where's the good quality non L glass gone?

[MatBin]

Canon produced some wonderful lenses for the film cameras (both A and Eos series), some of the EOS ones became their early digital range and were very good but have never been re-vamped. To my mind they dont have a similar range nowdays. They have great L series lenses and rubbish (generally) kit lenses, although the IS series do seem to be bridging the gap, apart from them being EF-S mounts, but very little good quality affordable mid priced FF lenses, which is a great shame. Some of us dont want to tie ourselves into 1.6 cropped bodies by lens purchase, or have both 1.6 and bigger format (either 1.3 or FF) and some of us cant afford/justify L series but want good quality at a reasonable price that doesnt quite need the build quality/durability of the L series.

Where in the range is an affordable long med speed telephoto, say 300 or 400 for less than £1000, where is a decent 200/400 zoom with IS for the same price.

Have we split into 2 camps, snappers and L series owners?

Matt

 

[mipevo6]

Canon produced some wonderful lenses for the film cameras (both A and Eos series), some of the EOS ones became their early digital range and were very good but have never been re-vamped. To my mind they dont have a similar range nowdays. They have great L series lenses and rubbish (generally) kit lenses, although the IS series do seem to be bridging the gap, apart from them being EF-S mounts, but very little good quality affordable mid priced FF lenses, which is a great shame. Some of us dont want to tie ourselves into 1.6 cropped bodies by lens purchase, or have both 1.6 and bigger format (either 1.3 or FF) and some of us cant afford/justify L series but want good quality at a reasonable price that doesnt quite need the build quality/durability of the L series.

Where in the range is an affordable long med speed telephoto, say 300 or 400 for less than £1000, where is a decent 200/400 zoom with IS for the same price.

Have we split into 2 camps, snappers and L series owners?

Matt

17-55 is pretty good
15-85 is slow but nice quality
70-300 isn't 1/2 bad either...

Any others ?

 

[woof woof]

I remember a Canon guy being interviewed and saying the the 10-22mm had "L quality glass."

You shouldn't limit yourself to Canon though as there are some excellent third party lenses that stand comparison with anything Canon makes, L or not, for image quality if not for weather sealing or build.

 

[Canon Bob]

Where in the range is an affordable long med speed telephoto, say 300 or 400 for less than £1000, where is a decent 200/400 zoom with IS for the same price.

Have we split into 2 camps, snappers and L series owners?

Matt

There's been a change over the last 5-10 years because affordable has been redefined. Nowadays, people are prepared to invest far more money in their hobby and a £1000+ lens is nolonger just for the professional or affluent amateur...very ordinary folk commonly throw this amount of cash at a lens (or several times this at a collection of lenses)....just witness how many members here indulge themselves with the top end super-telephotos 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4 and 600/4's and purley for a hobby.
Would Canon actually benefit from making a competitive sub £750 lens when it would hit the L sales ?...I think it would split their market and force up the price of the L's in the process.

Bob

 

[desantnik]

You Canon folks get too hung up on that L letter thing.

Not everything with that letter is stunning and sooper dooper, equally there are some non-L carrying glass thats perfectly good enough too.

Forget looking for one stupid letter, just look at the product quality.

 

[Canon Bob]

You Canon folks get too hung up on that L letter thing.
Not everything with that letter is stunning and sooper dooper, equally there are some non-L carrying glass thats perfectly good enough too.

The whole point is that there aren't any non-L telephoto's in the inventory and only one worthwhile zoom beyond 250mm.

Bob

 

[MatBin]

70-300 Nowhere near the quality of the 70-200 f4 L, agreed a lot cheaper though, bit soft at the long end by all accounts.

Bob, good points but when the latest 70200 2.8 L IS is >£2000 its not really affordable for most. Take your point though that sub £750 might hit L sales.

3rd party - they seem to be a simialr cost albeit slightly faster in some cases.

17-55, 15-85, not long enough.

