L stands for luxury, it's not an indicative of quality as such but that being said…they are generally better.
For example the 16-35L is better than the 18-55mm. Sharpness aside, the 16-35 offers weather sealing, faster aperture, better build quality, faster focusing and nicer bokeh (more aperture blades).
Those are the elements that usually apply to an L – build quality, weather sealing, aperture, focusing and of course, sharpness too.
There are some exceptions. The 17-55/2.8 is considered to be a L standard lens in terms of sharpness, although I don't think it is in the same ballpark in build quality as a 24-70.
The 45 TSE is not an L but it comes with a lens bag and a lens hood which are normally reserved for an L. Also it is all metal construction, there is more metal on it than my 35L, it is also stupidly sharp.
Hi Mark
Short answer - if you can affford L glass then go for it. There are very few downsides apart from the cost and the visibilty of the white teles and zooms. They hold their value very well and treated with care should provide years of use.
An L lens will (speaking very generally here) overall have better AF performance, better contrast (esp in poor light), some are weather sealed, and of course better image quality.
An L lens on a cheap body is a better idea than a cheap lens on a expensive body - all other things being equal.
That's not to say there are no non-L lenses that perform brilliantly - there are, but you need to weigh up your budget and prorities.
HTH
David
Hi Raymond, I might have guessed you would frequent here
My thought is to buy a few 'normal' lenses until I make the move to a FF (if I do) and then buy the more expensive L. Although on the other hand it probably makes more sense to buy the L from the outset as I won't lose anything. Hmmm.
As said really, sharper. Better built, and weather sealed
I'd advise against that, if you can afford to get an L that is, then get an L.
If you buy secondhand, you won't lose any money if at all, might even make money as the price of them go up and down a little.
I made that decision back in 2007, not regretted it once.
I'd advise against that, if you can afford to get an L that is, then get an L.
If you buy secondhand, you won't lose any money if at all, might even make money as the price of them go up and down a little.
I made that decision back in 2007, not regretted it once.
But what about the none L gems?
EF-S 17-55 IS UMS f/2.8, EF-S 10-22, EF 85 f/1.8 to name but three. All of them really shine on crop, hold their value really well and are all easy to sell on with little loss.
Lack of weather sealing is a moot point when the majority of Canon crop bodies don't have any either.
Just to point out though…an L isn't perfect.
Based on what I have
16-35L mk1 - can be sharper at the corners with less distortion at 16mm (I believe this is fixed in mk2)
24-70L mk1 – weight, quite a shock coming from a 18-55 kit lens
24L – erm…this can be considered perfect. It is fast, it is sharp, it is everything you could ask for.
35L – plastic barrel
85L – slow to focus, as it moves the front element but is dead on when it does.
100L/2.8IS Macro – plaster barrel
135L – erm, actually hard to fault this.
The general rule is buy the best glass you can afford. If you can afford L glass now then don't waste your time and money buying anything cheaper. It'd be a false economy if you're going to buy L glass in the future anyway. Just do it, you know you want to.
Also, if you're a big fan of beige, the L lenses are really your only option. I had some bespoke covers made up for my Sigma lenses in beige neoprene- but they couldn't quite get the colour right, and they were missing that quintissential 70s grooviness.
(Warning: may contain traces of sarcasm)
And what a cracking lens it is too!!Started with a 70-200 f4L (Wonderful lens) have now - 16-35 MK2, 24-105L, 70-200L f2.8IS MK2, 100-400L. I am, very, very happy with these & see them as an excellent investment for my photography.
Basing that off the 4 I own once there clipped to my mk3 there weather sealed and are indeed sharper across the board. It's preference I guess. As for filters, I'll be buggered if I'm sticking a 30 quid price of glass over the one that cost me a grand...
Yes, my point was that unless you do it may not be weather sealed. The spec will tell.
Wrong way. Buy a few L lenses if you can afford to and then upgrade your cameraHi Raymond, I might have guessed you would frequent here
My thought is to buy a few 'normal' lenses until I make the move to a FF (if I do) and then buy the more expensive L. Although on the other hand it probably makes more sense to buy the L from the outset as I won't lose anything. Hmmm.
Wrong way. Buy a few L lenses if you can afford to and then upgrade your camera