reasonable lens, then i have the 55-250 lens...... in any case having now got into photography in the past year and looking at photos in more detail; i notice the same thing.

Pic here
http://rapidshare.com/files/225170798/IMG_5758.jpg.html
OK so it may be slightly over processed - I think I may have gone OTT with upping the blues - but zoom into 100% on the trees in the background.... I consider that to be very soft/blurred.... my 55-250 does it too!.....
Now when you view it on full screen of my laptop, it looks nice, only when you zoom to 100% does this matter - but there again the advantage of my 12MP camera is the ability to crop - but cropping into a soft/blurred zone doesnt get me what I am after.


I am hoping/expecting a SIGNIFICANTLY sharper image across the board from an L lens... whether this is to be expected I dont know - thats what I aim to find out by renting before buying!!!

BTW - I am rubbish at PP sharpening RAW files - I just dont know how to do it and what effect I am going for - to that end I've started to consider shooting RAW+JPEG to compare the two images and learn about how I should be sharpening
 
The Amateur Photographer magazine I picked up yesterday has a Kit lens Vs Pro lens feature. They compare a 18-55mm 'Kit lens' and a 24-70mm f/2.8.
 
'L' is good, very good, but that doesnt mean you cant get equivalently good lenses that arnt 'L'.

Dont get me wrong, there is nothing in the non 'L' range that comes anywhere close to my 70-200 f2.8 IS 'L' (although the f4 is arguably sharper and lighter). I'm not going to be selling it.

However the 17-55 EFS f2.8 IS that I have is as sharp if not sharper than many of the equivalent 'L' lenses. It doesnt have the same build quality and "probably" lacks some of the colour definition that it's more expensive kindred have.

The real issue is doing your research before you splash the cash, then you wont be dissapointed.
 
rabaroo said:
hmmmm - the margins there arent huge.... and how many times would i do a 100% crop of a tree is the question I guess!
Click to expand...

difference is big....its not about cropping trees but image quality and its big as you can see :) imagine shooting a bird high on a tree..which lens would give you better picture:)
 
rabaroo said:
what magazine is this? - it sounds like it may be an article i am interested in reading
Click to expand...

'Amateur Photography'
Picked it up in Tesco. £2.30 and has a big photo of the Nikon D5000 on the cover.
 
oldgit said:
'L' is good, very good, but that doesnt mean you cant get equivalently good lenses that arnt 'L'.

Dont get me wrong, there is nothing in the non 'L' range that comes anywhere close to my 70-200 f2.8 IS 'L' (although the f4 is arguably sharper and lighter). I'm not going to be selling it.

However the 17-55 EFS f2.8 IS that I have is as sharp if not sharper than many of the equivalent 'L' lenses. It doesnt have the same build quality and "probably" lacks some of the colour definition that it's more expensive kindred have.

The real issue is doing your research before you splash the cash, then you wont be dissapointed.
Click to expand...

I would have expected colour definition to be handled by the camera rather than the lens .... so that bit is new to me!

Re: your last paragraph.... wise words; however with so many options (just from canon alone, let alone 3rd party lenses) and lots of technical words that I dont really understand its pretty hard to make that judgement.

A week or two ago, the world was simple.... to get the best tools I needed L glass, and theres plenty of them to choose from... do I pay extra for f2.8 or go for cheaper f4???? - the added benefit that L would be compatible if I was to ever go FF - so really lenses for life.....

now theres also top notch lenses that arent L that add to the mix, and it just makes it even more confusing.... dont get me wrong I'm happier with 3 digit values rather than 4 if i come to replace my lens, but the key thing is to understand the implication of my decisions I guess, and if I did buy an f4 lens, then the one time i could really do with the extra speed I'd be really angry with myself

ooooo decisions - I guess the point in me renting this L lens is that reading paper reviews is all fine, but they all blend and become much of a muchness.... these articles dont really have relevence to what I need it for and what I shoot...... but having read the comments made with interest, i am starting to lower my expectations and wonder whether L is going to solve the problems I feel I have..... maybe I jumped to an answer sooner than asking the question.....

and the question is: Based on the link above, what is wrong with the trees in the background - are they soft/unsharpened or outside the depth of field for the given aperture- can they be rectified in or out of camera - would other lenses render them significantly better, and if so how do they do it?
 
rabaroo said:
what magazine is this? - it sounds like it may be an article i am interested in reading
Click to expand...

The magazine is actually called Amateur Photographer - and as the adverts say it's available from all good newsagents!

It's a weekly thing so you'll need to buy it fairly sharpish!
 