Years ago you could get decent long(ish) primes for less than a months wages fully understand they were nowhere near as clever as today's super lenses but I cant see where todays youngsters can buy a decent body/long lens combo for a modest amount from Canon. Years ago we had a multitude of manufacturers making affordable good quality gear which meant Canon had to produce consumer stuff that was both affordable (to youngsters/new starters) and high quality.

Matt

 

[mrgubby]

Forget looking for one stupid letter (or name), just look at the product quality.

I adjusted it a bit

I couldn't agree more, I'm sure half the threads in the equipment forum are based on the idea that results are directly proportionate to money spent :bang:

 

[Canon Bob]

.........I'm sure half the threads in the equipment forum are based on the idea that results are directly proportionate to money spent :bang:

For any individual taken in isolation then it's probably true. It doesn't, however, follow that the individual concerned will have better results than a more adept user with inferior (read cheaper) equipment. By far the cheapest "upgrade" is improvement in technique.

Bob

 

[existent]

I think, if you need something longer than 300mm, then you are more likely to be above the average consumer level and consider photography as a serious hobby (at least), so it is not insensible to pay the price for longer lenses (or go 3rd party).

or, as a 3rd option, you can go for those mirror lenses...

I don't know how it is with nikon, but I doubt their long lenses are any cheap either...

 

[mark_farrell]

At least with Canon if it has an L, it'll be very good at worst. What's with the alphabetty spaghetti on those Nikons (or Sigma et al for that matter)? Does anyone know what it means?

Anyway, if we prefer a Nikon lens, we can till bodge it so EOS bodies can use it...

 

[woof woof]

The alphabet suit is explained on the makers web sites.

 

[mark_farrell]

I still don't see the point in lots of letters where one tells you all you need to know...

 

[classcams]

Canon produced some wonderful lenses for the film cameras (both A and Eos series), some of the EOS ones became their early digital range and were very good but have never been re-vamped. To my mind they dont have a similar range nowdays. They have great L series lenses and rubbish (generally) kit lenses, although the IS series do seem to be bridging the gap, apart from them being EF-S mounts, but very little good quality affordable mid priced FF lenses, which is a great shame. Some of us dont want to tie ourselves into 1.6 cropped bodies by lens purchase, or have both 1.6 and bigger format (either 1.3 or FF) and some of us cant afford/justify L series but want good quality at a reasonable price that doesnt quite need the build quality/durability of the L series.

Where in the range is an affordable long med speed telephoto, say 300 or 400 for less than £1000, where is a decent 200/400 zoom with IS for the same price.

Have we split into 2 camps, snappers and L series owners?

Matt

You are living in cloud cuckoo land saying that "A" lens were wonderfful lens. I go back a long way testing lens from breech lock through A series lens. I can tell you now that most breech lock lens bettered the A series. The 50mm F1.4 BL bettered the A series 50mm F1.4.

 

[petersmart]

Canon produced some wonderful lenses for the film cameras (both A and Eos series),

The one thing you are forgetting is that 35mm film is THE FF format.

Which meant that you could get away with less perfect lenses; plus a lot of us used to shoot 2 1/4 sq which is a medium format these days.

And a great many people were, and still are, quite happy to get their prints in 6x4 format which did not need great quality lenses to prtoduce acceptable prints.

And with film we certainly didn't "pixel peep" or enlarge our pics to anything like the degree we do these days - if you had to produce large prints 2 1/4 sq was the order of the day, and for commercial studios 6x4 or even "half plate" which was 8x5 (or 6 1/2 x 8 1/2 - I can't quite remember)

I doubt very much if the lenses of those days would stand up against a good DSLR lens today.

 

[petersmart]

Oh and of course the cheapest lens Canon make - the "Nifty Fifty" - is extremely sharp - at least as good as L glass for sharpness.

 

[Wilko58]

The EF 85mm f1.8 is not that far short of the quality of the EF 85mm f1.3 costing over £1000 more. Ditto with the EF 50mm f1.2 vs the EF 50mm f1.4. And the EF 100mm Macro is also supposed to be very good.

 

[Marac]

I found the Sigma 70-300 APO to be of excellent quality, I then became infected with L flu but now I am better and choose a lens that does the job well regardless of make.

