Reading mode: Light Dark

Difference between L glass and plain ole glass

Go to last post
Nah, I will keep her. I do need to get something that will replace the kit lens because I sold my 28-105 and tamron 70-300 to help offset the cost of the 70-200. I am thinking of saving up for the 17-40 l
 
I didn't believe that a lens could make that much difference either. That is kind of the reason I posted these. I guess money should be spent on lenses instead of upgrading cameras.
 
the Tamron 70-300 is the worse lens you can buy I think..surely the L lens will be quite an improvement. :)
Bram Stoker said:
Hey guys,

Just got my canon 70-200 F4 L today. I previously owned a tamron
70-300. The difference so far is amazing. Here are a couple of pics
to show what I am talking about. The only thing I have done to all
of the pics was to crop the image down.

Tamron pics - on a tripod





Canon L pics - handheld





Click to expand...
--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen
 
Only time I use one is at a windy beach or where sand is blowing. The cheap ones may lower the image IQ. If you really want to use one all the time get the best, it is false economy to get a cheap one.
Bram Stoker said:
Something cheap, yet decent in quality.
Click to expand...
--

 
Glad you like the new lens - I'm sure it IS a big improvement over the Tamron but the examples you've posted might be a little misleading. The 'L' shots were taken in bright sunlight (as you can see from the shadows) whilst the Tamron shots were taken in more overcast light (no well-defined shadows). This could well account for a lot of the difference in saturation and even the focussing performance.

As I said, I'm sure the lens is a lot better but these are perhaps not the best photos to show the comparison.

By the way, how do you find the weight of the lens on the camera?

Thanks for sharing.
 
That is true. However, the results with the tamron were always very comparable to the shots I posted regardless of the light, settings, etc. The images were always very soft.

The lens weighs a lot more than the tamron, but it isn't too heavy at all.
 
Makes sense. The main reason I use a UV filter is to keep from scratching my lens. What would be a good filter, or a good method for protecting the glass?
 
There's nothing wrong with the 70-300IS. From the reviews I have seen (and I've dug up a LOT on these two lenses; I'm in the market), its optics are AS GOOD as the 70-200/4. The difference is, the 70--200/4 has a ring USM focus motor, internal focus/zoom, and higher build quality, and the 70-300 has more range and IS. Unfortunately fstopjojo's pbase account seems to be gone at the moment, so I can't link you to the best test showing just how good the 70-300IS is.

There's nothing magical about L lenses. It is COMPLETELY a marketing term.

--
Equipment in profile
 
I would disagree about the "there is nothing magical about the L lens" argument. While the conditions are different on the tamron shots, the comparison is accurate because most shots produced with the lens were the same quality. As you can see, the L lens is sharp and crips, and that is without any PP. I would say the Canon IS lens you are talking is good as well. However, I think most would argree that any of canon's L line are the top of the line in quality. Plus, the F4 is only $500 right now from amazon with rebates. Oh, another thing is that I am not skilled at all in photography. I am still in the learning process.
 
Well the ring USM v/s micro USM is a pretty big deal for most of us ....

with ring USM (the one in the L lens) you can do full-time manual focus (unlike the 70-300IS)

Also the front end of the 70-300 lens rotates as you focus - that is a big nuisance when you want to use a filter (esp like a Polarizer or Grad ND filter).

Oh and I've also heard that 70-300 has a bit of zoom creep - never owned one - so I can't tell for sure.

If you can live with that, then yeah, these lenses are comparable PQ wise.
ChrisKrueger said:
There's nothing wrong with the 70-300IS. From the reviews I have
seen (and I've dug up a LOT on these two lenses; I'm in the
market), its optics are AS GOOD as the 70-200/4. The difference
is, the 70--200/4 has a ring USM focus motor, internal focus/zoom,
and higher build quality, and the 70-300 has more range and IS.
Unfortunately fstopjojo's pbase account seems to be gone at the
moment, so I can't link you to the best test showing just how good
the 70-300IS is.

There's nothing magical about L lenses. It is COMPLETELY a
marketing term.

--
Equipment in profile
Click to expand...
 
ChrisKrueger said:
There's nothing magical about L lenses. It is COMPLETELY a
marketing term.

--
Equipment in profile
Click to expand...
More goes into the development of L lenses than the regular "consumer" grade lenses. Not only are there build differences (materials used such as glass and ) but I assume that in most cases there is more time and money is spent on development of the lenses. If you look at comparisons of L lenses with their equivalent Canon and 3rd party lenses, the L's consistently have better IQ. Of course there are exceptions such as the new Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX which is comparable to the 70-200 2.8L. And, you are paying extra for the Canon name on the lens.

You are paying a premium for a better overall lens.

This may be changing with the new EF-s lenses but their quality seems to be very inconsistent. The IQ of EF-s such as the 70-300 and the 10-22 are up to L standards but other lenses such as the 17-85 and the 18-55 seem to fall short.
 
Wow, obviously no one told professional photographers that there is no difference between consumer lenses and L lenses. Those poor suckers, wasting thousands of dollars for nothing. Since you don't appear to even own one, perhaps you could enlighten me as to how you came to that conclusion?
ChrisKrueger said:
There's nothing magical about L lenses. It is COMPLETELY a
marketing term.

--
Equipment in profile
Click to expand...
--

 
Good Point. The pros use L, so why shouldn't we!

Here are two more pics. Ordinary shots, but again, no PP and they look almost perfectly sharp already.

Once I learn how to really use this camera, I think the shots will be amazing, at least to me.



 
Not that I won't be purchasing "L" lenses, but I haven't been too disappointed in 'consumer' lenses to this point.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top