Is your kit lens the IS version? They are damn good! If you want to see how good, set it around 25mm and f/8 with a decently high shutter speed, and take one picture with the kit, and another idential frame with the 16-35 L. In fact, take a several pairs of idential shots, make large identical prints, and ask a few friends to say which ones are best. (You had better mark the back of each print, lest you forget which ones are actually taken with the L ;) )

L lenses are great, and are well worth the money if you need their unique characteristics, which are mostly non-optical. But in a side-by-side like-for-like comparison in regular picture-taking situations, you will not see much difference in your photos.

Being honest about it, the main thing about it is gadget lust. They don't call them L for Lust for nothing :) I don't think there's anything wrong with that at all - owning and using quality gear is all part of the pleasure and satisfaction. Go for it!

Then again you might like to compare the 16-35 L with the EF-S 17-55. On a crop, you get a much better range, and IS. In terms of shapness, they are identical. But it doesn't have a red ring ;)
 
rabaroo said:
I would have expected colour definition to be handled by the camera rather than the lens .... so that bit is new to me!
Click to expand...

Sadly no.
Consider the abstract example of having a lens made with blue glass. You woudnt expect to see any red or green on the sensor/image as the glass only permits blue light.

With L lenses special efforts are made to try and ensure the light that hits the sensor is the same as what enters the lens ("try" being operative). Other, dare I say cheaper, lenses compromise on the optics not only in sharpness, but also in colour definition.

rabaroo said:
Re: your last paragraph.... wise words; however with so many options (just from canon alone, let alone 3rd party lenses) and lots of technical words that I dont really understand its pretty hard to make that judgement.
Click to expand...

Read, ask questions and learn young grasshoppper.

Also get your butt down to your local camera shop and have a play (or scrounge a borrow of your mates).


rabaroo said:
A week or two ago, the world was simple.... to get the best tools I needed L glass, and theres plenty of them to choose from... do I pay extra for f2.8 or go for cheaper f4???? - the added benefit that L would be compatible if I was to ever go FF - so really lenses for life.....
Click to expand...

The f4/f2.8 debate rages ever onwards. It comes down, in the 70-200 category to light weight and requirement for shooting in dim light. You cant have both. Sharpness differences are there, but... I dont care. I like the f2.8 for what it delivers.

rabaroo said:
now theres also top notch lenses that arent L that add to the mix, and it just makes it even more confusing.... dont get me wrong I'm happier with 3 digit values rather than 4 if i come to replace my lens, but the key thing is to understand the implication of my decisions I guess, and if I did buy an f4 lens, then the one time i could really do with the extra speed I'd be really angry with myself
Click to expand...

Thats a different question you are posing. f2.8 or f4 is nothing to do with optical quality.
Its not even true to say that f2.8 lenses are sharper/better.

"the key thing is to understand the implication of my decisions" BING! or it gets mucho
expensive.

Many moons ago I bought the 75-300 USM IS, and should have waited and bought the 70-300 USM IS. The former is pants and about as sharp as a teddybears bum.
Sold that bought the 70-200 instead. I then bought the 17-85 EFS, which I still have but never use as the 17-55 f2.8 knocks the spots off it.
Expensive mistakes Live and learn.


rabaroo said:
ooooo decisions - I guess the point in me renting this L lens is that reading paper reviews is all fine, but they all blend and become much of a muchness.... these articles dont really have relevence to what I need it for and what I shoot...... but having read the comments made with interest, i am starting to lower my expectations and wonder whether L is going to solve the problems I feel I have..... maybe I jumped to an answer sooner than asking the question.....
Click to expand...

Yep you have to try before you buy.

rabaroo said:
and the question is: Based on the link above, what is wrong with the trees in the background - are they soft/unsharpened or outside the depth of field for the given aperture- can they be rectified in or out of camera - would other lenses render them significantly better, and if so how do they do it?
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

The DPReview shows as is from the camera.
The phrase "you cant polish a turd" is 100% applicable. If you dont capture it in the shot you cant fiddle with it in Photoshop. If it's blurred, full of chromatic abberations, distorted, thats the way it is. You can fiddle, but, to use another phrase "you'll never make a silk purse out of a pigs ear"

The glass, not the camra, nor the post processing (excepting the monkey operating the camera) defines what you get in the image.
 
HoppyUK said:
Is your kit lens the IS version? They are damn good! If you want to see how good, set it around 25mm and f/8 with a decently high shutter speed, and take one picture with the kit, and another idential frame with the 16-35 L. In fact, take a several pairs of idential shots, make large identical prints, and ask a few friends to say which ones are best. (You had better mark the back of each print, lest you forget which ones are actually taken with the L ;) )

L lenses are great, and are well worth the money if you need their unique characteristics, which are mostly non-optical. But in a side-by-side like-for-like comparison in regular picture-taking situations, you will not see much difference in your photos.

Being honest about it, the main thing about it is gadget lust. They don't call them L for Lust for nothing :) I don't think there's anything wrong with that at all - owning and using quality gear is all part of the pleasure and satisfaction. Go for it!