85mm f1.8
100mmf2.0

both good lenses

 

[petersmart]

This was taken with the "Nifty Fifty":

​

I use it most of the time for kids because trying to fiddle with a zoom lens means you can lose a lot of great pictures.

The fixed focus means you can concentrate on your subject not your equipment.

 

[RBHD1]

This was taken with the "Nifty Fifty":

​

I use it most of the time for kids because trying to fiddle with a zoom lens means you can lose a lot of great pictures.

The fixed focus means you can concentrate on your subject not your equipment.

Do you mean the fixed focal length allows you to concentrate on your subject,not focus as this is adjustable

 

[andrewc]

With film a huge proportion of people never enlarged or cropped their photos, they got them at 6x4 or 7x5 from Snappy Snaps or Boots.

Now people are complaining about lens qualities when viewing at 100% crop on their monitor and can see all the flaws.

 

[Hodders]

Years ago you could get decent long(ish) primes for less than a months wages fully understand they were nowhere near as clever as today's super lenses but I cant see where todays youngsters can buy a decent body/long lens combo for a modest amount from Canon. Years ago we had a multitude of manufacturers making affordable good quality gear which meant Canon had to produce consumer stuff that was both affordable (to youngsters/new starters) and high quality.

Matt

Ok the average salary is £26,200 (and that includes part time rates). This equates to about £1400 take home.

For £1200 you can buy:

EOS 1000D
Canon 50mm f1.8
Canon 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM
Canon 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM

Which is less than a months salary and far far better kit than I started off with - plus no developing costs. I would say that equipment has got far better and far cheaper than it was !

I think that as a 'digital camera' is now on every mobile phone, people are surprised at what 'good kit' costs. It is just that technology has made low level performance dirt cheap to the point of being disposable.

 

[petersmart]

Do you mean the fixed focal length allows you to concentrate on your subject,not focus as this is adjustable

Precisely

 

[MatBin]

You are living in cloud cuckoo land saying that "A" lens were wonderfful lens. I go back a long way testing lens from breech lock through A series lens. I can tell you now that most breech lock lens bettered the A series. The 50mm F1.4 BL bettered the A series 50mm F1.4.

Clarification of my original post, A series cameras i.e. AE1 etc, for which they had breech lock lenses, which were very good.

Matt

 

[MatBin]

50 1.8 cheap very good
85 1.8 not so cheap but still very good.

What I want to know is where is a 300 or 400 prime that isnt goint to cost a fortune, not an L series but a prosumer (Horrible word) to go with a prosumer body, where are they in Canon's line up?

Mirror lens - oh pleeeease lets get real.

Matt

 

[Hodders]

I must admit the 50mm f1.8 is a must have or anybody except people just oozing money/L glass.

 

[MatBin]

The whole point is that there aren't any non-L telephoto's in the inventory and only one worthwhile zoom beyond 250mm.

Bob

Head and nail.

Matt

 

[petersmart]

50 1.8 cheap very good
85 1.8 not so cheap but still very good.

What I want to know is where is a 300 or 400 prime that isnt goint to cost a fortune, not an L series but a prosumer (Horrible word) to go with a prosumer body, where are they in Canon's line up?

Mirror lens - oh pleeeease lets get real.
Matt

You've just answered your own question - you decry a cheap mirror lens because of the quality but you want good quality prime lenses cheaply.

The trouble is such lenses are only likely to be wanted by advanced amateurs or pros both of whom want quality and are prepared to pay for it along with IS and USM.

For instance I have a 75-300mm zoom lens which everyone decries as poor quality and yet gives very acceptable pictures up to 200mm and then gets a bit soft.

I replaced it with the 70-300mm IS USM because I wanted better quality and the IS, but the pictures the 75-300mm produced would be perfectly acceptable to the non photo enthusiast.

And therin lies the crux of the argument you put forward - the non photo enthusiast simply isn't going to buy a DSLR and extra lenses when they can now buy a small, easy to carry camera, with built in optical zoom which gives them all they want for under £100.

It's only the rest of use - the enthusiasts - who want more - and we want quality.