Then again you might like to compare the 16-35 L with the EF-S 17-55. On a crop, you get a much better range, and IS. In terms of shapness, they are identical. But it doesn't have a red ring ;)
Click to expand...

Hi - yes it is - its the 18-55 f3.5-f5.6 IS (I think!) that came with a 450D last September...... Thanks for the advice, I will definately do the test that you mention next week when I get hold of the 16-35....

I do lust after all the nice gear.... but I dont want to given the costs!!!! - I think I just need to do a gap review of where my stuff is against the notional holy grail of L lenses for the things that matter to me - i.e. how does the photo look on the computer from both, set to the same dimensions (aperture, iso, shutterspeed, focus etc) - then the monkey operating the camera and his inability to frame a good composition becomes less important!!!

This discussion has been really interesting for me - maybe i dont need to forward plan my next £x000 on L lenses, but I still need to understand how to evaluate my own pictures and my equipment - to make sure i am using it to the best of its abilities

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm - more to ponder on :thinking:
 
OldGit - you seem very wise!

So I presume that I need to start by deciding what i take pictures of (Generally), and what equipment I need to accomodate that - in terms of focal length + speed, and then review what equipment I currently have...... from there I guess some of my equipment may be up for replacement, and then I need to compare the various options in that particular category - rather than focussing on whats available in "L"

sound sensible???? - it certainly does to me now
 
rabaroo said:
OldGit - you seem very wise!

So I presume that I need to start by deciding what i take pictures of (Generally), and what equipment I need to accomodate that - in terms of focal length + speed, and then review what equipment I currently have...... from there I guess some of my equipment may be up for replacement, and then I need to compare the various options in that particular category - rather than focussing on whats available in "L"

sound sensible???? - it certainly does to me now
Click to expand...

Wise... hmmm. If that means been at it a long time and learned lots the hard way then I qualify.

I'd say that hits the nail on the head. That and live within your means.
No point in buying a 600mm f4 (£7k+) lens if you shoot macro shots of bugs or sweeping panoramas and are on the dole.

I've gradually upgraded my kit to the point where I'd like more but cant justify the expense to do so. So I've stopped (for now).
 
If you compare an L lens to any other lens at optimal apertures ie. F8 then you won't notice hardly any difference regarding IQ. Top of the range lenses will be sharper wide open and you do get improved colour saturation & contrast which is the very important bit that you will notice.

Generally own brand lenses focus much more accurately than third party offerings which again is what you will notice. Therefore in real time situations you will get more keepers with a quality lens.

Also, lenses vary widely in sharpness and one copy can be very different from another. In my experience third party lenses are quite hit or miss but high end own brand are much more consistant though slight irregularities can happen.

Pixel peeping is an amateurs pastime try to get out there and find out your current kits failings and work with it. Have a look at Ken Rockwells site, always speaks alot of sense and tells it as it is ;)
 
Livin The Dream said:
If you compare an L lens to any other lens at optimal apertures ie. F8 then you won't notice hardly any difference regarding IQ. Top of the range lenses will be sharper wide open and you do get improved colour saturation & contrast which is the very important bit that you will notice.

Generally own brand lenses focus much more accurately than third party offerings which again is what you will notice. Therefore in real time situations you will get more keepers with a quality lens.

Also, lenses vary widely in sharpness and one copy can be very different from another. In my experience third party lenses are quite hit or miss but high end own brand are much more consistant though slight irregularities can happen.

Pixel peeping is an amateurs pastime try to get out there and find out your current kits failings and work with it. Have a look at Ken Rockwells site, always speaks alot of sense and tells it as it is ;)
Click to expand...

I think it is irresponsible to make unsubstantiated generalisations such as "own brand lenses focus much more accurately than third party offerings" and "lenses vary widely in sharpness and one copy can be very different from another." It encourages people to pixel peep and look for problems that do not exist.

I believe both these accusations are almost always false. They can happen, and to both own brand and third party lenses, but it is very rare. Most lens 'problems' are the result of inappropriate and poorly conducted testing.

Over the last two or three years, I have bought more than a dozen lenses, made by both Canon and Sigma. In the buying process, I have tested many others and numerous duplicate samples side by side to ensure I didn't get a bad copy. More than 30 different lenses in all. I have never found a bad copy.

If you have evidence to the contrary, please post it.

And welcome to TP :)
 
Ok maybe that was a generalisation as i do agree that people spend far too much time looking for problems with their lenses instead of getting the best out of what they have.

I had a third party lens where there was a definate problem and since upgrading the Canon version is superior in every way although in most tests they usually rate fairly equally. Just my opinion based on my experience :)
 
peppyuk said:
The Amateur Photographer magazine I picked up yesterday has a Kit lens Vs Pro lens feature. They compare a 18-55mm 'Kit lens' and a 24-70mm f/2.8.
Click to expand...