And that costs money.

 

[mid_gen]

I would like a nice 300-400mm prime around the £500 mark. Will end up paying twice as much for L glass ultimately.....maybe Canon know this?

 

[petersmart]

I would like a nice 300-400mm prime around the £500 mark. Will end up paying twice as much for L glass ultimately.....maybe Canon know this?

And they also know that the same situation would arise as the 75-300mm and 70-300mm lenses.

If they produced a cheaper prime lens the people who would be interested in buying such a lens - the enthusiasts - would soon complain that the quality wasn't up to L glass standards and they would rather save up for the L glass lenses.

 

[MatBin]

And they also know that the same situation would arise as the 75-300mm and 70-300mm lenses.

If they produced a cheaper prime lens the people who would be interested in buying such a lens - the enthusiasts - would soon complain that the quality wasn't up to L glass standards and they would rather save up for the L glass lenses.

Sorry but I dont agree, I have 50 1.8, 85 1.8 and 100 macro 2.8, the last two were quite expensive both give absolutely superb results and arent L glass, many I would suggest would be happy with that 'compromise'. The build may not be quite L class but more than good enough for serious amateurs. I'm sure if Canon produced the same quality in a longish prime the sales of those lenses would be very profitable, although as you say it would probably hit L sales. Still, the pros can afford it

Actually having just pixel peeped a 100mm photo I reckon a cropped 200m just might do the trick.

Matt

 

[alexhcowley]

For £1200 you can buy:

EOS 1000D
Canon 50mm f1.8
Canon 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM
Canon 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM

For £1200 you can also buy a Chelsea Footballl Club season ticket for ONE year with enough left over for a few hot dogs. When you consider what some people are prepared to waste £1000+ on, spending this sum of money on a camera lens is one of the sanest, most rational things you could possibly do.

 

[RBHD1]

For £1200 you can also buy a Chelsea Footballl Club season ticket for ONE year with enough left over for a few hot dogs. When you consider what some people are prepared to waste £1000+ on, spending this sum of money on a camera lens is one of the sanest, most rational things you could possibly do.

Your right I guess as the re-sale value of lenses is great,not like electronic technology which falls like a stone after a year or so!

 

[Werecow]

I got my 100-400 L for 800 something pounds and the 400 f5.6 L prime was even cheaper at the time. Then the pound collapsed against the Yen....

Canon produced some wonderful lenses for the film cameras (both A and Eos series), some of the EOS ones became their early digital range and were very good but have never been re-vamped. To my mind they dont have a similar range nowdays. They have great L series lenses and rubbish (generally) kit lenses, although the IS series do seem to be bridging the gap, apart from them being EF-S mounts, but very little good quality affordable mid priced FF lenses, which is a great shame. Some of us dont want to tie ourselves into 1.6 cropped bodies by lens purchase, or have both 1.6 and bigger format (either 1.3 or FF) and some of us cant afford/justify L series but want good quality at a reasonable price that doesnt quite need the build quality/durability of the L series.

Where in the range is an affordable long med speed telephoto, say 300 or 400 for less than £1000, where is a decent 200/400 zoom with IS for the same price.

Have we split into 2 camps, snappers and L series owners?

Matt

 

[Les McLean]

To progress Hodders post a bit further.

I remember buying (in the early 70's) a Nikon FE camera (with 50mm lens) for £220 and a 85mm F2 lens for £120, at that time my salary was around £30 per week, which was roughly an average salary.

From Hodders post, todays average salary of £26000 per year equates to roughly £500 per week so wages have risen by around a factor of 16, if camera/lens prices had kept pace, a mid range DSLR would currently be £3250 and a mid range lens at £1920...which is into pro-body/L lens territory.


So, we do have good quality reasonably priced FF lenses for Canons-they are L lenses , and are in fact cheaper in real terms than some of the good mid range lenses that canon produced in the past.

 

[Andy]

I can think of a fair few on the spot.

Canon 50mm f1.8 / 1.4
Tamron 17-50mm f2.8
Sigma 18-50mm f2.8