I bought this magazine yesterday (Not only for this feature; there was something else I wanted to read in it too).... I have to say the "feature" on kit vs pro lens wasnt the best.... the conclusion was a "total cop out" IMO...... you dont need to write 4 pages of text to come up with a conclusion that they did which basically said "horses for courses, both suit different needs and users"
 
I'm afraid it's is a bit of horses for courses.

As a test I just compared my 24-105L with an aging version of the 28-105 lens that I had for my old canon EOS 50E.

Both shot on the same camera. The difference was that the L lens had more edge contrast than the other lens. Plus the L lens showed about 25 points ( in Lightroom) more saturation.Shots at f8 showed sharpness to be similar, but better on the L. Where you see the difference is edge sharpness on full frame. The L was much better.

However there is a significant price difference. The 24-105L is now nearly £950. The 28-105 i don't think is available anymore, but was in the region of £220. OK the L lens has IS and has an excellent build quality, but the 28-105 isn't too shabby either.

Considering the price difference the older lens does make a lot of sense unless you want the ultimate and have a camera system that can deliver it
 
Hey Chaps

I want to re-open this debate now - I've had the lens on hire and I took a limited set of test/comparison shots .... I've just now looked at the results and surprised myself, so I wanted to check I had got it right by bouncing it off you guys.....

here are the images, all taken from the same spot within a couple of minutes, with fixed aperture of f16.... not sure how scientific these tests are, but hey!

Original Shot - L Lens @ 16mm
13-35L16mm.jpg

Original Shot - Kit Lens @ 18mm
18-5518mm.jpg


Original Shot - L Lens @ 24mm
13-35L24mm.jpg


Original Shot - Kit Lens @ 24mm
18-5524mm.jpg



Centre Crop - L Lens @ 16mm
CentreCrop-13-35L16mm.jpg

Centre Crop - Kit Lens @ 18mm
CentreCrop-18-5518mm.jpg

Centre Crop - L Lens @ 24mm
CentreCrop-13-35L24mm.jpg

Centre Crop - Kit Lens @ 24mm
CentreCrop-18-5524mm.jpg


My Conclusions are that in the Centre Crops the Kit Lens looks as good as the L Lens, and to me looks sharper in both centre crop examples (these are the native RAW files from the same camera, no processing at all performed)... I realise that at f16 shots only this is a limited test - I should really have tested at more apertures and been more scientific, but given these results - if my interpretation is correct I'd expect similar results between the "sweet spot" range of f8 upwards??? - if this is not the case it would mean (According to my interpretation of the results) that the L lens dropped off dramatically at some point so that at f16 the kit lens (to me) looks better?

Anyway as i said I am not sure of the value of this test - however the conclusion ive arrived at is on the basis of this very limited comparison, I cant see a call (Yet) to justify £1200 on this particular L lens compared to the kit lens?

Thoughts welcome :)
 
Sorry to say that shooting at f/16 makes the test completely void :( At this aperture and a wide focal length, diffraction is the limiting factor and even Canon L lenses can do nothing about that.

At f/5.6-f/8 both lenses will probably be around optimum, and again it will be hard to separate them. If you want to see what L lenses are about, after you've taken in the great build quality and feel of the controls, then you need to look at the edges and corners at wide apertures. This is where L lenses score, but then if you don't scrutinise the corners or shoot at low f/numbers, then you will not see much optical benefit from very expensive lenses.

Basically in optical terms, the benefit of L lenses is their low f/number capability. That is generally what you're paying extra for (apart from the build etc).
 
KayJay said:
word.
Click to expand...


True but it's the irony of that post amongst some of the essays that makes it no.1 contender for post of the year. :LOL:
 
HoppyUK said:
Sorry to say that shooting at f/16 makes the test completely void :( At this aperture and a wide focal length, diffraction is the limiting factor and even Canon L lenses can do nothing about that.

At f/5.6-f/8 both lenses will probably be around optimum, and again it will be hard to separate them. If you want to see what L lenses are about, after you've taken in the great build quality and feel of the controls, then you need to look at the edges and corners at wide apertures. This is where L lenses score, but then if you don't scrutinise the corners or shoot at low f/numbers, then you will not see much optical benefit from very expensive lenses.

Basically in optical terms, the benefit of L lenses is their low f/number capability. That is generally what you're paying extra for (apart from the build etc).
Click to expand...

Ho Hum about the test..... I still prefer my kit lens images though ;-)

I have to admit the build and feel of the L lens is lovely, but in terms of what you've described from the optical benefits - I dont really think they apply to me and arent factors that carry much weight.....

Although my camera looked and felt much different with a quality lens attached :-(

still pondering then
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top